Ahhhh....

The Mistress of Snarkitude strikes.

George Bush hates white people.

Or, it that's not to your liking... there's this look at the Democratic Response to the President's speech.

Ah. Cassie uses her fingers better'n a Kansas City harlot, to butcher a phrase from a famous movie.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

The MSM, Arbiters of All That Is Right, and Wrong.

Just trust us.

Interesting OP-Ed by Martin Kaplan in today's LA Times.

Some snippets...

Does Iraq need more debate? We've had plenty of shouting matches on the war; what we need are better leaders and more capable media. By Martin Kaplan, MARTIN KAPLAN is associate dean of the USC Annenberg School, where he directs the Norman Lear Center (learcenter.org). December 19, 2006

EVERYONE SAYS WE need a national debate on Iraq. Left, right, politicos, pundits, editorial writers, academics. If ever there was a universally held position, it's the belief that holding a national debate on Iraq is just the thing for what ails us in the Middle East.

But what would a national debate on anything really look like? How would it be any different from what we're already doing now? Imagine the elements of a national debate on Iraq, and then ask whether what's going on today fits the bill.

Analysts offering opposing views on television shows? Check. Dueling Op-Ed pieces? Check. Senators and representatives making floor speeches? Check. Presidential candidates staking out positions, and critics taking them on? Check. Magazines and journals offering thoughtful, conflicting takes? Check. A take-no-prisoners brawl in the blogosphere? Check. Public opinion polls? You can't go to the restroom without tripping over a new one. Thousands of people in the streets? Well, it's not like the Vietnam era — without a draft, it won't ever be — but plenty of cities have seen plenty of passionate marchers.

So why, despite all appearances of actually having a national debate right now, do people keep insisting that we mount one?

Perhaps it's because the mainstream media are too timid to declare the difference between right and wrong. Imagine if journalism consisted of more than a collage of conflicting talking points. Imagine the difference it would make if more brand-name reporters broke from the bizarre straitjacket of "balance," which equates fairness with putting all disputants on equal epistemological footing, no matter how deceitful or moronic they may be.

There's a market for news that weighs counterclaims and assesses truth value. It just hasn't kept up with demand. No wonder Jon Stewart has such a loyal audience: He has a point of view, and it's rooted in the reality-based — not the ideology-based — world.

And... he's on Comedy Central. Jon Stewart, reality-based. Yessir. Gottit. No ideology there. Snerk.

Maybe we don't need a national debate. Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in. National debates nicely fulfill the circus part of the bread-and-circuses formula of modern public life. Like psychoanalysis, national debates are basically interminable. And in our postmodern era, they do a nice job substituting for the hard work of actually figuring out what's true and what's good.

Martin certainly reveals his bias in this piece. Which is fine - it's an Op-Ed for heaven's sakes. But I'm rather guessing (and this might be unfair) that Mr. Kaplan has in mind Dan's Memo's... as a measure of journalistic truth-telling.

Actually, point-by-point, I agree, and on the issue of leaders and followers, have said so in this space. I find it interesting that Mr. Kaplan tosses the blogs to the wolves (good lord, if *anyplace* exists with shrill evocations of right or wrong, it's the blogs) and essentially argues that only the MSM can fill this role. But, since Mr. Kaplan is "associate dean of the USC Annenberg School, where he directs the Norman Lear Center" I'm not surprised.

Read the whole thing here (though, frankly, it's as overwritten and anything Ry and I have ever done, and the snippets pretty much get the bit). Go look - tell me if the parts I left out materially affect anything.

Ah, for the glory days, eh, Mr. Kaplan? When Walter held forth magisterially from his anchor desk, and we peons just listened to our betters.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Iraq's Economy and the American Presence

[Castle Denizen FbL here. A political rant welled up in me late last night and I had to find an appropriate place to vent it. UPDATE: I've changed the paragraph before the second quote to better convey what I meant.]

I heard partisan pundits after the elections say it was going to happen, that now that the Democrats were in power we would start to read more stories about the good things in Iraq. But I my desire to try to believe the best of people made me disregard those pundits. They were right. Check out this amazing piece of reporting from MSNBC, keeping in mind that this has only begun to happen since November, of course (/sarcasm):

Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it's doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

...Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."

Well, you can just knock me over with a feather. I thought it was all death and destruction over there and the best thing we Americans could do for them was just get out as soon as possible, damn the consequences.

Now seriously, I'll try not to be sarcastic. I don't mean to minimize the challenges or the suffering in iraq, but the tone of the final paragraph (compared to the drumbeat of "how do we get out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible" that we've been hearing in so much of the media) is startling:

In a business climate that is inhospitable, to say the least, companies like Iraqna are thriving. The withdrawal of a certain great power could drastically reduce the foreign money flow, and knock the crippled economy flat.

And meanwhile, we get "leadership" like this from the new head of the Senate:

"If the commanders on the ground said this [increase in troop strength] is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period of 18 months to 24 months would be too long, he said.

Oh, so "we'll give the commanders on the ground just some of what they want because we can meet them halfway?" Or maybe they're just feeling magnanimous. But it's a good thing we have such military experts as Senator Reid to tell our generals what is wise (Sorry, there goes that sarcasm again).

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said.

Well, if that's true, that why is he willing to "go along with" the commanders for even "two months to three months" of putting more soldiers at risk? How barbaric to sacrifice even a single warrior in something that "will not be won militarily!" Now, I agree that utimate success hinges on political machinations in Iraq, but that's not the context Reid is speaking in. Rather, he's using it to justify not putting in the military effort that could allow room for the necessary political growth.

Everytime I try to be positive about the professionalism and sliver of integrity that I dream exists among our politicians and media, I end up sorely disappointed. You'd think I would learn not to have any more positive expectations... - FbL

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

That's funny, he didn't *look* like a demon...

He really doesn't. Doesn't sound like one, either.

Who? Josh Rushing, the former Marine PAO who found himself employed by Al-Jazeera.

That would be Al-Jazeera "dot.NET" vice "dot.COM," a distinction lost on many people. Including yours truly.

Debbie Schlussel wasn't impressed with him. Over at Euphoric Reality, "traitor" was tossed about.

Not surprisingly, the Left likes him.

Mother Jones likes him. I would note that the author of the Mother Jones piece, Daniel Schulman, obviously got nearly the same pitch we did here at Leavenworth, but it's certainly flavored differently. Whether by Schulman and his filters, by Rushing's targeted pitching to his audience, or my recollections being flavored by my filters.

The Salon story tracks well with the general outlines Mr. Rushing's pitch, as well. So, his story is generally consistent.

So, how did I manage to meet Josh Rushing? Easy - he was a guest speaker at the Command and General Staff College, where he was brought in to address the Information Operations elective. The college also runs a faculty development program, where many of the guest speakers or people who are here for other purposes are asked to address the faculty. As they occur during the normal instructional day, attendance at these things is usually low enough that non-faculty people like myself are invited to attend (That shouldn't reflect badly on the faculty, btw - these are targets of opportunity, and classes still have to be taught and students mentored!).a We've also had Ralph Peters, Max Boot, and Ry's buddy Tom Barnett come visit.

One of the interesting things that none of the stories about Rushing captures is... Al-Jazeera. And the fact that most of us are thinking Al-Jazeera.com, when the organization that Rushing works for is the english language arm of Al-Jazeera.net.

Hey, one's a magazine, one's a television network. And they're probably flip sides of the same coin, right?

Apparently not. According to the disclaimer on the .com site (which resulted from a trademark-infringement lawsuit brought by .net against .com) the two are not related.

From the "About Us" section of the .com website:

About Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established in 1992 in London. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

Aljazeera Publishing disassociates itself from the views, opinions and broadcasts of Jazeera Space Channel TV station.

Emphasis in the original.

So, what did Mr. Rushing talk about? He was there to do what he normally does to his military audiences (which include the Counter-Terrorism Center at West Point, the National Defense University, and others), he talks about Public Affairs, his role in OIF, and how he got to where he is now.

To his military audiences, his thesis, broadly restated, is "We don't know jack." Especially about managing media in the middle east.

He uses al-Jazeera as his example. How? Basically he asserts (and I have no reason to think otherwise) that Al-Jazeera is more powerful in the middle east than any equivalent US news operation is in the United States.

CENTCOM did not understand that, nor the distinction to be made about the .net incarnation vice the .com incarnation. His example? "The "boot" was on Al-Jazeera." "Boot" being Marine slang for newbie. I.e., Lieutenant Rushing was the face of the American War Machine on al-Jazeera.

He made three points about how that affected things.

1. The issue of trust. Mr. Rushing asserts (and challenged us to find evidence to the contrary) that al-Jazeera television never once showed a beheading. Mind you - not that they didn't show excerpts from the videos (as did the US media) but that they didn't show the actual beheadings themselves. In other words, they reported no differently than US and other international media did. Mr. Rushing avers that the viewership of al-Jazeera knows this, and when Secretary Rumsfeld stood in front of the cameras lambasting al-Jazeera for showing the beheadings, he lost credibility with the audience.

2. Al-Jazeera as the "Mouthpiece of Al-Qaeda." True, al-Jazeera has been a preferred place for al-Qaeda tapes to premier. But Mr. Rushing points out the wording of the disclaimer on al-Jazeera.com - the part where it says "Aljazeera Publishing disassociates itself from the views, opinions and broadcasts of Jazeera Space Channel TV station." is explicit aimed at protecting the .com people from the fatwas issued against the network for their support of Zionism and us. Support being defined as not being a reliable mouthpiece for... al-Qaeda.

3. His third point, I've already covered - the distinction to be made between the .net and .com entities - a subject too complex for this post.

He then moved on to discuss what he thought the US should do in the arena. He called for 'limited strategic engagement'. Mr. Rushing says there are two centers of gravity in the ME. Mosques, and al-Jazeera. We can't realistically get into the mosques, nor should we. But we can, should, and in fact *must* get into ME television sets. Find the progressive journalists (in the ME context of progressive) and give them access. His point being that if we continue to stiff-arm the biggest television voice in the ME, *someone*, usually the opposition, will fill the void.

Mr. Rushing pointed out that the US Gov engage with al-Jazeera. So, al-Jazeera then defaults to conservative think tanks to find people who will speak up *for* US interests. But the conservative think tanks don't trust al-Jazeera much either, and will usually only come on for a fee, with the attendant baggage that brings from a journalistic perspective. So they go to liberal think tanks, who are happy to come on for free - which then sets up the situation where people who *don't* really support US policy are brought on to *defend* US policy - and generally don't. Now you see why they're happy to come on al-Jazeera for free. Mr. Rushing suggests the USGov does itself, and by extension, the rest of us a dis-service by what he sees as the government's fundamental misunderstanding of al-Jazeera.

He talked about his own experience dealing with the USGov as an al-Jazeera correspondent. He said military people, to include senior military people, will engage him and al-Jazeera (hey, he was there talking to us, right?). But the senior DoD civilians stiff-arm him. He certainly knew his audience.

He had some other policy suggestions.

First - train soldiers down to the squad level on how to deal with the press. Not make them PAOs, but train them in how to engage with reporters, *and* report the results of those engagements up the chain, quickly, so that the PAO can be more proactive in responding. His term? A "media ninja".

On a more macro level, he brought up the "split branding" of the United States, i.e., on one hand, anger and annoyance with US foreign policy, while on the other hand, those same people many times can't wait to get here and make it home. He has a simple solution.

Be consistent. If we're going to act in what we perceive to be our best interest from a pragmatic point of view - then tell people that. But don't talk one thing and do another - or let the perception be that you're doing another if in fact you don't intend to be doing so.

More simply put - Change the message to match the policy, or change the policy to match the message.

Of course nothing in Life, the Universe, and Everything is that simple, is it?

Interesting fellow, who is treading an interesting path.

I don't know what I expected, but what I got was a tallish fellow with bright blue eyes, standing there looking tired in a blue suit, mauve shirt, and a striped tie.

He didn't look like the Devil Incarnate. He has an interesting view worthy of consideration. All in context. He does work for al-Jazeera, so he obviously has an interest in changing the perception of al-Jazeera.

But that doesn't mean that our perception of al-Jazeera is accurate, and that he doesn't have reasons other than the obvious professional ones for doing what he's doing.

Glad I went.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Victor Davis Hanson.

A bracing breath of fresh air.

Yet if some think the strange alliance between the new Democratic Congressional majorities and old Republican realists will ameliorate some of this by urging direct talks with North Korea, Iran, and Syria, pressuring Israel, gravitating to a European approach to problems, or withdrawing from Iraq, they should remember the Carter administration's experience with Iran, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Central America, and the Clinton response to the first World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, the East African embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. Even more illuminating is to remember that the old appeasement of treating numerous enemies better than our few friends did not even win affection, but only outright contempt. I remember the visceral Iranian hatred for Jimmy Carter, and the worldwide ridicule of Bill Clinton, and sad US shuttles of the 1990s to beseech Assad and Arafat.

So we are in strange time, in which we see the known failures of the past offered up as correctives for the perceived failures of the present. In response, what the administration needs to do is to nominate someone from the uncompromising Bolton stamp who pursues UN reform, rethink tactics in Iraq to secure the country, renew diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran and foster internal change, continue the investigations and pressures on Syria, and craft an energy policy that collapses the world price of petroleum and with it the juice that powers a Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin, et al.

You should read the first part, too - over at The Corner.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Mr. Rumsfeld's Memo.

Let's leave aside the issues of governance by leak, etc. Apparently, once you reach a certain level, leaking classified information is a promotion criteria. Until you reach that level, you get to at least get fired, and sometimes go to jail. I never made it to the top, obviously, because the thought of leaking classified material, even inadvertently, makes this blog a far different thing than it could be. (However briefly, before I got to go reside in the Big House.)

Rumsfeld's memo as published by the NYT (I'm thinking there's no copyright violation here by me...)

Nov. 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS

Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)

¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.

¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.

¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

Below the Line (less attractive options):

¶Continue on the current path.

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

¶Try a Dayton-like process.

Nothing wrong with the thoughts of the boss as he's trying to figure out what to do.

But this passage is just depressing.

¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

(i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

This is a corner the Secretary painted himself into, with his seemingly cavalier disregard for other USG agencies in the early days of OEF and OIF.

This is a corner the US Gov painted itself into, when agencies of the government set themselves above the President and his policy pronouncements, and, in effect, rebel, whether overtly or passive-agressively. A refusal to wear the adult pants, but rather to wear the petulant adolescent pants.

And that, ultimately, rests on the shoulders of the President and his appointees, for the failure to really clean that up. Sigh.

Which does not relieve the employees of their duty to do the job they've been told to do, once the decision has been made.

But like I said, because I think like that (among other things) is why I'm not trotting about amongst 'em.

Sigh.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

The new exam for gaining citizenship.

Questions and Answers for New Pilot Naturalization Exam

On November 30, 2006, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Emilio Gonzalez announced the release of 144 questions and answers for the pilot test of a new naturalization exam. USCIS will administer the pilot exam to about 5,000 volunteer citizenship applicants in 10 cities beginning in early 2007.

USCIS included new questions that focus on the concepts of democracy and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. In designing the new exam, USCIS received assistance and worked with test development contractors, U.S. history and government scholars, and English as a Second Language experts. USCIS also sought input from a variety of stakeholders, including immigrant advocacy groups, citizenship instructors and District Adjudications Officers.

The pilot will allow USCIS to work out any problems and refine the exam before it is fully implemented nationwide in the spring of 2008.

During the trial period, volunteer applicants who choose to take the pilot exam can immediately take the current exam if they incorrectly answer a pilot question. To pass, applicants will have to correctly answer six of 10 selected questions. The 10 pilot test sites are: Albany, NY; Boston, MA; Charleston, SC; Denver, CO; El Paso, TX; Kansas City, MO; Miami, FL; San Antonio, TX; Tucson, AZ; and Yakima, WA.

You can read the questions - and answers - here.

When I saw this yesterday, I wondered how long before someone griped that it's too hard.

Heh. Not long.

The WaPo:

The Bush administration yesterday unveiled dozens of new questions that may be added to the nation's naturalization test, and immigration advocates are concerned that the changes could make it more difficult for millions of legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

Fred Tsao, quoted in the article says:

Watchdog groups such as the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights say they are examining the process to make sure the immigration agency is not placing a heavier burden on people who use legal channels to enter the country.

"We ourselves are going to be trying this out in our citizenship classes," said Fred Tsao, policy director for the Illinois group. Teachers will be encouraged "to see which of these questions make sense, which are too hard and which of them are off the wall."

Note, prospective citizens will have to get 6 of 10 questions, selected from the 144, in order to pass. They have to get a "D".

Mind you, some of the questions do seem to be a little arbitrary in terms of their applicability to the process, such as "Which mountain is the highest mountain in the United States?" Interesting, but, important? I have to admit, depending on how the 10 questions are selected, you could find yourself foundering on geography, but it *is* a test you can study for.

I wonder, if we administered it to every graduating High School senior, how many would pass? Which begs the question about how people value their birthright, vice something they obtain through effort.

Regardless of what you think of the test - it's still an easier path to citizenship than this one... military service.

My score on the test? As a result of my socio-economic status, I scored 99.3%. I missed question 66. It's been a looooooooong time since I worried, in any personal sense, about the answer to that question. I'm betting my son will get that one right, as I would have at his age.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Jonathan Chait thinks the unthinkable...

From his LA Times piece (and you should read the whole thing, not just my selective quoting):

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

He goes on:

At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.

One can only expect that Mr. Chait finds this next quote, well, quaint, outmoded, and astonishingly naive...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Oh, there's no doubt we screwed the pooch in Iraq, and that Rumsfeld's Way of War was certainly an incomplete doctrine if you were going to do something other than fight the Big War. Rumsfeld's Way of War is really more of the Way of A Campaign, and especially a campaign that is a supporting effort.

Too many invalid assumptions were made, and weak, uncoordinated planning between the relevant US agencies, not to mention the seemingly deliberate sabotage by some elements of the US government directed at others, such as the strife between the CIA, State, and Defense. And that was all the professional bureaucrats there - the long-termers, a problem that spans Presidents and parties. But, President Bush was in charge, and he failed to take heed and bring those people to heel. Of course, I know from long experience in government myself they can be a hard breed to bring to heel.

I also know that nothing is as ever clear while it's happening as it is after the dust has settled, which is one reason I don't get as shirt-rendingly shrill as some when things turn out to have been a cock-up. I get shrill when people won't fix what is now clearly wrong, and this President seems to have left that to his successor, not that he'd get much done now, anyway. They can wait him out.

But that's a digression.

Chait is on to something. Perhaps not Saddam, but whoever rises in his place. The ultimate in realpolitik. Who cares what's going on somewhere as long as it doesn't affect us directly. The silence of the grave is preferable to chaos... at least as long as it isn't our personal grave.

Problem is, Mr. Chait - as long as your doctrine prevails, little advances, really, and the rule of law is really eroded, until we're completely back to the rule of men. Tribalism Resurgent.

I can hear the intake of breath, and see the fingers poised over the keyboards of some readers - Rule of Law? What part of torture, and illegal wars have you missed, Donovan?

Heh. The fact that we discuss torture, the fact that people can call the President a liar who made up an excuse for war and should be sent to The Hague to stand trial, the fact that terrorists are tried in courts and have lawyers (whatever limits may be placed on them because the terrs are truly dangerous people), and that Famous People and Faceless People make these claims... yet there hasn't been one "disappearance," or "death under suspicious circumstances," or mass arrests and imprisonments, and that government policies are challenged in multiple venues argues that the rule of law is actually working quite well, despite what the loons at DU think. Or the loons at Freeper during the Clinton administration.

But Chait is essentially arguing that peace at any cost is preferable.

I'm in Mill's camp.

Discuss.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

I love this.

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft Nov 19 12:41 PM US/Eastern

A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Snerk. First paragraph, we might need 'em to fight all these bad guys. See? I'm tough on defense!

Second paragraph - Ha! If we had a draft, no one would ever be able to go to war again, unless it was a war the Dems approved of! [But wait, they *did* approve of this one - and would still approve if it had gone well. Success has many fathers, and in 2008 we'd be hearing about how Senator Clinton actually wrote the plan...] See, we're tough on, er, um, well, war is, y'know, bad. Besides, we'll blame it on President Bush, as we had no choice, and then after you dolts er, voters, put a Democrat back in the White House (while letting us keep the Congress, too, of course), we'll repeal it because it won't be needed after all, and then we can say we made it go away.

Of course, I doubt the President will sign any such bill, which means Rangel and Co. can then bust on him for being weak on defense.

Gad, it's a perfect gambit from a Democrat perspective. Unless it were to backfire. [dreamy look]

Be funny if the Prez *did* sign it. Would the campuses erupt? Blaming the Republicans, of course, because, well, they can't blame the Democrats, if you do that, it's unpatriotic and undemocratic. Just ask 'em.

First off, Mr. Rangel - how many troops do we need? Oh, wait - you'll ask the DoD to tell you, won't you? Oddly, they aren't interested in drafting anyone, but, hey. Or if you *do* have a number, do please let us know what it is.

Then, if you want to draft 'em, tot up those costs. Because the last time we had a draftee army, we weren't paying very well. You remember that Army - you were in it, during Korea. And we pay pretty good bucks, now. Or are you going to give all the people on active duty a paycut? Or, better yet, pay the draftees less... that'll play well when they start dying.

C'mon, Mr. Rangel - less bluster, more muster. Muster up some details so we can really evaluate your proposal. Otherwise, it's just another exercise in blowhard demogoguery.

Read the whole thing here. H/t, CAPT H.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Michael Moore's Contract with on Conservatives...

My comments in [] brackets. Feel free to add yours!

A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives [puts hand on wallet]

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. [Yay! We got through to him! Snerk]

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power — and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. [MMoore - *I* am the Government, and I'm here to help! Scary words!]

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. [Yeah, Mike, I get it, dude, you are *so* subtle-funny! As long as I'm not un-PC in my dissent (MCRI anyone?) or criticize your shibboleths, and stick safely to marginal topics or make no substantive criticism, I'm free to say anything I want.]

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love — it's a wonderful gift. [Of course, you *do* realize that in several states, less than half the voting population agrees with that sentiment, regardless of the merits, right? Heh. I thought *my* side were the Republicans and *yours* were the Democrats?]

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. [There isn't a whole lot of historical support for that statement, dude. Pardon me while I keep my hand on my wallet.]

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. [Again, it's a Brave New World, right? We're supposed to ignore history? But at least you imply that war *is* an option. How serious a one we'll see when you guys get the chance to fund the military. I suspect we'll have the *healthiest* most personally protected nerf-armed military in the world... well, again, if I actually expect you to match deeds to rhetoric]

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. [Hey! I thought you were going to balance the budget! Oh, wait - that's right, Nerf-armed Department of Peace = Universal Health Care. Sigh. It sure sounds good, but I just have to drink the maple syrup and assume that Alan's experience will be the Universal experience, all other data to the contrary. Heh. I already have government controlled, managed, and provided health care, dude. All I want to know is - will you and all your rich friends agree to restrict yourselves to using *only* that service? Or are you going to just buy all the healthcare you want, however and wherever you want - while making sure we unwashed masses pay the bills for each other? Just askin' Gimme the pledge, man - that when Universal Coverage is passed, all rich liberals and powerful Democrat politicians will use that service exclusively - and never, ever, get to bump the lines. Period. Sign that pledge, and maybe I'll take you seriously. We'll skip the whole "Give Me More Dead Babies To Feed The Beast So That Those Fortunate Enough To Escape The Birth Canal Can Live Forever!!! and other slippery slope arguments. It's just a bit too Peter Singer for Cro-Magnon me..]

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. [Not to mention the rolling blackouts we'll provide so you can *really* understand how Third World people live.]

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. [Applying all the same tactics and procedural safeguards employed up to 9/11 to do so. You really didn't think this one through Mike. What you said was, you'll avenge me in a judicial and judicious fashion, but not enhance your ability to detect and prevent them from doing it - because, well, that might hurt someone's cultural feelings and all. I think it's revealing, Mike that you assure me you'll go catch the bad guy (I got it - you'll use restraint and the police approach vice reckless abandon and war) after he does it. Oh, and you'll protect me. Again - you're more focused on making sure we don't hinder anyone who knows how to play the grievance game than you really are about protecting anyone. It really is 9/10 in your world, isn't it Mike?]

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. [Yeah, lucky me, I was born. But yer sure gonna stick your nose into my garage, kitchen, refrigerator, and gun room, arncha?]

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. [Oy. Mike, you'd definitely rather be shot with an SKS or AK-clone than a Mauser X firing hunting ammo. No one hunts with automatic weapons, Mike - and if they do, they're doing it with heavily controlled, lawfully registered, and damned expensive weapons. And you really don't understand hunting, either. If you can take a deer with a handgun, you're a damfine hunter. You've got to get *close* to do that. It's easy to take a zeroed, scoped rifle with a range of over a mile, and shooting from a rest in a blind, kill an animal 800 yards away that will damn near be bled out before the sound of your shot reaches its now-dead ears. That's sniping, and takes patience. Hunting with a handgun - that's tracking and stalking, and takes some serious skillz, dude. But, all you're going to do is take away weapons from the law-abiding and pat yourselves on the back for having accomplished something. Because let's face it - most of the gun violence in this country is committed by people who get to play the grievance cards, which means you can't do too much about it, because that would be messing with their culture... ]
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you — and your employees — that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. [So, In addition to the raised taxes, I gotta take a paycut, too? Oh, sorry - I forgot - what I earn isn't really mine, it belongs to The People In Power, who will determine how much I am allowed to have on a month-to-month basis. That is one of the fundamental philosophical differences between your side and mine, Mike. The premise of who owns what. Oh, and do all these rules and stuff that apply to you, Mike? Will you make sure that all the employees *you* have get that minimum wage and all the bennies? IIRC, you sometimes make exceptions.]

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism — starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. [Um, Mike, shouldn't that be "Christian Religious Intolerance?" I don't see any sign of your side going after the Imams...]

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. [Okay, I call you on it. Gimme the head of Representative Jefferson.]

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans — and for the rest of the world. [Go for it, Dude. I got no argument with the sentiment - the devil, as always, is in the details and definitions, ain't it? Remember, you *did* ask me to dissent]
Signed,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Note for soon-to-be-formerly-Honorable Mr. Ryun.

I am *so* pissed at you.

You couldn't even carry Leavenworth County.

Here's my take.

1. You took us for granted, as our Congressman. Your constituent services were, as I ran into them, perfunctory at best.

2. You took us for granted, as a Candidate. You acted, and mostly campaigned, if that's what you want to call it, as if the job was yours for the taking, until the end, when you suddenly realized... it wasn't.

3. Boyda wanted the job more than you. So she got it. Thanks, now I have an anti-gunner representing the Arsenal of Argghhh!!! in Congress. I feel *so* secure my interests have a voice in the House. They don't. On most of the issues she's taken a stand on.

4. Enjoy your retirement. And don't come back. This election is the last election you'll get a vote from me. You don't get a second chance at this address in Leavenworth County.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Finally! We win! We win!

Yahoo!

The farking campaign commercials are over!

The Republicans punted. The Dems have the ball. Let's see what they do with it. We still own the referee, for what that's worth, and the guys in the Replay booth are... mixed. Heh. That analogy is bilge, ainnit?

Awright, Denizens, how would you analogize this outcome?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

It's not time to cut and run...

...but it's probably time to re-examine our involvement in the sobering light of post-election morn.

Why are we still there?
· Every morning there are newspaper reports of increasing numbers of deaths; every evening there is film footage of death and destruction.

Why are we still there?
· We occupied this land by force and it has caused us nothing but trouble.

Why are we still there?
· Many of our finest young people go there and never come back.

Why are we still there?
· The government is unstable and the leadership vacillating.

Why are we still there?
· Many of the people are, from any rational perspective, uncivilized.

Why are we still there?
· The place is infested with mutually-hostile religious sects whose actions defy understanding.

Why are we still there?
· The inhabitants' folkways, foods and fads are unfathomable to ordinary Americans.

Why are we still there?
· We can't even secure the borders.

Why are we still there?
· The place is billions of dollars in debt and it will cost billions more to rebuild it, which we can't afford.

Why are we still there?
· It is becoming abundantly clear -- we must let California find it's *own* destiny…

Heh. Tip o' the tam to Obie.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Of interest to Kansas Voters. The rest of you just keep scrolling...

You've all seen the TV ad run by the Morrison campaign about my husband Bryan Brown (Phill Kline's Consumer Protection Chief with the twelve arrests). The ad intentionally withholds explanation of those arrests, and it's come to our attention that one newspaper even printed that Bryan is a convicted felon, which is an absolute lie. I'm sending this e-mail out to friends and family for clarification. This is a letter to the editor that Bryan submitted to newspapers across the state, but we don't know if it will get printed, and even if it does it may be edited down. Please do not hesitate to ask us questions. We welcome any opportunity to get the truth out about this, so please feel free to pass this information on to anyone interested. Love and Peace in Christ, Anne Brown

The Kansas AG race is really pretty ugly, with neither side having anything to be proud of. I've offered Morrison's campaign a chance to respond to this and several other items (mostly relating to the sexual harrassment bit that SWWBO linked to) but have received no response. Anyway, here is the text of the letter.

I am Attorney General Phill Kline's Consumer Chief. I write in response to Paul Morrison's allegations.

Yes, I was arrested twelve times between 1988-1992. All were tangential to the peaceful efforts of the pro-life rescue movement. Most were for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, along with hundreds of others, refusing to leave. Most of the charges were city ordinance violations, which are not even misdemeanors.

Yes, a lower federal court in Indiana did order me to pay $61,000 directly to an N.O.W. sponsored legal team fifteen years ago. The injunction-winning abortionist attempted collection at first, but after the legal basis for the judgment was overturned by the United States Supreme Court all efforts were abandoned. That overturned judgment has been uncollectable for many years.

Yes, I have led a team effort to reform the Consumer Protection Division. Over the past years the division engaged in many investigations that were not proper under the law. The actions were, in a word, unconstitutional. While Team Kline has set records on the filing of enforcement actions and on educational efforts, Team Kline has stopped investigating complaints that contain no allegation of consumer fraud. Those who believe that government agencies should be tightly managed to do only that which is authorized will find the reforms of Team Kline inspiring. Those who believe that the “nanny state� should address every consumer complaint (regardless of merit) will find Team Kline's reforms quite disturbing. I encourage all taxpayers to read about Team Kline's reforms at www.ksag.org .

Ironies abound in this election season. Here are four of my favorites:

#1. Paul Morrison has spent $200, 000 in a bid to paint me as a criminal for actions I took at the same time that he was (allegedly) sexually harassing Kelly Summerlin. Yet he claims his case is too stale to be relevant.

#2. Many of my arrests ended in not guilty verdicts as a result of my pre-law school constitutional arguments. A few were settled against no contest pleas. A few were dismissed. Only one resulted in a conviction. Yet District Attorney Paul Morrison cries foul when the merits of a sexual harassment case he lost at the summary judgment stage are discussed.

#3. I am widely criticized for not respecting city ordinances enough due to my arrests. But when I post a report demonstrating that former AG Stovall (whose tobacco litigation reveals the degree to which she valued cronyism over justice) was operating her Consumer Division in a manifestly unconstitutional manner, I am criticized for taking state law too seriously.

#4. My pro-life arrests were a byproduct of my Christian values. Those were formed as I followed the lead of a good many Catholics and Catholic clergy, including Bishops. For those loiterings and trespasses I am roundly criticized by Paul Morrison -- who claims to be a leader in the Catholic Church while striking a Faustian bargain with the abortion industry to become the next Attorney General of Kansas.

I hope these ironies are not lost on the good people of Kansas

Bryan J. Brown

H/t, Jim C.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »

Oops!

This just in - NYT exposes Bush White House Gaffe of Strategic Proportions!

The Bushies published details of Iraqi bomb-making plans on the Internet!

Check it out here: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer (login req'd).

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

Okay. Dumb decision, especially if the data indicates the Iraqis had sufficient expertise to build the bomb, and truly provides down-to-the-math level information. (Full disclosure, I know how to build two kinds of nuke just off the top of my head. Of course, I also know pretty much exactly how an internal combustion engine works, too. The devil is in the details, like those dimensions. But with the resources, and some more of those details, I could build either... hmmm)

Of course, there were no reports of weird popping sounds from within the reality-based community as heads implode. There is seemingly no cognitive dissonance regarding the fact that... this means Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. It might have been cold... but he'd held on to the hard-to-get part. The knowledge and expertise. So, when the sanctions were lifted, as they would have been, and sooner rather than later... what would he have likely done with the data?

Hmmm like this quote from the article:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Oh, I hear the response - "Well, whatever he did with it, he wouldn't have posted it on the Internet!" And that's all the matters right now. After all, there's an election next week, right?

Wait - excuse me - international (i.e., not a Rethuglican Administration employee, but the only authentic kind, i.e., international and/or safely liberal) experts said Saddam was a year away from building a bomb? The article text is ambiguous, it could mean 1991, or 2002...

So, we now have the Voice of the Liberal, Anti-war Establishment saying... Saddam coulda built a bomb in a year. Hmmmm but, there were no WMDs, no real threat - the NYT said so! Again, no popping sounds of imploding heads...

More here, if you'd like it, from Jim Geraghty at NRO.

I voted yesterday, and participated in some Americana...

This might be a bit of a boring post. *I* was fascinated. And since what I discuss here, voting, is part and parcel of the purpose of the military, it's every bit as important as all those artifacts I toss up on these pages anyway, yes?

I did my bit to prevent the spectre of a Speaker Pelosi. Since I skipped the primaries, not being registered to a party, this was my first chance to use the new electronic voting machines the county purchased. It was also a chance to participate in an interesting little convention - the "Public Test."

Under Kansas law (and I wouldn't be surprised if every state doesn't have some form of this) the ballot, voting machines and tabulation devices, including the procedures for handling the exceptions, must be demonstrated and examined publicly, to any and all interested persons. Around here, being a smallish community in a smallish county, it's not a terribly lavish affair.

There were three of us participating as observers/testers, and two county employees, the County Clerk (an elected position, Alan!) and her chief elections assistant. The observers consisted of a representative of the county Democratic and Republican parties, and myself, interested citizen who'd never seen this before. It's a minor good thing I was there, in a humorous way.

There were Reform and Libertarian candidates on the ballot, they could have had observers as well, if there were enough of them in the state to be that organized... In fact, the only limit to observers is the size of the venue, but hey, like I said, we aren't that crowded here in Leavenworth (thankfully!).

The test consisted of looking at the ballot and confirming that the proper slate was present, with proper party affiliations marked on the ballots, and provision for write ins. That done, Linda talked us through the process of how, by whom, and when the electronic ballots are created and safeguarded once loaded onto the devices which load the machines.

She then ran us through the process for opening a voting machine, and explained the process for opening a string of machines for polling places which will have multiple machines. We saw how the machines are zeroed, what the accounting processes are for the machines, the built-in redundancies (they operate on socket power with battery backup so that power outages don't affect voting) as well as the procedures when operating on battery power to rotate the machines to ensure that there are always machines available to vote on. Essentially, for polling places with more than two machines, you can have at least one up and running at any given time for 24 hours. We were shown the security measures built into the systems, which I won't detail here. Suffice it to say that with the system as demonstrated, it doesn't appear to be any easier to manipulate the system than the old paper ballot - and the two-man rules for handling things put a brake on the human element. Nothing is perfect. The electronic machines are not networked in any fashion.

Anyway - we saw all that and then we took pre-voted paper ballots and voted them on the electronic machines. During that process we were shown how voters could change votes and how the machines made it possible for the blind to vote with the same level of privacy as everyone else. Essentially, if you choose that option, the screen blanks, you wear headphones, and use braille-marked keys on the console to make your choices, which are then read back to you via the headphones so you can confirm your choices. If you don't know braille, the keys have distinctive shapes.

We had to enter write-in candidates, there were some races where we didn't vote for anyone (to deliberately create 'undervotes' to demonstrate the accounting process to ensure that undervotes don't get assigned to a candidate, by accident or nefarious design). On the electronic machines, unlike a paper ballot, you can't over vote by having too many circles filled in. In that sense, there will be fewer votes going to the resolution board to be judged in this system - and fewer still that don't get counted because the board feels they can't discern the voter's intent. If you undervote (as I did for uncontested races) the machine asks you twice, in two different ways, to confirm you don't want to vote for a particular race. BTW, Alan, I'm not sure of the actual count, but we had about 15 judges up for retention (Alan, our Canadian Contrarian, is tickled about all the jobs we 'Muricans get to vote on).

We then took the paper ballots over to the mechanical tabulator. Why paper ballots? They are the ultimate backup for power/hardware issues, they are still how absentee ballots are handled, and people who simply don't trust the electronic systems can use a paper ballot.

This is where I was useful. Because of the need to be able to take the tabulated data and collate it with the voting machine data, the Elections office had to buy a new machine. And while everything had worked fine in the previous election, and in all the previous testing, of course it failed when there were outsiders present. It wouldn't feed the ballots properly. They must have spent 45 minutes trying to get it to work - to include troubleshooting by phone with the manufacturer. In the end, they decided a service call (which costs money) was going to be required.

Enter the Armorer. I've been watching them fiddle with it, kinda (we did move on and do other stuff) and I was lingering around looking the feeder system over when I noticed that the bin that caught the counted ballot was not aligned properly. I reset it, we loaded up some ballots, and off we went - and the service call was canceled. If you are a taxpayer of Leavenworth county, you're welcome.

Anyway, we ran the ballots through, there were ballots that had typical errors on them and we went through that resolution process. We then took our various data, compared them to the benchmark data, and I am pleased to assure you that up to this point, at least, Leavenworth County is ready for next Tuesday (advance voting actually began 20 days before the general election, which is why I took advantage of voting yesterday, to avoid the crowds.

And confusticate the exit pollers, none of whom read this blog.

And my name is on the document as an observer! Hey, I got folded, bent, and spindled (no mutilation, thank heavens) as a Defender of the System, now I got to be a tiny little cog in the System. Whee!

Kerry Responds.

Apparently we struck a nerve...

If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.

Can I lecture you, Senator? Does my 20+ years of wearing the green count?

Does my 70% disability count (though it does make me doughy like Rush...)? What, not fair? Hey, you wave your Purple Hearts (which you tossed over a fence, IIRC) at people, I can wave my disability payment at you...

Well, whether I can or not - I did. Many times. And I still think you betrayed your oath, multiple times, and were unfit to wear the uniform you still hold in contempt, except when you need to wrap yourself in it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Speaking of lies and blatant distortions about those who have worn the uniform of our country, Senator, I have just two words for you:

Winter Soldier.

Make it three:

Dirtbag.

Wanna debate?

Bill Tuttle
Vulture 15
1969 - 1970

John Kerry, Not Presidential Material, reason #456,987,321

U.S. Army Sgt. Maj. Benny Hubbard, the district Sgt. Maj. for Gulf Region South, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shakes hands with an Iraqi child prior to the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Salah Hadi Obid Elementary School in Afak, Iraq, Oct. 11, 2006. The construction of the school was funded, contracted and inspected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Dawn M. Price) (Released)

Compare and contrast SGM Hubbard's efforts with students to... the junior Senator from Massachusetts...

Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs - "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps

Oh, yeah, he said it. Don't wanna believe the journo? Listen to it here, courtesy Bill. I wonder what SGM Hubbard thinks about that comment?

Soooo, the 299,870,000 Americans not currently serving in Iraq all have advanced degrees, eh?

Well, let's be more accurate. Using the CIA factbook data on the US, 2005 data.

There are 134,813,023 men and women of military age (18-49).

There are, roughly, 130,000 troops in Iraq (a number that fluctuates, work with me here).

by David Dismukes October 27, 2006 Army recruits express their motivation during a platoon competition at an obstacle course at Fort Benning, Ga. This photo appeared on www.army.mil.

Which means there are 134,683,023 people of military age who have managed to avoid the trap at the moment. Oh, I know, I'm not accounting for the entire military, nor those who have been to Iraq and gotten out, etc - but we're talking ROM snapshot here.

Oops. That's everybody of the right age. That doesn't take into account *fit* for military service.

Pvt. Charlie Lonno from B Company, 3rd Battalion, 30th Infantry crawl through a mud filled pit with barbed wire overhead as part of an obsticle course on Fort Benning's Sand Hill Tuesday, Oct. 17. The Micronesia native is on his fifth day of Basic Training. Photo by David Dismukes

That changes things. Now we're down to 109,305,756 boys and girls for the recruiters to prey on. Of whom 109,175,756 aren't in Iraq, apparently having negotiated that hard-to-navigate educational system and found themselves free from being compelled by poverty to serve - there apparently being no other reason to serve, in Senator Kerry's world.

Drill Sgt. Primus Brown instructs Soldiers from B Company, 3rd Battalion, 30th Infantry as they learn to high-crawl through a sand pit as part of an obsticle course on Fort Benning's Sand Hill Tuesday, Oct. 17. The Soldiers are in their fifth day of Basic Training. Photo by David Dismukes

So... 0.0011893243755617041796042287105173% of the "fit to serve" population are apparently unable to hack it, eh, Senator, and find themselves with no choice but to take King George's Shilling and fight and die for Empire? Terrible great risk, ain't it?

This is Halloween - let's try to make it scarier for the kiddles, so they can feel even better about what a horror they are escaping.

Let's just restrict it to those coming of military age in a year... that gives us a 2005 estimated population of 4,180,074. Let's cheat, and say that all 130,000 troops in Iraq are 18 year olds. That gives us 4,050,074 of these kids whose scholastic abilities have enabled them to escape the clutches of the recruiters, since exactly 0% of them have come to the attention of their local draft boards... I bet that gives us a scary number for Halloween!

Ooooooh. 0.031099927896013324166031510446944

Just sayin'.

That's it. My scary Halloween post.

U.S. Military Academy Cadet Third Class Jason Schreuder spent 12 hours carving his contribution to the new Army Strong campaign. Photo by Leslie Gordonier

Apparently, I'm not the only one to notice...

Stop the ACLU
Captain's Quarters
Snerk - and Cassandra - and here I thought I was finally gonna have a post with more column inches than hers... nope.

And, as SWWBO notes - the services are, ahem, somewhat better edumacated than the population in general...

Education Level. The Military Services value and support the education of their members. The emphasis on education was evident in the data for FY 2002. Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted accessions had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions (79 percent of 18-24 year-olds). More important, excluding accessions enlisting in the Army or Army Reserve under the GED+ program (an experimental program of individuals with a GED or no credential who have met special screening criteria for enlisting), 92 percent of NPS active duty and 87 percent of NPS Selected Reserve enlisted recruits were high school diploma graduates.

Given that most officers are required to possess at least a baccalaureate college degree upon or soon after commissioning and that colleges and universities are among the Services’ main commissioning sources (i.e., Service academies and ROTC), the academic standing of officers is not surprising. The fact that 87 percent of active duty officer accessions and 95 percent of the officer corps (both excluding those with unknown education credentials) were degree holders (approximately 17 and 38 percent advanced degrees) is in keeping with policy and the professional status and expectations of officers. Likewise, 81 percent of Reserve Component officer accessions and 91 percent of the total Reserve Component officer corps held at least a bachelor’s degree, with 23 and 34 percent possessing advanced degrees, respectively.

There's a Heritage Foundation Study available here.

An extract:

A pillar of conventional wisdom about the U.S. military is that the quality of volunteers has been degraded after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Examples of the voices making this claim range from the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Daily News [1] to Michael Moore’s pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Some insist that minorities and the underprivileged are over­represented in the military. Others accuse the U.S. Army of accepting unqualified enlistees in a futile attempt to meet its recruiting goals in the midst of an unpopular war.[2]

A report published by The Heritage Foundation in November 2005 examined the issue and could not substantiate any degradation in troop quality by comparing military enlistees in 1999 to those in 2003. It is possible that troop quality did not degrade until after the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, when patriotism was high. A common assumption is that the Army experienced difficulty getting qualified enlistees in 2005 and was subse­quently forced to lower its standards. This report revisits the issue by examining the full recruiting classes for all branches of the U.S. military for every year from 2003 to 2005.

The current findings show that the demo­graphic characteristics of volunteers have contin­ued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality. Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context. Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organiza­tion can be assessed only by using measurable cri­teria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics. In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteris­tics accurately reflect what really matters: cour­age, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership.

Again, just sayin'.

Senator, despite the fact that you simply cannot grow past it - whatever Iraq is... IT ISN'T VIETNAM!

The state of the Intelligence community...

Yesterday, the NYT ran this article by Mark Mazzetti: In ’97, U.S. Panel Predicted a North Korea Collapse in 5 Years

An excerpt:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — A team of government and outside experts convened by the Central Intelligence Agency concluded in 1997 that North Korea’s economy was deteriorating so rapidly that the government of Kim Jong-il was likely to collapse within five years, according to declassified documents made public on Thursday.

The panel described the isolated and impoverished country as being on the brink of economic ruin and said that “political implosion stemming from irreversible economic degradation seems the most plausible endgame for North Korea.” The majority among the group argued that the North’s government “cannot remain viable for the long term” and could fall within five years.

Nearly a decade later, the assessment has not been borne out, and its disclosure is evidence of past American misjudgments about the internal dynamics of North Korea’s closed society. American intelligence agencies still regard North Korea as among the toughest of intelligence targets and have made little progress inserting human spies into the country to steal secrets about the government.

The assessment was produced by a group that included senior intelligence analysts, Pentagon war gamers and independent academic experts. It was made public on Thursday by the National Security Archive, a research group.

“Conventional wisdom was completely wrong,” said Ambassador Wendy Sherman, who during the late 1990s was the Clinton administration’s coordinator for North Korea policy. “People constantly underestimated the staying power of the North Korean regime.”

The National Security Archive page on the subject is here.

This was the subject of some discussion on a discussion list I belong to, one that concerns itself about intel concerns and the GWOT, among other things.

What follows was a part of that discussion, used here with permission, but anonymously per the posters request.

The first comment was:

The state of being of our intelligence in 1997 did indeed affect national decisions on the DPRK, when in fact the community, bolstered by outside experts was dead wrong. If affected both the Clinton and the early Bush administration. Surely, this document was updated periodically and new information included.

What is it about the community which leads to such misestimation? Was this a case of intelligence telling the policy people what it wanted to hear? Or was the community, apparently headless and heedless unable to focus in parallel on the many areas of interest?

Followed by this response:

I was commissioned as an Intelligence Officer in the US Army in 1978, and still retain my commission therein. In connection with my military service, I have four Intelligence-related Military Occupational Specialties and twice that number of Intelligence-related Special Skill Identifiers. I have worked as an Intelligence Officer, Counter-Intelligence Officer, and Counter-Terrorism Officer from battalion to theater-level, including on Joint Staffs. Based on my experience in the community, I can attest to the fact that Intelligence analysis is always subject to error; but over the past 30 years or so, the United States has done a great deal to needlessly undermine its intelligence capabilities and to thereby ensure greater error and failure. I can think of three things off hand that have most significantly contributed to this.

1. In the mid-1970's, in the wake of Watergate and the Vietnam War, the US Congress, House and Senate, conducted a massive purge and general evisceration of the nation's Intelligence Community from which it has never recovered. This was pursued as a largely partisan political campaign by House and Senate Democrats, who made no secret of their active hatred of the US Intelligence Community, which many of them openly regarded as the principal source of evil in the world. Counter-Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism operations became virtually impossible after this.

2. In the late 1970's, President Jimmy Carter decided that Human Intelligence
was not important and could be replaced by Technical Intelligence. Accordingly, he disestablished the bulk of the US Human Intelligence effort. We have similarly never recovered from this.

3. In the 1990's, President Bill Clinton further degraded what was left of US HUMINT capabilities by mandating that no HUMINT contacts may be involved in bad things. He also crippled the Intelligence Collection and Analysis communities by replacing effective collection and sound analysis with aggressive racial and sexual diversity quotas as the foremost goals of the Intelligence Community.

All of this has led us to where we are today. If you discern a pattern in the above, so do I.

In this context I couldn't help but think of a recent speech by She-Who-Would-Be-Speaker Pelosi:

"I think the fact that I am a woman will raise expectations in terms of more hope in government, and I will not disappoint...The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

Heh.

Guest post by Denizen Ry.

BloodSpite has something up that’s near and dear to gollum’s heart: Border Issues . Two agents shoot a known border crasher smuggling drugs, wounding and not killing him, and get 20 years each.

That’s not what I’d like to hear. Sure, they messed up and picked up their brass and didn’t file the proper paperwork, but 20 years? For wounding a border crashing drug dealer who seemed to be brandishing a gun? But this drug dealing border crasher seems to have gotten nothing in the way of punishment.

I’m not quite with BlSp or Michele Malkin on this. The ICE agents screwed up royal. They hid evidence and broke the law themselves. There are penalties for behaving in such a manner. Don’t go all cowboy on us and forget there are rules and procedures that ensure nobody goes super nutty down there. I’m sure that this incident and sentencing sends a message loud and clear to all ICE personnel: actually do your job in relation to securing the border and we’ll see you in court. Just like cops in Oakland, CA won’t report an illegal alien driving without a license caught at a sobriety checkpoint because of action by the ACLU.

Might as well rename the country Workland, accept that all we are is a place for people to come work, get citizenship of whatever country will take us, and give up all pretensions of being a nation if that’s how we’re going to play it.

There is an upside to it. It proves this country treats everyone equally. One of the agents’ surnames is Ramos. He’s Hispanic. We treat everyone the same here in the US. We treat everyone like chit, but at least it’s equally chitty.

___________________________________________

Another Malkin bit that has me scratching my head. Put on the Web a fake passport generator good enough to get thru the security check point and draw federal heat? Well duh.

One of the reasons I’m in trouble around here ["Here" refers to where Ry surfs the internet gets his employment checks from. Around the Castle Ry only gets in trouble for excessive ankle-biting, whacking his spoon on his high chair when he wants attention, and teaching the zombies how to play hockey. Rotting body parts all over. Ick -the Armorer] is a series of renegade experiments I did two and three years back that ate up a bunch of budget for use of instrumentation. I decided I wanted to look at something and then tell DHS about my results. They were not only non-plussed about it but my contact called The Wife directly and told her I’d better stop or someone would make me a visit from men driving a ‘fleet car’ with gov’t plates. I stopped. She threatened to make me sleep on the couch. I also got into serious trouble when Miss Thang noticed that certain stocks were a lot less than they should’ve been.

‘They’ don’t like us doing things ‘off the reservation’. There’s a bias against us ‘amateurs’, however smart and innovative and well meaning we may be, doing stuff without ‘their’ knowing about it first and with ‘their’ okay. That’s the way the game is played. If you can’t play by those rules then you shouldn’t play. Sure, it’s stupid and inefficient. But they’ve got the power to throw your sorry butt in jail. So play by their rules as they’re the ones who have to take responsibility for terror attacks. [I would also note that while gov't is not known for innovation and risk-taking, as Ry notes, they are *also* the ones who have to clean up the mess if you screw up while conducting your experiments... it colors their thinking. As someone who spent time in the "cleaning up after other people's evil actions/honest mistakes, I can see in that window, so to speak. It isn't *always* benign/malevolent paternalism. Just often enough to be a real PITA. -the Armorer]

Posting this on the Web was an extremely stupid thing to do. Why not just hand terrorists the keys to the city while you’re at it? I got a lot of respect for the Hoosier who came up with the concept, but the dude totally screwed up in fighting red tape by posting it on the Web for everyone and anyone to get at it.

I’m a pariah in academe because I want access restrictions on certain journals and types of data. It’s just not smart to have it open to anyone and everyone when there’s a non-insignificant group of the global population who’ll take said info and weaponize it. We can live with the slowdown of discovery that restricted access will cause.

Lots of people are torqued over the NYT divulging the SWIFT program and the NSA wiretap program. It was handing info to the enemy. What this guy did by posting his generator on the web is worse. It’s handing tools to the enemy. The guy who did this is brilliant and yet stupid at the same time. I hope he does get credit for this. I also hope he learns not to go renegade again.

ry

Nancy Pelosi on the changes in store if she becomes Speaker Pelosi, and stupid Republican tricks...

"I think the fact that I am a woman will raise expectations in terms of more hope in government, and I will not disappoint...The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

A-yup. Okay, I can run with that as a working description of the Democrats...

8^)

Nope. Can't make this stuff up. That quote is in the last paragraph of this story in the LA Times.

Stupid Republican tricks?

Quoting a 2004 article, "Lie Factory," that appeared in Mother Jones magazine and relied on interviews with a former Pentagon analyst turned White House foe, Karen Kwiatkowski, the mailing highlights Christopher Carney's role in a small intelligence analysis shop inside the Pentagon before the Iraq war. The top of the mailing warns voters, "Chris Carney failed our nation once." "Don't give Chris Carney a chance to FAIL us again," the next page says.

The mailing may seem par for the course in an election season in which Republican incumbents are vulnerable to attacks on their support for an unpopular war. But its return address is the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania. The mailing's target is Mr. Carney, who some see as one of the national Democratic Party's brightest hopes to wrest control of the House of Representatives in 2006.

Bad move, guys. And you oughta disown the mailing. But we do get this amusement with the article - the New York Sun's Eli Lake, the author of the article, provides this fun paragraph to go with it...

Mr. Carney's position on Iraq differs from that of a Pennsylvania Republican, Rep. Jack Murtha, who has said America should set a date and begin withdrawing troops. But Mr. Carney counts Mr. Murtha as a political ally. In August, Mr. Murtha even promised Mr. Carney a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, the congressional panel that spends the federal budget.

I guess it *is* getting hard to tell Democrats from Republicans these days...

Fair's fair...

Chris Bowers of My Direct Democracy is Googlebombing the elections.

In a tit for tat move, so is John Hawkins of Right Wing News.

So, wanna play?

Senate

Connecticut: Ned Lamont

Maryland: Ben Cardin

Michigan: Debbie Stanbenow

Missouri: Claire McCaskill

Montana: Jon Tester

New Jersey: Bob Menendez

Tennessee: Harold Ford

Virginia: James Webb

Democrat Held Seats

(CO-03): John Salazar

(GA-03): Jim Marshall

(GA-12): John Barrow

(IA-03): Leonard Boswell

(IL-08): Melissa Bean

(IL-17): Phil Hare

(IN-07): Julia Carson

(NC-13): Brad Miller

(PA-12): John Murtha

(WV-01): Alan Mollohan

Republican Held Seats

(AZ-08): Gabrielle Giffords

(CT-04): Diane Farrell

(CT-05): Chris Murphy

(CO-07): Ed Perlmutter

(IA-01): Bruce Braley

(IL-06): Tammy Duckworth

(IN-02): Joe Donnelly

(IN-08): Brad Ellsworth

(IN-09): Baron Hill

(FL-13): Christine Jennings

(FL-16): Tim Mahoney

(FL-22): Ron Klein

(KY-03): John Yarmuth

(NC-01): Heath Shuler

(MN-06): Patty Wetterling

(NM-01): Patricia Madrid

(NY-20): Kirsten Gillibrand

(NY-24): Michael Arcuri

(NY-26): Jack Davis

(OH-15): Mary Jo Kilroy

(OH-18): Zack Space

(PA-06): Lois Murphy

(PA-08): Patrick Murphy

(PA-07): Joe Sestak

(PA-10): Chris Carney

(VA-02): Phil Kellam

(WI-08): Steve Kagen

Since Saturday is a low-traffic, high google day...

...I think I'll post scary stuff.

On the issue of Right-thinking people staying home on Election Day to punish the Republicans. Among other things, remember people - perfect is the enemy of good. You're never going to get perfect. Here's a sample of what you *will* get with a Pelosi House.

New Faces and Ideas? Hardly.

As if, AP! [Tim Graham]

There is no funnier headline today than this AP one: "If Democrats Win House, Moderation Rules." Andrew Taylor notes the potentially incoming chairmen may be measurably liberal by their voting records, but they "promise to rule from the center." Stop, AP, my ribs hurt!

Has anyone considered how the Democrats can present themselves as a vote for "change" when you consider the term-unlimited people that will chair the committees, as AP reviews it? John Dingell: first elected December of 1955. That's almost pre-rock-and-roll. John Conyers: first elected 1964. Charles Rangel? 1970. Henry Waxman? 1974. George Miller? 1974. Fresh faces, anyone?

House Majority Whip Blunt has his own take on the issue:

PELOSI'S HOUSE Pelosi's House

"I pride myself in being called a liberal."

"I don't consider myself a moderate."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) (Time, 9/4/06)

...And she's not the only one.

"This list of the bills most likely to be championed by committee chairmen in a Pelosi-led House of Representatives would be great fodder for the latenight talk show hosts if it weren't true," House Majority Whip Roy Blunt said. "Instead, it's just plain scary. While Republicans fight the War on Terror, grow our robust economy, and crack down on illegal immigration, House Democrats plot to establish a Department of Peace, raise your taxes, and minimize penalties for crack dealers. The difference couldn't be starker."

******

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act -- H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new "Department of Peace and Nonviolence" as well as "National Peace Day." Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).

Gas Stamps -- H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA) and eight Democratic cosponsors want a "Gas Stamps" program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals.

Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor.

Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation.

Expand Medicare to Include Diapers -- H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI) and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal.

Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus -- H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus.

Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor.

Bill of Welfare Rights -- H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) proposes a Soviet-style "Bill of Welfare Rights," enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

A note about this list: While by no means an exhaustive list of the liberal, out-of-the-mainstream bills introduced by Democratic Members, these bills deserve particular attention because the principle advocates are the very individuals who would be in a position to schedule committee markups and move the legislation through the Congress should the Democrats take control.

For more details on the would-be chairmen….

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.)
Elected 1969, 18th term
Rep. Obey voted with the AFL-CIO 100% of the time. Obey voted against the Deficit Reduction Act, against Defense Funding (FY06), against the Legislative Line Item Veto, and against funding the Global War on Terror (FY04).

“Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Elected 1970, 18th term
Rep. Rangel voted with the ACLU 94% of the time. Rangel consistently voted against free trade agreements, against the Bush tax cuts, against Pension Reform, and against Welfare Reform.

Rep. Rangel “opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

“No question about it.” -Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), when asked whether tax increases across the spectrum would be considered should Democrats take control of Congress. (CongressDaily, 09/26/06)

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Elected 1964, 21st term
Rep. Conyers voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 100% of the time. Conyers consistently voted against any liability reform, against the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, against REAL ID, against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification bill, and against Border Protection and Immigration Reform.

“He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report… the report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.)
Elected 1955, 25th term
Rep. Dingell voted with the AFL-CIO 100% of the time. Dingell voted against exploring for American-made energy in ANWR and OCS, against reforming the Endangered Species Act, and against the Telecom Reauthorization bill.

“The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.)
Elected 1974, 16th term
Rep. Miller voted with the ACLU 95% of the time. Miller voted against Higher Education Reauthorization, against Head Start Reauthorization, and against Pension Reform.

Rep. Miller is “the chief sponsor of the ‘Employee Free Choice Act,’ which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections… The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Elected 1980, 13th term
Rep. Frank voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 95% of the time. Frank voted against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act, against Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement, and against Credit Rating Reform.

“…the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Elected 1974, 16th term
Rep. Waxman voted with the AFL-CIO 100% and the ACLU 95% of the time. Waxman voted against the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, against the formation of the Bipartisan Katrina Committee, and against 527 Reform.

Rep. Waxman “would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

Intelligence Committee Chairman Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Elected 1992, 7th term
Rep. Hastings voted with the AFL-CIO 92% of the time. Hastings voted against declaring that the U.S. will prevail in the Global War on Terror, against the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, against Supporting Terrorist Finance Tracking, against the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, and against Border Protection and Immigration Reform.

Rep. Hastings “who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.” (WSJ, 08/31/06)

*Group ratings are from 2004. Key votes are from the 108th and 109th Congress. Wall Street Journal quotes are extracted from “Back to the Congressional Future” editorial, August 31, 2006.

So vote, people. And in the next election cycle, get off your butt and get involved in the primaries. Otherwise, you're going to have the same choices on election day. The bulk of us who have either abandoned (or, like me, *never* participated) in the primary elections are part and parcel of why our options seem to be Dumb and Dumber.

Is this Fred Reed?

...or Fred Reed on crack? Of course, since he has chosen the Expat Way, and lives full-time in Mexico, his effective "ruler" is Senor Calderon - or will be, anyway.

Here's a cheery little excerpt:

A tribal rite in the column racket is the discovery of darkness in the hearts of presidents, or witlessness, and we discover away industriously. I have done my share. I thought Clinton a bright, libidinous lout, Jimmy Carter a moralizing cipher, Reagan a sort of Grandfather Barbie and, by contrast, Eisenhower a wise man hiding behind remarkable syntax. None was evil, or mad. Bush is something new in presidential politics, genuinely dangerous and genuinely out of control. The time is ripe for him. America no longer has the institutional defenses to say "no."

What would happen if a president just refused to go? To remove him, someone would have to act. Who? Little would be necessary to stop a coup, granted. A couple of helicopters of Marines landing across the street from the White House would be enough. The various federal police bully civilians well (ask Steve Hatfill), but would find fighting real men another thing. But who in the military would have the courage to do it?

The rest is here.

But Fred's right - the military wouldn't stop it - the soldiers will be too busy killing their officers to intervene.

Geez, Fred, what happened? Was the worm in the bottle diseased? Some bad avocado?

Okay. I understand the feeling...

...really I do. I feel it myself. The ennui with Republican idiocy. I feel the tug of Not Voting For The Right, myself. I don't really want to vote Republican, but truly, in the absence of a Constructive Left, what choice is there? And remember - the Left is doing to the Right (pulling it leftward, absent a huge majority) exactly what we expect the Right (though they're pansies about it many times) to do to the Left when the Right is in the minority. Yeah, the Right has a majority at the moment, but it *isn't* a huge one... in that respect, the system is working as intended, like it or not. If the founders had *wanted* a 51% majority to be able to run completely roughshod over the opposition - they would have given us Parliament, not Congress. Lookit Britain - not what *I* want. So, I don't think the Allahpundit (vote straight Dem) or Malkin (don't vote) approach are Good Ideas. They are, to my eye, Bad Ideas. Any path that leads to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are Bad Ideas.

Better a bunch of weak sister Righties in charge than Lefties. Now, if we could just find a way to make primary challenges to idiot incumbents competitive...

I had a post ready for this, but Bill Bennett says it better and more succinctly:

Okay, look. Now is the time for all good men—and women—to come to the aid of the party.

In 1960, Barry Goldwater famously shouted, "Grow Up Conservatives." It took 20 years for that call to be heeded, and we got the expanded, entrenched Welfare State, a disastrous & humiliating foreign policy in the meantime; and Ronald Reagan's presidency was about attempting to roll back those 20 years as much as moving forward on a positive agenda.

Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carbon copy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home.

If you want Donald Rumsfeld hauled before Congress every week justifying the war rather than fighting it, stay home.

If you want spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now, stay home.

If you want Henry Waxman holding hearings on every aspect of the administration's actions, stay home.

If you want to see the war in Iraq defunded to the point of withdrawal so that the worst elements in Iraq take over and a repeat of the helicopters-fleeing-Saigon-type-images come back all over again, signaling a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power, stay home.

If you want to keep the border unsealed, stay home.

The stakes are large, we can't afford twenty years, we can't afford two years of this. If you want a change in your Congressional leadership, fine, wait until you have the election, then demand it, with a new GOP speaker and majority leader if you want...but let me tell you, a new minority leader and a new minority whip will not get you much, it won't get you anything.

Two years ago we sent a message by reelecting the President, have things fallen so hard since then that we can't muster those numbers again and see that the good should not be traded in for the bad? You want to rue a day? You will rue a day with John Conyers as head of the House Judiciary and Pat Leahy as head of the Senate Judiciary. Don't do it. Please don't do it.

For all of my career and beyond, I was never a registered member of any party, and never lived in a state where you could vote in a primary as an independent.

I'm finally going to have to declare a party - not because I really like the Republicans that much, but because I'm really farking tired of who the party picks for its candidates. I want some new blood. But I don't want new lefty blood. While we might send a middlin' Dem to the Congress, we'd *still* be creating Speaker Pelosi.

No thank you.

Stop the ACLU (and other's he links) agrees.

This is for Jack... sorta.

...an interesting compendium of alternative views of Pope Benedict's speech.

Christopher Hitchens, who's never met a Pope he wouldn't like to push down the stairs. Preferably while they're in a wheelchair.

Martin Marty - who calls the Pope an absent-minded professor...

Mark Shea, who, along with his own round-up of opinion on the subject, lays the blame squarely at the feet of a cherry-picking press.

And, Robert T. Miller contends that the Pope did it on purpose, as an opening gambit.

Heck, they may all be correct in some form or another. Regardless, while one should exercise some care in the use of "fighting words" the regrettable trend of the West to blame itself when parts of the Muslim world explode in juvenile fury at perceived slights, and go on pillaging binges with a soupçon of killing, the fact remains the bad behavior is a childish choice, and while we daren't act as parents here, we can act as adults - and not reinforce the behavior by giving the tantrum throwers what they want. And we can look at the parents (the governments and Imams) and suggest to them they get their children in line.

Just sayin'

Update - then there's Iraq the Model...

Just... Hoo-ah!

Could we have some of this up here, please?

AUSTRALIA'S Muslim leaders have been "read the riot act" over the need to denounce any links between Islam and terrorism. The Howard Government's multicultural spokesman, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia's mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve.

Mr Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.

"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

From the Herald-Sun.

What will CAIR say?

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

Technorati Tags:"Pope Benedict" reason Mohammed Islam Catholicism

« Secure this line!

by John on Sep 17, 2006

The President's Radio Address.

When the Dems email their responses, I'll happily post them, too.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________

Embargoed Until Delivery

At 10:06 A.M. EDT

Saturday, September 16, 2006

RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Monday, I visited New York , Pennsylvania , and the Pentagon to attend memorials marking the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It was an emotional day for me and for our country. On that day, we remembered those who lost their lives, and we paid tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live. We rededicated ourselves to protecting the American people from another attack.

Next week, I will return to New York , where I will address the United Nations General Assembly. I look forward to talking to the world leaders gathered there about our obligation to defend civilization, and how we must work together to support the forces of freedom and moderation throughout the Middle East .

As we work with the international community to defeat the terrorists and extremists, we must also provide our military and intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep our country safe. Congress is considering two vital pieces of legislation to help us do just that. My Administration is working closely with members of both parties to pass these bills.

The first bill would allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need this legislation because the Supreme Court has ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress.

I recently announced that 14 suspected terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man believed to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay . As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice.

This bill will also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including planned strikes inside the United States and on a U.S. Marine base in East Africa, an American consulate in Pakistan , and Britain 's Heathrow Airport . This CIA program has saved American lives, and the lives of people in other countries.

Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question, and we need this legislation to save it. There is debate about the specific proposals in this bill, and my Administration will work with Congress to find common ground. I have one test for this legislation: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.

The second bill before Congress would modernize our electronic surveillance laws and provide additional authority for the terrorist surveillance program. I authorized the National Security Agency to operate this vital program in response to the 9/11 attacks. It allows us to quickly monitor terrorist communications between someone overseas and someone in America . It has helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks on our own country. The principle behind this program is clear: When al Qaeda operatives are calling into or out of our country, we need to know who they are calling, why they are calling, and what they are planning.

Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror. So we will work with legislators from both sides of the aisle to get them passed. By passing these critical bills, we will bring terrorists to justice, continue collecting vital intelligence from captured terrorists in a lawful way, and monitor terrorist communications, so we can stop new attacks on our nation.

Thank you for listening.

This comes from the White House Blogger email list. It will be interesting, two years hence, regardless of which party occupies the building - if Castle Argghhh! will remain on the mailing list.

9/11@ 5 years on - We Remember: The President's Address.

President's Address To The Nation As Prepared for Delivery September 11, 2006

THE PRESIDENT: "Good evening. Five years ago, this date – September the 11th – was seared into America ’s memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds, and nationalities – and made war upon the entire free world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before. Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe. On this solemn night, I have asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us … what we are doing to protect our Nation ... and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world.

"On Nine-Eleven, our Nation saw the face of evil. Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high floors of burning skyscrapers – and called home so that their last words to their families would be of comfort and love. We saw courage in passengers aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm – and then charged the cockpit. And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and smoke – and ran back in to answer cries for help. On this day, we remember the innocent who lost their lives – and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live.

"For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I have met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades. I have stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania , who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims – and gave America our first victory in the war on terror. And I have sat beside young mothers with children who are now five-years-old – and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms. Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.

"Since the horror of Nine-Eleven, we have learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy – but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam – a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.

"Our Nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War. We saw what a handful of our enemies can do with box-cutters and plane tickets. We hear their threats to launch even more terrible attacks on our people. And we know that if they were able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against us. We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes. America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over – and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. We are in a war that will set the course for this new century – and determine the destiny of millions across the world.

"For America , Nine-Eleven was more than a tragedy – it changed the way we look at the world. On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies – and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan . We put al Qaeda on the run, and killed or captured most of those who planned the Nine-Eleven attacks – including the man believed to be the mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He and other suspected terrorists have been questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency – and they have provided valuable information that has helped stop attacks in America and across the world. Now these men have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay , so they can be held to account for their actions. Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.

"On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores – whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states. I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the Nine-Eleven attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My Administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat – and after Nine-Eleven, Saddam’s regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

"Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East . They have joined the remnants of Saddam’s regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out. Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed – but so are Iraqi and Coalition forces. We are adapting to stay ahead of the enemy – and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds.

"We are training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation. We are helping Iraq ’s unity government grow in strength and serve its people. We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq , the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad . Osama Bin Laden calls this fight “the Third World War” – and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America ’s “defeat and disgrace forever.” If we yield Iraq to men like Bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq ’s resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.

"We can be confident that our Coalition will succeed – because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence. And we can be confident in victory – because of the skill and resolve of America ’s Armed Forces. Every one of our troops is a volunteer, and since the attacks of September the 11th, more than 1.6 million Americans have stepped forward to put on our Nation's uniform. In Iraq , Afghanistan , and other fronts in the war on terror, the men and women of our military are making great sacrifices to keep us safe. Some have suffered terrible injuries – and nearly 3,000 have given their lives. America cherishes their memory. We pray for their families. And we will never back down from the work they have begun.

"We also honor those who toil day and night to keep our homeland safe – and we are giving them the tools they need to protect our people. We have created the Department of Homeland Security … we have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information ... we have tightened security at our airports, seaports, and borders ... and we have created new programs to monitor enemy bank records and phone calls. Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken up terrorist cells in our midst, and saved American lives.

"Five years after Nine-Eleven, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil – but they have not been idle. Al Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States . They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens – and we are determined to stop them. We will continue to give the men and women who protect us every resource and legal authority they need to do their jobs.

"In the first days after the Nine-Eleven attacks, I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower. They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever … girls enrolling in school … or families worshiping God in their own traditions. They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation. This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we are fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom, and tolerance, and personal dignity.

"We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom. Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom – and whether the forces of moderation can prevail. For sixty years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East . And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America ’s influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

"With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom. From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut , there are brave men and women risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And they have one question of us: Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia ? By standing with democratic leaders and reformers, by giving voice to the hopes of decent men and women, we are offering a path away from radicalism. And we are enlisting the most powerful force for peace and moderation in the Middle East : The desire of millions to be free.

"Across the broader Middle East , the extremists are fighting to prevent such a future. Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it – sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima – but he would not have been surprised at the outcome. When Harry Truman promised American support for free peoples resisting Soviet aggression, he could not have foreseen the rise of the Berlin Wall – but he would not have been surprised to see it brought down. Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged – and every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination.

"At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty – and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity. We look to the day when the nations of that region recognize that their greatest resource is not the oil in the ground – but the talent and creativity of their people. We look to the day when moms and dads throughout the Middle East see a future of hope and opportunity for their children. And when that good day comes, the clouds of war will part … the appeal of radicalism will decline ... and we will leave our children with a better and safer world. On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our Nation has endured trials – and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies … we will protect our people ... and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

"Earlier this year, I traveled to the United States Military Academy . I was there to deliver the commencement address to the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th. That day I met a proud mom named RoseEllen Dowdell. She was there to watch her son Patrick accept his commission in the finest Army the world has ever known. A few weeks earlier, RoseEllen had watched her other son, James, graduate from the Fire Academy in New York City . On both these days, her thoughts turned to someone who was not there to share the moment: her husband, Kevin Dowdell. Kevin was one of the 343 firefighters who rushed to the burning towers of the World Trade Center on September the 11th – and never came home. His sons lost their father that day – but not the passion for service he instilled in them. Here is what RoseEllen says about her boys, “As a mother, I cross my fingers and pray all the time for their safety – but as worried as I am, I am also proud – and I know their dad would be too.”

"Our Nation is blessed to have young Americans like these – and we will need them. Dangerous enemies have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. They are not the first to try – and their fate will be the same as those who tried before. Nine-Eleven showed us why. The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did – but not in the way the terrorists intended. Americans united in prayer ... came to the aid of neighbors in need ... and resolved that our enemies would not have the last word. The spirit of our people is the source of America ’s strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose – and faith in a loving God who made us to be free.

"Thank you, and may God bless you."

Heh. While we appreciate the links from Unpartisan.com, we wish their aggregation algorithm was just a *touch* more discriminating... this is, after all, simply a posting of the text of the President's speech, and nothing else. But if you followed a link from there, Hi! Feel free to scroll down for our 2966 tributes - well, come to think of it, I *can* editorialize a bit. Go to this post (the one right above this one, and check out the two-line quote at the bottom of the post - it sort of encapsulates the attitude behind the speech, in rather shorter, and somewhat more refreshing, if naughty, terms.

Or, if you're 9/11'd out, but like guns and militaria, hit the "Gun Pr0n" archive!

How is this different from essentially government-owned and operated health care?

California Governor Schwarzenegger has announced he will veto a comprehensive health care bill that passed the California legislature.

The bill establishes a state-run insurer who will pay all the bills. All private insurance would be abolished...

The plan, written by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), would create one public insurer, to replace the existing network of private companies. Private doctors and hospitals would remain, but would have their rates set by the new state agency.

Okay - how is this different from the state essentially appropriating the doctors and hospitals?

Certainly, they could try to achieve efficiencies to squeeze more out of the dollar - which would result in... the state accusing them of overcharging, and promptly lowering the rates, creating a marked disincentive.

I just can't help but think that there is a better way than mandating increasingly poor health care for everybody, however "fair" that may seem.

The uninsured are an issue, certainly. And the current employer-based system has inequities and cost-containment problems of it's own - but de facto rationing of health care doesn't seem a truly useful answer.

Besides, once the state takes over paying the bills... it won't be long before the Nannystate rears it's head, with mandatory PT programs, weigh-ins, control of foodstuff content, penalties for eating beyond your allocated caloric intake, etc - all because the state will then have a legitimate interest in all your previously private behaviors... because they foot the bill.

Just as you see these things floated in Britain now and again...

There has to be a better way that doesn't just give the state such an awesome power grab. I admit I don't know what it is - but I know what it's like to live under that type of regime... just join the military.

There's an LA Times article here.

One of the kewl things about being on the White House mailing list...

...beside getting our daily marching orders (at least that's what the Kossacks contend) we get fun stuff like this, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten responding to Senator Reid.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
528 Hart SOB
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks — political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army — and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago — and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations — which is the most demanding task facing our troops — tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq — all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory — and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten

Chief of Staff

Ah-nuld for President.

No, I'm not a fan, frankly. Of Ah-nuld. Well, I liked his movies. Governor? No brief, for or against. I don't live there, but I can only assume he's an improvement on his predecessor. Which wasn't a high bar to clear.

Rammer supports Dean. Fine. Xrlq weighs in. The subject? Amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens the right to run for President. Do I have a dog in this fight? Well, oddly enough, I have a Naturalization Certificate (which is a real pain in the butt because I always have to trot out the physical document come security clearance update time). Yep, I'm a naturalized citizen. It doesn't work that way any more - kids born overseas to US parents aren't required to be Naturalized, but we once did. Now you get a Certificate of Citizenship, if I read things correctly Here's the rulez as the exist now. I *can* be President! Well, as long as no one popular or competent is running, anyway. See? Mebbe you don't want us Naturalized types to be eligible...

I say, throw it out there, and if people want to run with it, fine, we can debate it. But I don't think the people are gonna run with it. But the discussions in the comments at Dean's and Xlrq's places are interesting.

Just another feckless exercise in window-dressing.

Yesterday, I noted this:

Heh. The UN Peacekeeping Force for Lebanon starts to take shape. The headline on Yahoo for this article is what caught my attention: "Europe Provides the Backbone for UN Peacekeeping Force". Heh. The "backbone" is a robust mission, robust ROE to support the mission, and the will to carry it out. Otherwise, it's just another feckless exercise in window-dressing.

Today, the UK Telegraph reports this:

UN will not stop Syria sending weapons to Lebanon
By Harry De Quetteville and Michael Hirst

(Filed: 27/08/2006)

The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request. Syria, meanwhile, accused by Israel of re-arming Hezbollah during the recent conflict, has said the deployment of any UN forces near its border would be considered a "hostile act".

Oh, I understand the logic. Lebanon has a putatively sovereign government with it's own army capable of this. The Forms Must Be Followed, even if they are pretty patently bogus.

As I said yesterday:

The "backbone" is a robust mission, robust ROE to support the mission, and the will to carry it out. Otherwise, it's just another feckless exercise in window-dressing.

Window dressing. Regardless of how many and of what quality troops are provided. Window dressing. Anyone remember the disaster that was the initial UN Peacekeeping mission in Bosnia?

Deja vu all over again.

Feckless window dressing.

Winston Churchill famously said that "jaw-jaw is preferable to war-war."

Fair enough. But if all jaw-jaw does is lead to more war, or wider war, or worse war... then all jaw-jaw does, in any particular case, is facilitate war-war.

Read the whole thing here.

Fractured Fairy Tales, British Version.

THE REST OF THE WORLD VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

THE END

THE BRITISH VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.

The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome". Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel's taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrels food is seized and re-distributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.

Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home. The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempt bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from peoples credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though Spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshoppers drug 'illness'.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK. The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up. Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased. The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

THE END - You know it makes sense!

The moral of the story is provided by Mike L:

Bottom line is no matter how hard you work in a socialist environment, come winter you will always lose your nuts!! ML

Denizen Ry's View of Civilian Casualties...

...and some other stuff.

Ry demonstrates why he doesn't blog.... i.e., an endless post. Brevity, thy name is not Gollum. That said, it's a worthy read, I don't agree with all of it, and I will respond later.

I find a serious flaw in the argument put forward in the comments so far (carry over from the threads on this post and this post for those wondering what the farqing hell I'm talking about) in that all the focus is entirely upon the value of innocent dead and the concept that the existence of innocent dead meaning something nefarious and illegal happened.

There is no talk of the necessity of bad things to happen to end a horrible situation. Something that happens in everyday life whether it be divorce where families are torn asunder to lead to a state of greater stability for both kids and adults; or in a chemical reaction where at the point a reaction, the metamorphosis, really takes place is the most destructive time in the whole process. It denies by inference that really terrible but legal actions were taken in fights that the proponents of this position would support, like the attack on Thionville during WW2. This line of thought has become devoid of capital J Justice, bereft of the idea that there are costs for everything (TANSTAAFL) [There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - a Heinlein reference for those who were scratching their heads. -ed] and Justice in particular, and ignores what the rules (largely Geneva, which embodies the ethical and legal philosophy of war) actually say about pursuing goals and the costs of a civilian populace may be submitted to during war.

Instead all we have is talk about dead civilians and how horrible it is, how evil it is that they died. We’re receiving commentary that seems to infer that no matter what the injury was and is it can never justify things like the attack on Qana or the horrific scenes of warfare we’ve seen in Lebanon. Yes, these things are terrible. Civilians who didn’t deserve to die are dead--- some by sheer accident while others by true spite--- but that in and of itself does not change it from jus ad bellum or jus in bello to war crimes and an always illegal act. We’ve lost sight what some of our predecessors, The Great Generation, took as a given: life isn’t fair, bad things happen to good people, and sometimes terrible---but not in themselves essentially evil-- things must be done to secure a better world. The forces of change are always destructive in one sense or another. Change has costs.

We've gone from one flawed paradigm (caring only about winning that existed before Abraham Lincoln came up with what became the Laws of Land Warfare, and interest only in the Rich and Powerful and Large Events) to another terrible paradigm (over stressing populism and Avg. Joe; and making success and failure be about how few civilians are killed regardless of objectives and other real world results---and it happens on both sides of the aisle around here---with a hefty helping of anti-colonialist induced self-hatred tossed into the mix.). By now focusing solely on civilian casualties, by going utterly and irredeemably populist with our prism we’ve lost the ability to see the bigger picture and how Justice is secured in that bigger picture. The bad guy is measured solely in how many civilians killed. He who kills more is the bad guy. By forgetting the bigger picture we’ve said bye-bye to reason and waved at Justice as we blew the popsicle stand.

We’ve moved to a shallow rubric by which we decide good and evil. A rubric that is so shallow that it allows for nothing more than deploring death in time of war as evil and always evil instead of an unfortunate event that should be mourned and treated with dignity. Creating a better peace is not something to be considered. Initial injury is not to be considered. Aims of the war, the necessity of harm to achieve said aims, and questions of jus ad bellum are not to be considered. Just civilian death is the metric. Every discussion will be, and must be, brought back around to innocent dead as nothing else matters. All because we have moved beyond the thinking of our benighted predecessors who only thought about the Mighty and Great Events and have begun to focus on The Ordinary Guy Who Gets Trounced.

The rest is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

Ry continues:

Sorry. I’m not a vulture. I don’t live or base my life, my livelihood, and philosophy upon the dead. Justice, while a fickle Lady, is just as concerned with the living as with the dead. Probably more concerned with the living than with the dead when you think about it. Justice cares about the living and the dead, and the logic being employed (see! Civilian dead! Evil! Evil! Evil! ) makes capital J Justice impossible. It allows for no balance, no nuance, and no means to rectify big problems as they will always have costs that hurt The Ordinary Guy. Unlike the samurai of old or the Japanese in general who understood the dual dictates of giri and ninjo we’ve given ourselves over to ninjo(matters of our heart which in this case is our empathy for the wrongly slain) and ignored our duty(giri) to help create a better world by actually redressing grievances---even if by military means.

So indulge me an hour or two of your time (you thought I was kidding when I said brevity was for the weak?) as I strive to make a shifting chaotic scene into a mosaic that must be seen in entirety to make sense of it.

Being a Castle Contrarian Corps member it isn't hard for me to see that Hezbo may actually be waging war quasi-legally and may have some legitimacy (since it arose somewhat as a means of a minority group that historically got sheeted upon in Lebanon as well as a means of ‘Resisting the Zionist Devil’---the later being a load of sheet.). It does have a point about intra-Lebanese politics and as such it is a legitimate guerrilla force in that context since civil wars are legal. Attacking Israel and declaring war on Israel? Well, that gets complicated because it is a pseudo-state. Remember the complication part. This will show up later.

They've broken quite a few strictures (like not wearing a distinctive badge during planning and execution of military ops, using weapons specifically designed to cause greater civilian casualties,...., waging war of aggression.) so it may be hard to make the case, but the case can be made for Hezbo legitimacy and waging just war based on the meager means available to them. The Kat rocket and other sundry are all they've got. They aren't rich. They aren't a full fledged nation state and neither is Lebanon a greatly industrialized nation to provide precision weaponry. They're using 'Stalin Organs' because that's what they can afford and get their hands on. That's us back in WW2 using the Norden bomb sight with its nearly quarter mile CEP, the Atomic bombing of Nagasaki since it held crucial military industry, and reducing Metz to a smoking ruin by direct assault (well, more like ‘rock soup’ http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/unknown.pdf) because they were the only means available to do a job that needed doing at the time they were done. The means available to you dictate what is criminal and what is righteous.

In a way Hezbollah and the manner in which it fights, well, some of how it fights, is legal, sorta, there are restrictions (all that legalese), in and of themselves. (See above where the prohibition of making the weapon a greater than necessary threat to civilians by adding things like ball bearings is broken. That isn't going to add bupkiss to industrial damage, which is the legal use of the rockets.) I know that’s hard for some to accept. Probably going to cost me some friends around here, but that’s how I see it.

Partisans aren't illegal either. Not according to the 1st and 2nd add'l protocols. And we used the OSS to train a few for us in places like Romania and of course the CIA training Afghanis during the Russian invasion because we knew it to be both legal and effective. It's not that they're Iranian/Syrian paid stooges. It's what they do. It’s not their objective of ‘freeing Lebanon from the Fascistic Zionist yoke’, an oxymoron if there ever was one, even if I do have a problem with Genocide and the destruction of Israel elements. It is how they go about it---in a strictly justly waged war vein since a war just enjoined it is not since it is entirely aggressive since they have no grounds for claiming the territory they are angry about.

So it isn’t like I'm drinking the Cool-Aid of Israel Can Never Be Wrong (ask me about the USS Liberty) and Nobody Must Ever Criticize Her and Everyone Who Attacks Her is Defacto a Moral Cretin Who Should Go To Hell Immediately or singing from the Approved Hymnal of Everyone Who Opposes Us Must Be a Terrorist. Hezbo may or may not be simply a terrorist organization, but it also may/may not be a legal guerrilla operation---which makes it a whole other kettle of fish since legitimacy by Hezbo creates new wrinkles and opens up different legal pathways for Israel to respond. Not everyone who opposes Western Thought and Institutions is a terrorist and a war criminal.

I do draw the line of honest debate well short of ‘One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’ trope though. Nope, I’ll have none of that, thankyouverymuch.

Sorry, because I just don’t have the philosophical flair of Herr Flea in tearing that bromide to pieces you’ll have to read thru my reasoning for why I eschew it. (http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/008397.html). Yes, I do think it important in the overall scheme of things to go over this ground, particularly since we are discussing legal actions in war and what constitutes a legal warrior engaging in war.

Roger’s Rangers weren’t terrorists. They were guerrillas. The Brits loved the unit when it fought on their side in the French-Indian war. They labeled it a band of terrorists when they fought the Rangers in the Revolutionary War, or more accurately the heirs of the Rangers since Rogers had his loyalty questioned at the time. In both conflicts it targeted military targets exclusively. By any measure they were not terrorists it’s just that the Brits have a tendency to whine when people don’t line up to be shot by them. They complained loudly when the Japanese in East Asia used flat bottom boats to bypass roads the Brits had invested themselves in to attack military targets in the Brit rear in WW2 as well. The Japanese weren’t terrorists. They were smart. Just like Rogers and his Rangers. Just like the Muhajideen of Afghanistan were not terrorists nor did they employ terrorist tactics like blowing up Gorky Park while trying to cause maximum civilian damage to end the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR. There is a distinction that can and should be made between legal guerrillas/freedom fighters and those who aren’t. That doesn’t always mean just because they fight against us using irregular means that they are terrorists though. Nor does being an irregular automatically make you a freedom fighter.

Being an enemy does not make one a terrorist or a war criminal. That is an old thought form known as demonize the enemy, or dehumanization, to justify killing your enemy. It relies on stereotyping and racism instead of reason which we saw during the ‘Last Clean War’, WW2, where the populace and warfighter was bombarded with messages of the Dirty Jap or Evil Hun. It is something we rightly deplore today as runaway patriotism that borders on jingoism.

Definitions often do matter. ‘You may be compelled to wage war. You are not compelled to use poisoned arrows.’ Terrorists use poisoned arrows, essentially. Freedom fighters as legal combatants do not. That’s what makes the modern iteration of the IRA terrorists and those of Michael Collins’ era freedom fighters.

It is how you fight that defines you. Freedom fighters, as legal combatants, get certain kinds of treatment if captured or at wars end because of how they fight. War often criminals get a journey to the gallows in contrast. It is if you remain within the boundaries of ‘real war’ instead of going off into the abyss of ‘total war’ that dictates which category you are, and that’s exclusive from whether the individual or group in question fights for your interests or not. It does not matter which side you are on, which culture you come from, or whether you fight for an ideal like Greater Islam or for national interests as defined by the realist school of int’l relations. It is what actions you take and not whether you’re a hero to your ‘tribe’ that makes you a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

This leads to a discussion on how the decision of who is and who isn’t careening off into the abyss is performed. I may only be able to 'shop lawyer' the GCs, but they're available as are expert opinions; but I do not think I am that far off kilter here. Killing of civilians, while lamentable, are not beyond the pale at all times and all situations. It all depends on the objective (in both the strategic and tactical senses), the situation, and capabilities at hand.

In large part we use the Geneva Conventions to decide, as a matter of law, who is using poisoned arrows. We don’t use Just War Theory in that legal sense. We don’t use conservative or Progressive canon. There are other things as well, like the UCMJ but that’s more for individuals (in my lay opinion) than for interpreting larger scale events in terms of legality.

The GCs, like the US Constitution, are essentially a small number of Big Ideas that you could count on your fingers and toes. Lots of legalese to illustrate implementation of those Big Ideas, but it is still just those 5 to 20 Ideas.
The most important idea of all is to protect life and keep the slaughter to a minimum. That's why the poor joker riding around a battlefield, in Italy I believe, went gonzo to codify things that eventually became the Geneva Conventions and form the Red Cross. Initially these rules only pertained to the care of the wounded and of POWs as war, largely, took place away from towns by men in the Napoleonic tradition (ordered rows of men with muskets squaring off against each other). The face of war changed as cannon became more lethal (canister and double canister) and as small arms became more lethal (the Minié ball, rifled barrels) from the Napoleonic tradition to mechanized maneuver warfare we think of today with armies actually occupying towns and cities since they provide cover; and the Geneva Conventions were amended to reflect these changes.

One of the attendant ideas to the protection of life in the GCs is you don't intentionally make war on civilians (post WW2 addendum. Read the US bombing survey for why this makes sense.). Lots of legalese on how that's implemented and lots about when and if a civilian killed is just bad luck or something far worse. Nothing in there at all about civilians being utterly sacrosanct or that any and all civilian deaths are war crimes (Disagree? Cite the relevant passage, please.).

But that’s not how we act anymore. Each and every death is tragic but there are quite a few that are correct enough that opprobrium should not be heaped at Israel or Hezbo (like when Hezbo uses its rockets to attack industry and other legal strategic targets without packing them with anti-personnel extras). But we don’t care about legality anymore. We don’t care about the bigger picture anymore. We embrace our emotive response and run with it.

Another is you don't intentionally confuse the situation by making combatants and their stuff indistinguishable from non-combatants. Ends don't justify the means. Being the weaker side doesn't give you carte blanche. You're given some leeway (like not having to carry your weapons openly 24/7 along with a distinctive badge (i.e. a black armband/headband) 24/7 as all US or Israeli military personnel are to get full Geneva protections), but not carte blanche. The authors of the GCs understood that there would be problems of the little guy taking on the big guy and they made provisions that feel far short of carte blanche. Geneva makes no provisions about ensuring that those we think are the good guys or empathize with win. It just speaks to finding out who fought with poisoned arrows and who did not.

But we seem to forget that when we see Mr T-Shirt(you know who I'm talking about, don't you?) carrying a body. The gut level hatred of The Big oppressing The Oppressed is what that is. A purely empathic response to a scene of horror is what it is. It is not a reasoned account of whether that life was worth what was bought with. Sometimes what was purchased will not be worth the life paid. That does not make it a war crime. That’s a mistake. A tragic and cruel mistake, but not a war crime.

That's where the anti-colonialism self hatred comes in, when we bath ourselves in angst over the images of civilian dead. It must be okay since it is the weak, made weak by European derived civilizations colonization policies, to fight back, 'By any means necessary,' against The Strong(particularly since The Strong seem an awful lot like us European descended folk).

Because we do the gut level thing, the cosmopolitan Anti-Colonialist thing, we forget the very important question what’s the injury for which redress is being sought, and what the rules actually are. We start forgetting the rules and to reason our way thru tough problems to make the distinction between right and proper actions and illegal ones, even though both are bloody and gore filled.

The important thing is to honor those ideas embodied in the GC, not get so caught up in the legalese because any wording will be flawed, and not allow ourselves to be over come by our empathy. To do so would be to throw away the rules and claim, inductively, that no death is ever worth what it purchased.

And we must not bog down in semantics either. Language is a man made construct. It is imperfect and prone to misinterpretation. Its purpose is to convey the meaning or spirit of ideas not be the spirit or the ideas.

Yet, that imperfection of translation from idea to written code exists. That’s why rules lawyers, war game and role playing gamers know what I’m talking about, exist and are so annoying and in the world we live in today are dangerous or even deadly. They thrive on using the ambiguity to their advantage regardless of whether or not they trounce on the spirit and intent of the rules to get their way.

In the sphere of warfare this has been dubbed ‘lawfare’, and Hezbollah uses it immensely. Staging your building or tunnels within a few hundred yards/meters of civilian structures offers you a certain type of cover. Cover that you do not lose just because you buy up a block in a city section, or an entire building on a particular block, and stage guards to keep non-members out of your buildings. You’re relying on restraint to protect you and your infrastructure since the dictums about civilian injuries--- covering damage to infrastructure and economic damage wrought by attacks--- to forestall reprisals or being rooted out thru offensive action.

The reasoning is that attacking, since no weapon systems CEP is zero and there is cumulative error in targeting and firing--- inherent to the means you use to find the target, human error, how it is transmitted from the ‘finder’ to the weapon, and then the error in the weapon system itself--- that will cause a CEP to grow beyond the lab produced numbers, will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties or ‘collateral damage’ that the enemy believes it is beholden by law not to inflict. Couple this with dispersion of force caused by the precision of weapons and you have a lawfare nightmare staring at you: Attacks coming from predominately civilian areas that you cannot effectively hit or hit precisely enough to keep collateral damage close to zero and to the cries of ‘disproportion’ and the focus solely on the civilians mentioned above.

Every response becomes a war crime. Every mode to seek redress of injury becomes disproportionate. All because we refuse to step back from our emotional response and refuse to admit that peace and justice carry heavy costs. Because in this new paradigm there is no distinct difference between tragic or unnecessary mistakes and war crimes and evil that can be made. That’s something that is often not even considered in the current paradigm with its fetishism on dead civilians and counting up the dead on each side to see if they are directly proportional or otherwise proportionate. Unfortunately, change has costs (TANSTAAFL) and change is destructive in many senses

Kicking off a war with China by bombing the Three Gorges Dam, killing at least 5 million civilians without damaging a single military target, would be a war crime. Bombing Shanghai harbor and mining it that leads to civilian deaths in a war in which we fail to achieve our grand strategic goals would not be a war crime (unless we carpet bombed it and used napalm indiscriminately, but you get where I’m going.). Sometimes S.O.L is true. Life is not fair.

So it isn’t like I'm drinking the Cool-Aid of the Israel Can Never Be or Do Wrong and Anyone Who Says Anything Disparaging About Israel is a Cretin party (want to have a discussion about the USS Liberty or the Israelis selling US tech to the PLA of the Peoples Republic of China?) or singing from the Approved Hymnal of Everyone Who Opposes Us Must Be a Terrorist. I am not knee jerking on this issue.

And yet, I can see why Israel went to war, legally, and took the fight to civilians, also legally. Who I arrived there is best understood by looking at part of an e-mail exchange I had with a friend of mine who spent 20+ years as an intelligence officer with much of that time dealing with low intensity conflict/SOF actions.

“Scenario 1: Infiltration (land-based only, but tunnels are fair game) by special forces operatives and terrorists for the purposes of sabotage and terrorism
WHO- SOF / terrs
--You can't stop these people by internal actions in your own country - that is not their motivation. The BEST means of interfering with these people is to target their bases and support in their country of origin. Positively identify some, then notify their home state that any 'cover' used to provide political protection will not work. Under traditional international law, EVEN IF a state REALLY does not support SOF and terrs, if it is unable to prevent their transit to your state, you are lawfully allowed to intervene on their soil. Essentially, if they can't control their country, you can go there and do it for them to protect yourself. This is a great simplification of a more complicated legal issue, but it will have to to.
1- Identify all possible SOF and terr military bases.
2-ID all possible bases of popular and economic support.
3-Trace these to their various international connections and connections inside your state.
4-Once you have a good picture of the support connections diagram, ID actual targets that will crippled these bases without increasing popular support any more than necessary.
5-If possible, ID things you can do to the popular base of support that will at a minimum make them afraid to support the terrs, and hopefully cause them to desire not to support the terrs.
6-Prioritize targets.
7-Strike hard, fast and as close to all at one time as your resources allow.
8-Implement the defensive operations listed below.
Essentially, you need to stop this kind of activity at its root, not in your country at all.”

That is not just the ranting of an ideologue. That’s the professional opinion of someone who earned the right to be a member of The League of Disgruntled Majors. Of the retired military I know his opinion I respect most because he spent his career dealing with exactly this type of scenario, unlike The Armorer and others who spent their career contemplating how to kill Ivan in vast numbers in high intensity mechanized warfare. That’s no slight to John and the rest. They just spent their time studying a different situation where the rules were different. It is akin to asking an NBA center to go play as an NFL free safety. Both are highly trained athletes who know their business, but they play vastly different games by different rules in entirely different conditions on different playing surfaces.

International law, when looked at in full, makes allowances for wars with quasi-legal and very complicated situations.

So I can see why FASCAM (which I am saying DPICM is with its known dud rate well above 5 %, and I am saying that it was used because the efforts of Princess Diana et al to outlaw land mines made the need for political cover for such area denial weaponry employment) like stuff is useful in this conflict, the shattering of civilian villages and infrastructure, etc are justified and even smart at the tactical level, the strategic level, and the grand strategic level, and how it can all be legal too. It’s logical and reasoned and stemming from contemporary law.

That’s not to say that Bad Things didn’t happen or mistakes were not made, because they most obviously did. Nor am I saying that moments of spite and hatred did not over come some of the Israeli troops, because it most obviously did in instances like blowing up 6 or so gas stations hours before the cease fire went into effect or attacking fleeing columns of civilians flying white flags from their cars.

Why this new paradigm is wrong, ultimately, is because things really do come down, both philosophically and legally, to asking hard questions that may leave us feeling dirty and unfulfilled with the answers. Questions like: What was the injury Israel was seeking to redress? Was it simply the recovery of a few soldiers? Nah Brah. It was the semi-state of Hezbo being at war with Israel that was being redressed. (see the above block quote) Other questions like: ‘What is truly Just and how much is that going to cost?’, and ‘What is the military necessary action to secure that Justice and what suffering will that cause?’, or ‘What does the law REALLY say I can and cannot do to achieve my goal of protecting my citizens from harm by insurgents/guerrillas/terrorists originating outside my territory?’ It does not attempt to ask these questions and totally forgoes anything remotely close to answering them. It just wallows in anger and sadness over the death of innocent people without checking to see what the scales of Justice show on the matter.

It became a question of military necessity to succeed in war aims to attack into civilian areas to attain the redress of injury which wasn’t just the ‘kidnap’ of some Israeli soldiers since the quasi state status of Hezbo makes such an act of war and not just a simple kidnap for ransom or PR snuff film event. A pseudo-state declared war on a state. It conducted war like operations, like lobbing missiles and killing or capturing POWs. If Hezbollah were simply a terrorist organization and not a quasi state something on the order of SOF hit squads would be the order of the day and not a full fledged conventional invasion. The doctrine of dual effect was definitely in effect in Israel’s actions when they attacked and effectively mined civilian areas.

Given that the quasi-state aspect what is the response to state like war actions supposed to look like? When we were at war with Hitler’s Germany we tore the heart of a city like Metz and in the course of fighting saw cities like Bastone turned to rubble piles. And it was legal then because it was state level war. It became exactly that because Hezbollah played lawfare and became a semi-state level power.

What’s the redress of Israel’s injury from missile attacks supposed to look like given that, legally, they were attacked by a nation state?

Tactically, guerillas aren't stupid you know. Plaster someplace with HE they'll just come back and use the place again, and again, and again. That’s lawfare, the perversion of the rules, caused game of whack a mole instead of allowing a party to end the threat and create a Better Peace. An unfair handcuffing of someone simply because they are The Strong fighting The Weak. Geneva makes no provisions about ensuring that those we think are the good guys or empathize with win. It just speaks to finding out who fought with poisoned arrows and who did not.

So it fell to military necessity, and misguided feel good initiatives, that innocents should die to protect yet more innocents. Create a mine field or otherwise deny access to missile firing sites and rallying points and arms storage sites to the military of quasi-legitimate Hezbollah. It came to ‘boots in the mud’ holding territory from which the enemy would attack into your territory from---whether Lebanon was able to deal with them and failed to or not it was legal.

So it fell, as a legal right, to Israel to attack with a swift and hard sword to crush the civilian areas that Hezbollah hides in because Lebanon could not and the civilians either could not or would not stop Hezbollah or rat them out to protect its own citizenry---the reason de etre for any nation state to exist.

That’s a sad and lamentable condition, but also reality and consonant with the Geneva Conventions to boot.

So, yeah, I shed a tear for poor little girl’s blown to bits or rent by the war on the Lebanese side. I shed more than a few. Yet, I’m not going to give in to sheer animal empathy, beat my breast, hang my head in shame for supporting Israel in this fight, and ignore that Justice, true Justice, was only going to come about in this mode.. There is both rhyme and reason in this. It is stark. It is terrible. It is very uncomfortable. It does not make it easier for me to get to sleep at night, does not allow me to ignore the deaths of innocents, or to look myself squarely in the mirror. But it is there.

Still here? Good on yaz! Well done, Ry. Now let's see how many people read through to the end *and* have something to say about it.

« Secure this line!

by John on Aug 19, 2006

Ah, the Primaries.

The Primary Monster has spoken.

McKinney is out (Yay!). Seems she went down fighting, so to speak.

Lieberman is now an Independent. That will be interesting to watch this fall. The Kossacks have finally conducted a successful ideological purity pogrom. Wonder how that will play out in the General? Primaries are the province of the passionate voter. Low turnouts give them their best chance to shape the candidates. I believe one reason that our politicians don't always seem to really reflect the electorate is because the electorate, through low turnout in the primaries, allows the passionately committed to choose the candidates, which pushes to the extremes. The old "run to the left/right" in the Primary, "run to the center" in the General. That didn't matter as much in the day of the "smoke filled room" when the party machinery was essentially selecting the candidates... but it sure makes a difference now. On both sides of the aisle. This isn't a Right/Left thing. Be interesting to see how the Democrats of Connecticut decide this November. Zuniga is certainly acting the Kingmaker this morning, however - demanding the Lieberman be stripped of his committee assignments, etc. Careful the effects of the echo chamber on the ego, Markos. One reason I try to hold on to my Contrarian Corps is they make you think. You just metaphorically shoot yours.

John Podhoretz looks at it this way:

"The weird little secret of the past couple of years is that when push comes to shove, Democrats in Washington have assented to the continuation of the war on Bush's terms...That's over now. The Democratic Party officially became the antiwar party last night."

We'll see in November, eh?

Yo, Mr. President!

If you had the $160Mil for this:

The Bush administration has decided not to offer free credit monitoring to 26.5 million veterans and military personnel whose personal information was on computer equipment stolen from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs analyst in May.

Rob Portman, the White House budget director, wrote House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday withdrawing the administration's request for $160.5 million to pay for a year of free credit monitoring and citing the June 28 recovery of the stolen laptop and external hard drive by police. The FBI said it had a "high degree of confidence" that thieves had not accessed the files containing the names, Social Security numbers and birth dates of millions of veterans and active-duty military personnel.

"On the basis of the FBI's analysis, the administration has concluded that credit monitoring services and the associated funding will no longer be necessary," Portman wrote.

Cool, I already had free credit monitoring because I reported I might be the victim of identity theft and the credit agencies automatically did it for... free. But that's a different gripe.

How about you give the VA the money anyway? For... oh, I dunno, Veterans Affairs stuff like... health care? Fund that PTSD treatment? Y'know, mission-type stuff. You had $160 million for a CYA clean-up...

Just sayin'.

I know, I know, I'm just a greedy vet.

Read the WashPost article here.

Revolting Generals.

Commander Salamander has an interesting view of what he calls "The Revolting Generals," in response to Jed Babbin's piece at Real Clear Politics. Much to chew on - but up front, I agree with the Salamander that the Generals are playing a dangerous game with politics in the context of how we structure the Military-Civilian relationship - and are setting the stage for even more 'political vetting' of senior General Officer positions than occurs already - exactly the opposite of what they intend, I believe, or that is good for the Republic in general... to coin a phrase.

Jed opens with this:

There was a time not long ago when a general would resign rather than follow an order he could not, in good conscience, obey. A conscience is an essential part of the character we expect our officers to possess. But it is an inconvenience to a politician. Some generals who become politicians - such as Dwight Eisenhower - overcome the inconvenience by remaining faithful to their conscience. Lesser men overcome conscience by letting it fall prey to the fatal flaws of political character: ambition and the desire to take revenge.

Just how long is 'not long ago'? Smedley Butler? There was the "Revolt of the Admirals" but I didn't see any resignations - other than the ones forced upon the rebels (ya lose, ya get stood in front of the metaphorical wall). General Harold Johnson talked the Chiefs into resigning over the prosecution of Vietnam, but backed down - no resignations there, either.

Okay, there *was* the AF Chief of Staff General Fogelman who played chicken with Secretary of Defense Cohen and lost during the Clinton Administration - and he reputedly did so because of HR McMaster's book, Dereliction of Duty (Colonel McMaster is the hero of Tal Afar, most recently)

Of course, one of the strengths of the Republic is that, for the most part, outside of their areas of expertise, we ignore the Generals, don't know who they are, and don't notice when they change jobs. All in all, that's a good thing. And that's just those of us who wear uniforms - much less the bulk of the population.

I think Jed Babbin overstates the case stretching to make his point that the Revolting Generals didn't resign in protest and are only doing so now from safe ground. We frankly don't want the Generals to willy-nilly resign every time their bosses over-rule them - except in the case of illegal orders or truly, earth-shatteringly bad directives. It's the officer's job to make his professional military opinion known, and then to execute the orders given to the best of his ability, as long as they are legal.

Mitchell Lewis says it all quite nicely, here.

It's all very interesting to watch - and see the motivations unfold.

In honor of recent court activity...

...it seems appropriate to pull this out of the archives.

Military Police prepare to refuel before entering the city of Whew!, Mudholistan on December 5, 2020, while their International Court-appointed solicitor ensures that their field-refueling permits are still valid, and that all proper environmental impact forms have been filed, examined, rejected, resubmitted, approved, and thus the refueling operation is permissable, after which the forms will be buried in a peat bog and recycled as fire lighters. There was a problem with one of the weapons registration certificates (carrying more ammunition than permitted) but that was dealt with by the individual soldier paying a 15K Euro fine and surrendering the contraband to United Nations personnel who transferred it to indigenous forces to achieve military balance.(Released)

(U.S. Army Photo by Spc Daniel Broward) Military Police refuel before entering the city of Whew!, Mudholistan on December 5, 2020.

Photo by Spc Daniel Broward

Released by Maj. Hawthorne-Smythwaite, Esq.

Lieutenant Watada.

Sanger, in a comment in yesterday's H&I, has one word for Lieutenant Watada.

Unicor.

The Federal Prison Industries.

We don't do Unicor here, Sanger. He'll come to the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, not the USP Leavenworth, if convicted and sentenced to confinement.

To help you (and others) get oriented...

Here's a map laying out some of our local facilities.

Lieutenant (eventually Private) Watada would reside here, at the USDB.

Vice here, the Federal Penitentiary and Prison Camp (Everybody there gets to start in the "Big House")

Provided as a public service for those who might wish to come visit Lieutenant Watada if this goes as I suspect it will.

Perhaps I'll get an Ehren Watada original...

I'm probably late on this, especially since I tend to be a...

...World Cup? Oh, that interests me as much as the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals kind of guy - but -

Anti-Americanism Has Reached A New Low by James Dunnigan June 30, 2006

Anti-Americanism has reached a new low. FIFA, the international sports organization for football (soccer to Americans) refused to allow U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and warships at sea) to view any of the current World Cup games being played in Germany. The U.S. AFN (Armed Forces Network) has no budget for sports programming, and usually gets a free feed for major sporting events, in the same spirit that movie studios and TV networks provide free access to their product for troops in combat zones. FIFA demanded money, and would not budge on that. While soccer is not a major sport in the United States, it's estimated that a quarter or more of the troops are fans, and would enjoy seeing some of the World Cup matches. However, once this situation became known, several wealthy Americans stepped forward to correct the situation. The first one to make a move was media magnate Robert Murdoch, who ordered his Fox Network to make arrangements, and pay whatever FIFA was demanding, to get the soccer games to the troops, as soon as possible. This was accomplished in 24 hours.

BTW - I actually support the FIFA in that it's their product, they can do what they want and we can draw whatever conclusions we wish and modify our behaviors to suit - I would no more compel them to give their product away than I would do so to General Motors.

This is about High Fiving those who *did* make it possible for the troops to catch the games.

H/t Jim Dunnigan of Strategy Page - and Rupert and whatever other wealthy 'Muricans stepped up to the plate.

The Flag Burning Amendment

The Flag Burning Amendment failed by 1 vote. Good, sez I, as I don't like amending the Constitution for issues like this. There are other remedies the Congress can take - legislative remedies to remove the issue from the purview of the Courts (all perfectly legal under the Constitution) and put the issue back with the Legislative bodies, where it properly belongs. When the Courts decide, the issue is vigorously debated by lawyers in front of lawyers. When the 51 legislatures decide - the issue is argued by a heckuva lot of people, and a greater societal consensus is formed, while leaving room for experimentation and regional values to assert themselves, vice New York, Washington, and Los Angele's values being imposed on everyone. As for me - as I have said before - I've worn that flag on my shoulder as an aiming reference point for people who hate the flag and all it stands for - I say let 'em burn 'em. It just makes target identification easier. In a political sense, people, get a grip!

I think, though, that AP writer Laurie Kellman missed the boat in this bit of analysis that opens her piece:

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 28, 6:39 AM ET WASHINGTON - The narrow defeat of a proposal to ban flag desecration marks the second time in a month Senate Republicans have lost bids to amend the Constitution in ways designed to inspire social conservatives to vote in the midterm elections.

The failure of the questions *are* exactly what they intend to inspire the voters to vote. To change the demographics of the Senate and House to make things like that pass.

I would note a significant difference in approach between the parties on the issues... the Democrats seem to prefer to find a judge or 5 to get their agenda passed if they can't otherwise, thereby bypassing the people (who are obviously stupid or deluded) altogether in favor of a an unelected oligarchy (who are smarter and wiser than the collective 'we' are) - the Republicans prefer to send the issue to the states, where the people have a voice in the process, and a super-majority have to agree. Which is the more democratic way of accomplishing legislative and policy objectives?

You can read the whole piece here.

Heh. The issue makes for strange bedfellows. ;^ )

A little window into Europe.

While I would argue *no* state has the ability to match that first sentence at the indvidual level, setting that aside - this report from Belgium is a dark window into today's Europe.

The Belgian state is no longer able to guarantee the security of its citizens. On Saturday afternoon Guido Demoor, a 54-year old Flemish train conductor on his way to work, was kicked to death by six “youths” on a crowded bus near Antwerp’s Central Station. The incident recalls the rush-hour murder ten weeks ago of Joe Van Holsbeeck, 17 years of age, in a crowded Brussels Central Station on 12 April.

I find it interesting how supportive the Cardinal is. Good on him.

Another colleague told the newspaper Het Nieuwsblad: “After the Van Holsbeeck murder some whined that no-one had intervened. Guido did intervene and paid with his life.” After the assassination of Joe Van Holsbeeck Belgium’s Cardinal Danneels had said that Joe was a victim of “the indifference in Belgian society” because no-one had come to his rescue when two youths stabbed him to death for not handing over his MP3 player.

Today the Cardinal issued a statement saying: “Guido Demoor acted very bravely. The fact that he paid with his life does not mean that he acted wrongly.” In contemporary Belgium it is heroic for an unarmed adult to tell immigrant youths to calm down.

I wonder what, besides anguished hand-wringing and pompous bloviating, will result?

General Gordon Sullivan on Billpayers.

In the H&I post today, I discussed the upcoming budget crunches and ways they are going to be met, mostly, I predict, by mortgaging the future and the warfighters.

Here's a little insider email running around the opinion makers of the retired General Officer corps, from former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan.

Friends---I have been observing very carefully the ongoing saga regarding the approval of the Supplemental for 2006. What my analysis suggests to me is the signals for the future of our Army are not good. Oh, I know there are many in town who will tell you that it is too soon to tell how things will evolve but I see too many signals to conclude otherwise. Needless to say this bothers me because by any measurement the Army as an institution has accomplished every mission it has been assigned. Furthermore, the leadership has looked to the future in a very enlightened and programmatic way which suggests to me a forward look which is both imaginative and practical. Yet the near future funding profile is beginning to look and smell a lot like what we lived through in the early 90's when Army leaders were forced to dramatically reduce the size of the Army, increase mission responsiveness and attempt to move onto the information age while being told we were in a strategic pause and fiscal resources available to the DOD would be used to fund other programs which I feel are nice to have, but not required. Just my opinion.

Think about what our Army leaders and Soldiers have set in motion and are accomplishing:
+ Fighting /Nation Building- Iraq, Afghanistan, elsewhere
+Sustaining the force/Recruiting -Retention- Reset
+Resourcing the augmentation of the Southern Border/Expanding Homeland security missions
+ IGPBS- Integrated Global Presence /Basing Strategies {Come home from Europe /Asia - rotation to Eastern Europe}
+ BRAC
+Transformation

I am starting to see signs indicative of a shifting of priorities in the funding steam without a change in strategy or requirements. Without appropriate fiscal resources, provided in a consistent stream, the Army cannot be expected to execute the national strategy and every other mission in as effective a manner as originally intended. This funding stream must flow for the next six years at least or the responsible parties must recast the National Defense Strategy as well as accept that all enabling programs are not feasible. Unless all appreciate the relationship of dollars to programs priorities will dictate tough choices and Army capabilities will diminish.

Part of my concern is that many opinion leaders in Congress and elsewhere believe that as long as the war goes on, their funding focus must be on current operations and not funding modernization programs like the Future Combat Systems, modularity and equipment reset so critical for active and reserve force readiness. Likewise, while all would applaud a successful outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan I fear that should hostilities end, the funding stream will end abruptly in order to recreate the illusion of a "peace dividend" instead of continuing funding for reset for at least two years as well as funding for the Army to refresh itself. In the coming days, I believe we must begin to speak out and let the public know that Army funding must be supported in the near term, but viewed in the long term during which multiple, high cost, long term missions of increasingly complexity such as those envisioned in the QDR and National Defense Strategy will continue.

Now when it should be only too obvious that our endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan must be supported it is becoming painfully and clearly obvious that some are taking their eye off the ball. For instance, we have seen dithering over supplemental funding critical to Army operations which must maintain a steady state. Additionally, I also detect an indication that weapons which were either killed or modified during QDR deliberations are somehow creeping back into the FYDEP planning process. This doesn't surprise any of you I am sure, but watch how the numbers dance. I have no access to POM fiscal guidance 08/13 but the way folks are hedging their bets is not a good sign.

I am no longer in a position of responsibility and am simply one of those proud to be a Soldier. As such I am concerned that in the heat of battle aka "LONG WAR" Army leaders will find themselves forced into making choices between today and tomorrow and unfortunately could wind up being forced to make decisions with negative long term impact. I understand the Army ethos and our oath and the primacy of mission just as I understand that the defense of America is a shared responsibility between elected, appointed and uniformed people as well as our citizens. I believe now is the time to accept facts as they are--we are in a fight which must be continued to a successful conclusion and we must be prepared to face unknown crises. We are about to see if the resources are available to those who are carrying the load on the ground, Army and Marines, are forth coming.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not. It is time to watch things very closely and accept the fact we might soon be facing a serious strategy resource mismatch which will in turn stretch our magnificent Army to the breaking point .

Gordon Sullivan

I should note I'm not on General Sullivan's email list, and probably got this with at least six degrees of separation. (Note to Sir - feel free to add me, however!)

Here's a question for you.

Damian wanted to know what I thought about this. (Alan, you'll like the beer ad in Damian's post, I think)

I told him. I find a definition so broad that it includes me is meaningless. Another guitar smashed against the wall.

I can cherry-pick all of the arguments about any war ever undertaken. I feel his oh-so-strongly-felt angst. And where was he during Kosovo, and what were his opinions then? I find that instructive, usually. And I find any definition of chickenhawk that can stretch to include me to be ludicrously broad. I smash his guitar against the wall. But I'm tired and grumpy.

And that dam'ed nerve in my neck is killing me, so I can't get the gumption to work up a proper rant. So I'll default to my last rant on the subject, which did not meet universal approval, either...

What do you think?

Acting vice bloviating.

Over at Greyhawk's famously Instalanched post on the media and Haditha, I ran into this from one of the participants, "WW", and it piqued my interest,

As for Murtha, I have yet to see anyone at any of the so-called Milblogs successfully impeach a single thing he has said. Murtha has done absolutely nothing but tell the truth. For that he is fiercely hated by those who, in the words of the whackjob colonel in that movie you all love, "can't handle the truth."

I responded:

Having said all I have to say and therefore falling silent in this - I pipe up to ask...

Apropos of nothing else in the discussion and not trying to move the thread...

WW - why "so-called milblogs" vice "milblogs"?

We return this thread to it's original, rambling gait.

WW responded:

John, I say "so-called Milblogs" because I think the Milblogosphere mainly consists of far-right-wing cranks who use military issues as a means to push their far-right-wing agenda.

The best evidence I can offer is the nearly complete silence from the so-called Milblogs about the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans. Wouldn't you think that, if these were really "Milblogs," the many problems would get more attention? Nary a peep about it at Mudville, Blackfive or any of the rest. It's all right-wing politics, all the time.

To which I responded (in a long delayed post that popped up late, after the dicsussion moved on:

WW, Dave - speaking only for me (I'm in the tier of milbloggers just below your cited sites)...

I've seen discussions on the paucity and inadequacy of PTSD care.

We've followed the travails of wounded soldiers in the system.

Then, rather than write about it, beat our breasts, and wrap ourselves in smug self-satisfaction for having 'spoken truth to power'... we act. Enough so that it was noticed by the BBC. Chuck Ziegenfuss is a "so-called" milblogger, btw.

We can't fix it all, so we picked something we could fix.

Project Valour-IT

Blackfive, Greyhawk, Smash, Lex, and many others (see Project Valour-IT blogroll at my site) have raised, via our blogs, hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars for that and other projects which directly benefit the soldiers.

There is a milblog cottage industry on the subject. Soldiers Angels.

We just don't brag about it that much.

And then, just today, I went whacking at Congress (admittedly from the Right, though I'm a RINO, not a card carrying Republican) for their cynical use of the VA laptop theft to propose 1.25 billion, yes, billion, dollars to make the VA provide a service the credit agencies already provide for free. I'll take that 1.25 billion. And put it in the health accounts - like I said - here.

Just sayin'. We might not be talking about it on the blogs because we're *acting* on it.

I'm a retired soldier and a 70% disabled one at that, gents. You betcha we pay attention.

What have you guys done besides bitch in the comments of right-wing bloggers?

Update: I see that WW did respond to my last, directly, I missed it in the mass - I owe it to him to put it up here, rather than add it at the bottom:

John, you're right. And let me answer you. I supported the Iraq War for slightly more than a year. And even since then, believe it or not I continue to donate to charities that help the returning vets and I send care packages through Any Soldier -- along with resolutely non-political greetings, on the theory that the last thing someone over there needs to get is a package full of stuff along with a letter that says, "Oh by the way, I'm against your mission."

Good on ya. Now to pick up the thread again.

And looking around, I see that a lot of us *act* vice just whine about it.

I read the left, I see crie de coeurs about how I should think, and how stupid, mean and venal I am. I see them standing around holding signs, the more extreme of them trashing businesses as they "speak truth to power"

I see them earnestly lay out fevered plans, and organizing organizing organizing.

I see lots and lots and lots of telling me how I'm supposed to think, to live, and how I should just shut up and give the government my money, and call me mean-spirited when I object.

But I don't see a lot of productive "acting". I mostly see lots of organizing and moralizing (even where they implicitly reject that a moral stance is possible, since all things are relative) and finger wagging.

I'm sure there is acting going on. I just don't see it around here that much, and I'm just laying out why you might not see lots of blogging on particular subjects... because people are out *acting* instead.

Heh. Interestingly enough, in addition to blogging, I *act*. I literally put my money where my mouth is.

I've sent money for natural disaster relief here and abroad and encouraged others to do the same. I've helped raise money for military-focused charities. As in hundreds of thousands of dollars via blog-groups.

I am a Rotarian - via that venue I've helped almost completely eradicate polio - and done so in conjunction with... the UN. My club has provided funds for water projects in Panama. Our District has funded many water projects in Panama. This year, in addition to water projects, we're moving into equipping medical clinics. Medical professionals in my fairly right-wing club (we reflect our community) routinely donate of their time in the third world providing medical services - on their own dime, many via their (shudder) churches.

I do Meals on Wheels. I've participated in literacy programs. My club has spent thousands of dollars sending thousands of dollars of school supplies to Army units in Iraq to help re-start Iraqi schools. We give out thousands of dollars in scholarships every year. We participate in Group Study Exchanges by which Rotary International sponsors groups of non-Rotarians who travel to foreign climes to study and we host the foreign groups headed this way.

I sit on the local advisory board of a brand-name charity, helping them deliver services efficiently - and through them and the network of local charities I have a real sense of the level of need in my community.

I sit on the regional parent board of that charity - legally responsible for a 15 million dollar a year charitable effort in northeast Kansas. A charity that spends 91 cents of every dollar on services, not salary or perks.

The firm I work for (full of guys and gals like me in our local office) just raised tens of thousands of dollars for the American Heart Association, by being the people who put together the local Heart Walk, from soup to nuts, with yours truly out whacking signs in the dirt, marking the course.

In other words, I'm fairly well connected in the "acting" portion of our community.

And you know who I *don't* see? Aside from the kids in the local schools getting their community service credits? I don't see a whole bunch of lefties. That's not to say that I don't see liberals - though outside of Johnson County and Lawrence, liberals in Kanas are a pretty muted group - I don't see the kinds of people that I read on lefty blog sites.

I do see the kinds of people I read on right-wing blog sites.

I see people who *act*.

Not just bloviate.

Most of whom are so busy acting, they don't have time to blog. Me, I'm a blog-junkie, I pretty much gave up television in order to feed the monster.

Just sayin'

Like all these fine right-wing, mostly milbloggers who choose to *act* vice just beat their digital chests and fire up a bong.

Speaking of which - why don't you act - right now, and give to Project Valour-IT?

The Following Castle Argghhh! Fighting Fusileers for Freedom! Support Project Valour-IT!

Veterans ID Protection Act

Color me unimpressed.

Rep. John Salazar (D. Colo.) has introduced the Veterans Identity Protection Act of 2006. This bill will require the Veteran's Administration to provide one year of free credit monitoring and a free annual credit report for the next two years to veterans who are affected by the recent theft of personal data contained on a laptop a VA employee had no business taking home. The measure also seeks to authorize $1.25 billion (that's billion, folks) to implement the program for the first year.

The bill has 92 co-sponsors. 89 are Democrats, 2 are Republicans, and the House's lone Independent have signed on as cosponsors. (Click here if you want to explore the names and districts)

I don't know Representative Salazar well, so I'll take a leap of faith here and assume, based on his website, that he's friendly to veteran's issues. Those who follow these things more closely can comment if they wish.

Examining this bill, I'm baffled. It's either;

1. A cynical attempt to splashily jump on the issue, embarrass the Administration, and isn't a piece of serious legislation, other than to smack the Administration while riding on the backs of veterans. Which is too bad, if Representative Salazar is in fact the friend of vets he portrays himself to be? Co-sponsors, knowing this, can safely jump on it and will use it to give themselves vet-cred in the upcoming election cycle, risking nothing for a shameless prostitution of themselves and a cynical manipulation of their constituents. Or,

2. These people are too stupid/ignorant to be allowed near the levers of power.

Ike Skelton (among others in the sponsorship list) is defense-savvy, and not stupid. He was my Representative for my entire career before I retired and officially was out of his district. So, I have to assume that as a vet, I'm being rode hard, put up wet - and they think I'm ignorant, or stupid, or both. For some co-sponsors, we know it's both.

How else to explain that they want to spend 1.25 billion dollars to pay for a service any of the affected veterans can get... for free. Simply by making a few telephone calls. It took me all of 30 minutes to request the credit reports and put a credit watch on my social security number with the 3 credit reporting agencies. And it didn't cost me a dime.

Even if we assume (wrongly) that all 26.5 million potentially affected veterans are alive and therefore vulnerable, they want to spend roughly 50 dollars each for a service already provided for free.

Heh. I'll take that 1.25 billion if they really want to spend it. They could plow that into the medical accounts and upgrade those services, rather than pay to provide a service you can already get, for free.

As I said, color me unimpressed. There are plenty of serious reasons to spend that money - this just isn't one of them. Fund the VA to do the outreach to tell veterans to get their free credit reports and establish the credit watch - and then with the remaining 1.24 billion, take care of those Who Bore The Burden, not pay some middleman to do work that doesn't need doing.

Ya wanna credit report, and establish an extended credit watch?

Here, provided free, as a public service:

How do I request a "fraud alert" be placed on my file if I believe I may be affected by the recent Veterans Affairs data security breach? You have the right to ask that nationwide consumer credit reporting companies place "fraud alerts" in your file to let potential creditors and others know that you may be a victim of identity theft. A fraud alert can make it more difficult for someone to get credit in your name because it tells creditors to follow certain procedures to protect you. It also may delay your ability to obtain credit. You may place a fraud alert in your file by calling just one of the three nationwide consumer credit reporting companies. As soon as that agency processes your fraud alert, it will notify the other two, which then also must place fraud alerts in your file. Equifax: 1-877-576-5734; www.equifax.com Experian: 1-888-397-3742; www.experian.com/fraud TransUnion: 1-800-680-7289; www.transunion.com

An initial fraud alert stays in your file for at least 90 days. An extended alert stays in your file for seven years. To place either of these alerts, a consumer credit reporting company will require you to provide appropriate proof of your identity, which may include your Social Security number. If you ask for an extended alert, you will have to provide an identity theft report. An identity theft report includes a copy of a report you have filed with a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency. For more detailed information about the identity theft report, visit www.consumer.gov/idtheft.

What is a credit file disclosure?
A credit file disclosure provides you with all of the information in your credit file maintained by a consumer reporting company that could be provided by the consumer reporting company in a consumer report about you to a third party, such as a lender. A credit file disclosure also includes a record of everyone who has received a consumer report about you from the consumer reporting company within a certain period of time ("inquiries"). The credit file disclosure includes certain information that is not included in a consumer report about you to a third party, such as the inquiries of companies for pre-approved offers of credit or insurance and account reviews, and any medical account information which is suppressed for third party users of consumer reports. You are entitled to receive a disclosure copy of your credit file from a consumer reporting company under Federal law and the laws of various states.
How often can I request a free credit file disclosure through this website?
You are entitled to receive one free credit file disclosure every 12 months from each of the nationwide consumer credit reporting companies – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. This free credit file can be requested through this website, by phone or by mail.

Extracted from from the VA Data Security tab at AnnualCreditReport.com, the site established by TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax.

Dear Congressman Salazar - you can put my $50 towards VA Healthcare services.

Heh. Rome burns, the Congressional Nero fiddles...

Here's one way the services play politics when their Masters fiddle - like going home on break with no budget supplemental. Below are the actions the Army will take in order to stretch it's funds if Congress keeps dilly-dallying on the issue.

The interesting thing is - absent a train wreck as happened early in the first Clinton Administration when the Republicans forced a governmental shut-down, what the delay really does is make it harder to actually debate the budget, as the pressure to get the supplemental in place becomes overwhelming. Of course, depending on how they go about it - it's also then easier to lard it up with pork... because the time crunch makes it harder to knock that stuff out of there. Sausage-making, from slaughter to finished product...

VCSA Sends:

As you are already aware, the Congress did not complete the FY06 Emergency Supplemental prior to leaving for the Memorial Day recess. Although we anticipate that Congress will finish the bill in June, we need to take action now to control spending in the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) appropriation and stay within the law. In addition to an approved reprogramming action that will move $1.4 billion into OMA, we must progressively restrict spending over the next month. This will enable us to maintain the solvency of Army accounts pending receipt of the supplemental and will ensure that available resources are spent on the highest priority missions.

I expect all holders of OMA, to include GWOT funds, to reduce spending while ensuring that life, health and safety issues are covered. The priority is to continue critical support to ongoing operations and to readiness activities for units and personnel identified for the OIF/OEF 06-08 rotation. Exceptions may be made for those actions commands must take now to posture the Army for OIF/OEF 07-09. The following provides time-phased guidance for the minimum action that holders of OMA funds must take.

1. Beginning 26 May:

a. Do not order non-critical spare parts or supplies, unless the organization or unit is deployed or has a published deployment date. Only requisition spare parts to bring equipment to Fully Mission Capable (FMC), not to 10/20, level. For supplies, requisition only what is necessary to accomplish assigned theater missions. All units should draw down on-hand inventories first.

b. CG, Army Materiel Command, must advise of above actions' impacts to the Single Stock Fund and the Army Working Capital Fund. Deliver this assessment to me no later than 6 June.

c. Postpone or cancel all non-essential travel, training and conferences.

Use discretion if cancellation or postponement requires payment of cancellation fees.

d. Stop shipments of goods unless necessary to support deployed forces or units with identified deployment dates. If movement is necessary, restrict the shipment to the least costly method that will not create unacceptable operational risk.

2. Beginning 6 June:

a. Hold all civilian hiring actions. You may continue recruiting efforts but cease all final offers of employment.

b. Postpone summer hires until receipt of the supplemental.

3. Beginning 15 June:

a. Release all temporary civilian employees funded with OMA or performing OMA-funded work. This includes depot operations.

b. Freeze all contract awards and new task orders on existing contracts.

Process solicitation of new contracts only up to the point of award.

c. Suspend the use of government purchase cards.

4. Beginning 26 June:

a. Release service contract employees, to include recruiters, if doing so will not carry penalties or termination costs equal to or in excess of the cost of continuing the contract. You may retain a minimum number of personnel performing mission-essential services.

b. Consult your legal adviser as you implement these actions.

c. TRADOC, M&RA and G-1 must detail no later than this date the series of actions the Army will take beginning in July to trim MILPERS expenditures.

They should include: a cessation in recruiting; deferment of reenlistments; cancellation of all PCS moves; and a promotion freeze.

These are painful actions but they are absolutely necessary in order to continue operations during the month of June. This measured response will provide appropriate controls on our spending of OMA resources and will minimize the impact to our mission. Through your leadership, we will sustain the Global War on Terrorism during this period of constrained spending. We expect the Supplemental eventually will provide the Army more than $36 billion in additional resources to continue the GWOT. Please direct any questions you may have to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller).

I will review weekly our accounts and keep each MACOM commander apprised.

GEN Cody

Oh, full disclosure - yeah, *my* tasks will be at risk here, too. Fortunately, I work for a firm that won't just tell me to go home for no pay or burn vacation. The downside to the government is (all snarks aside about whether I'm a bargain or not - "I *am*" he said smugly) is that *if* it comes to that (I'm betting it doesn't) they may not get some of those people back, they having been put to new tasks - which will have downstream ripple and cost effects.

Immigration.

In which I continue my Zen of Immigration, despite the fact the historical subject sticks in a certain Southron's throat...

Sweet Mary, me darling, the war clouds are looming,
And traitors are plotting to fetter the land!
I go on the morrow, when cannon are booming,
To join in the battle with liberty's band.

Chorus: Fare thee well sweet Mary Mavourneen,
It grieves me to leave thee dear bride of my soul,
Fare thee well sweet Mary Mavourneen,
It grieves me to leave thee dear bride of my soul.

The land that has blessed us, with love and protection,
Is smitten with peril, beleaguered with foes;
The brave and true hearted, with loyal affection,
Must march where the banner of liberty's goes.

Chorus

With tear moistened eye-lids, I look through the gloaming,
And think of the pleasures that blessed us of old!
It's breaking my heart is, Sweet Mary Maloning,
With sorrow to leave ye, dear bride of my soul.
The Emerald Island away in the ocean,
With white breakers kissing its murmuring shore,
America's armor will one day be needing,
That British oppression may curse her no more.

Chorus

I go, but remember, Sweet Mary, me darling,
In camp or a marching, to you I am true!
And if you should listen in vain my returning,
I fall 'neath our banner--the Stars and the Blue.

Chorus

These lyrics, some history to go with them, mp3 samples, and the ability to buy the CD - all available here. I'm not making a dime or trade off of this, btw.

Immigration.

The Zen Continues. Because of the already long posts up today, I've stuck most of this below the fold.

Just laying out my thoughts on the subject... via old songs.

I'm Paddy Magee, sir, from Ballinahee, sir,
In an illigant ship I come over the say;
Father Donahoe sent me, my passage he lent me--
Sure, only for that, I'd a walked all the way!
He talked of America's freedom and glory;
"Begorra," says I, "that's the counthry for me!"
So, to ind a long story, I've now come before ye,
To give the opinions of Paddy Magee.

The rest is below the fold, in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

Whin Ireland was needing, and famine was feeding,
And thousands were dying for something to ate,
'Twas America's daughters that sent over the waters
The ships that were loaded with corn and whate:
And Irishmen sure will forever remember,
The vessels that carried the flag of the free;
And the land that befriended, they'll die to defend it,
And that's the opinions of Paddy Magee.

John Bull, ye ould divil, ye'd betther keep civil!
Remimber the story of 'Seventy-six,
Whin Washington glorious he slathered the tories;
Away from Columbia you then cut your sticks.
And if once again you're inclined to be meddling,
There's a city that's called New Orleans, d'ye see,
Where Hickory Jackson he drove off the Saxon--
Now that's the opinions of Paddy Magee.

I'm sure none are bowlder the musket to showlder,
Enlisting to learn the sojering trade--
With Corcoran fighting, in Meagher delighting,
They swell up the ranks of the Irish Brigade.
With Columbia defying the bould British Lion,
The sons of ould Ireland forever shall be;
I'll have no intervention, if that's their intention--
And that's the opinions of Paddy Magee.

Though now we're in trouble, it's only a bubble,
We'll soon make the foes of the Union retire;
Foreign knaves that would meddle had better skedaddle,
For them Uncle Sam has a taste of Greek fire!
They'll find if they try it, Columbia's a giant,
And victory perched on the flag of the free;
For the American nation can whale all creation--
And that's the opinions of Paddy Magee.

« Secure this line!

by John on May 18, 2006

The Dangers of Thinking

This one's for Dusty and Frank.

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here ?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confess, "I've been thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But, Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently. She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors. They didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye, "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.

I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's."

Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.

I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I made the final step. I registered to vote as a Democrat.

Oh, why not? It's how the Dems think of us, anyway...

Hugo Chavez... nimrod? Or Evil Genius?

Hey, I understand standing up to the Big Gringo, it keeps everybody happy. No worries.

But ya gotta wonder what the sub rosa goal is that prompts this lunacy...

The AP, via Breitbart, is offering up this lede: Venezuela Weighs Selling U.S. Jets to Iran...

So, Presidente Chavez, in response to the US ban on arms sales to his government (hey, gringo, we can bash you all we want, but you better still give us stuff at good prices!) is considering selling its fleet of F-16s to... perhaps Iran.

Snerk.

The AP reports that Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, told the AP he had recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country.

Okey-dokey. One *small teensy-weensy problem* with that. Under the rules that apply to Foreign Military Sales, you have to have *our* permission to sell them to someone else, or, give them back. And we get to approve who you sell them to.

General Muller thinks that Iran should be on the table as a buyer.

Presidente Chavez has already threatened to "share" the planes with Cuba if the USGOV doesn't fork over parts and upgrades, or at least allow the Israelis to provide 'em.

Hee.

Okay, they won't be flying to Teheran, they'd have to be shipped. Guess what? That would make for interesting blockade possibilities, to keep the containers from leaving.

They could *fly* to Cuba. I wonder if Cubans would fly them or Venezuelans? I wonder who among them would like to participate in a live-fire exercise with a Carrier Air Group?

What planet does Arlen Specter come from? Will someone please tell me?

The ONLY military organization authorized to participate in law enforcement is the National Fargin' Guard.

This guy is on the Judiciary Committee and he hasn't heard of Posse Comitatus?

As you know, I'm a simple attack pilot but 2 years in mufti with the DEA did teach me a few things about what the military can, and cannot, do vis-a-vis law enforcement inside US territory.

The Guard is legally positioned very well to assist law enforcement organizations in a number of ways. Under Title 32, they belong to the Governor. Period. Dot. Granted, they live and die budget-wise based on their Federal active duty brethren's' largesse, but they rightfully and jealously guard their independence under that Title for just the reason Bush pointed out tonight. Been there. Watched 'em do that. Got the cap (they weren't selling t-shirts, just baseball caps).

Is this move an effective one? Who the hell knows? It certainly can't hurt and the Border Patrol types will get access to some pretty cosmic surveillance capabilities, tactical airlift, communications interoperability and the like.

What I find morbidly fascinating is the conservative movement (Republican or whatever) gnawing off its leg to teach itself a lesson. All the hand-wringing I've seen in posts all over the blogsphere lately just make me want to give everyone a swift kick. Where I won't say.

How is throwing up one's hands in disgust over what is very normal politics (compromise, giving a little to get a little, etc. etc.) good for the America we all love and want to protect?

Michelle Malkin banging her shoe on the table; WFB doing his best to convince us all is for naught in Iraq; John Derbyshire essentially saying "Bugger the silly wogs."

Feh. Pathetic.

Somebody had better listen to John "Consider the Alternatives, You Idiots" Podhoretz before you find out what defeat really, really means. We should all hitch up our britches and stay in the fray, send money selectively to conservative candidates (not the RNC) and vote. I put my big, fat pink body in harm's way for that privilege for 26 years and I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit on my a$$ and let Murtha, Conyers, Schumer, Leahy and Hillary march in and trash what too goddamn many of my friends died for.

Come November, people had better be making tracks to the voting booth.

Instapilot

The Party of Death.

[If Roe vWade and issues like it bore you to tears - scroll down quickly!]

Update: I see that Ramesh noticed the review, and labels me a moderate pro-choicer (in a nice way, mind you). Hmmm. Looked at from his perspective, maybe. I think I'm a *barely-by-the-skin-of-my-teeth* pro-choicer - one of those who can live with 1st trimester and "rape and incest" exceptions. I'm very much anti-POD on the issues of selective abortion, "killing for medicine research" and unplugging inconvenient patients who don't have the grace to get out of the way. You won't find NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood on my charitable giving list. Catholic Charities and Catholic Community Services, by contrast, are. And I'm not Catholic. Just sayin'.

A non-expert, non-policy wonk late-to-the-issue guy reviews The Party of Death, a book by Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor of National Review magazine. This blogging thing has turned up a few perks. I get books for free to review. And I get to keep 'em! I've got to get a lot more before it covers the cost of hosting, however...

Bottom line up front: I liked it.

The MSM has provided plenty of the "pro" sides of the argument about Roe v. Wade, stem cells, and euthanasia. They haven't done a good job presenting the anti-side of Roe (nor has the anti-side always had a very usefully-crafted message). The record on stem cells and euthanasia is more mixed where the MSM is concerned. Many of the anti-side of the argument, especially on Roe, have been so strident as to be repugnant to me (I am, after all, in the great mushy middle). But as someone who has been involved in the taking of life, and the giving of orders to others to do so, I have more than an academic interest in the subject. Along comes The Party of Death.

Sure, it's a polemic. The title alone, leave aside the content, will drive rabid lefties and NOW-types into spittle-flecked, full-goose bozo mode. We're used to that, and the book isn't really aimed at them anyway. It's aimed at the... great mushy middle. The book is written clearly, it's concise and it's footnoted. It's easy to read, and conveys a lot of information and analysis quickly. Make no mistake, it's not "balanced" nor does Ponnuru pretend to be. Ramesh marshals his facts and argues his position. But it *does* provide a useful apothegmatic response to all the pro-death forces.

Part 1 of the book is titled "What Roe Wrought" and covers the rise of Roe, and how the basic underpinnings of the decision leaked out into other areas of life - by essentially establishing a concept of non-personhood for a specimen of homo sapiens, and argues how that has given traction to the elites who now seemingly want to judge the rest of us by our utility and expense, and if they don't like what they see, pull the plug. It includes a discussion of how the 'sanctity' of Roe has been used to develop the tools and procedures for silencing dissent, and how it has twisted the Democratic Party in ways that have contributed to it's decline – I would argue to the detriment of politics in general, not too mention the polarization of the electorate. We need a robust discussion. We need a marketplace-like driver in our politics. Absent that, we get what we have now, the Republicans of ’06, and while casting about wildly for a replacement all there is on offer is the Radical Wing of the Democratic Party. Locally it’s not so bleak.

Ponnuru doesn't spare the extreme right-wing, either, though it simply isn't a prime subject in the book. That is well-covered by the anti-forces, and Ponnuru doesn’t waste space trying to show us what a balanced and hip guy he is. (Though he is…) Unlike this writer, Ponnuru either has a good editor or can keep himself focused.

After establishing the baseline, Ramesh goes on to lay out how Roe and other factors have combined to bring us to Part II, the Bioethics of Death, with the opening chapter of The Doctor Will Kill You Know to the closing chapter of What's So Bad About Infanticide? with Stem cells in between to let you know where Ponnuru stands on the issues involved.

Part III is Life And The Parties, where Ramesh analyzes how the issues have affected the political debate and development of the parties in dealing with the electorate on this issue.

So, I liked the book. Why?

Not because I'm a rabid Pro-Lifer. I'm not. I'm in the mushy middle that can accept a compromise of what the press has told us Roe means - 1st trimester abortions on demand, increasingly more regulation as the pregnancy progresses. Oops. Except that *isn’t* what Roe really means, is it? More honestly, I like the book because it lays out the pro-life position and history of the last 30-odd years in a openly-biased fashion that isn't just incoherent rantings of rage - nor a dense, thick, dry tome suitable for a doorstop - without muddying the water trying to be “balanced.” Sometimes, you just need a clear statement of the position and argument of same, as happens in a debate - vice trying to pretend you are all things to all people.

I remember, back when Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, being mildly relieved. I was 16, in good shape, a brainy-jock, and girls were looking pretty good. The legalization of abortion had exactly the effect on me that has been attributed to it by various opponents.

It lifted a burden about certain aspects of my hopefully-about-to-explode sex life. While my sex life went on to develop in a satisfactory (and generally morally acceptable) fashion, I'm glad to say that no situation ever developed that would have caused me to be earnestly interested in the provisions (and unintended consequences) of Roe.

Then there is that whole 20-odd years in the Army thing, where my focus was that of the Watcher On The Walls. I was focused externally, with the Soviets and other things - I didn't have a huge interest in domestic politics etc, with the exception (d-uh) of 2nd Amendment issues and a general conservative bent.

Our son has not presented us with any surprises, and there is no daughter about whom to be concerned, and while there are the three nephews and two nieces, nothing has happened to make the imminent practical issues of Roe a suddenly burning issue.

I've had two grandparents do the slow dying bit (one was 103 when she finally passed) but none of the drama of the Terri Schiavo situation, much less the ongoing travesty that is the Andrea Clarke furore in Houston.

But I have grown more interested in The Party of Death as my parents age, and I move into that stage of life where the young ones are interested in sex and the elders are shuffling ever closer towards the end of their mortal coil - and as the one in the middle, certain realities are simply mine.

And, as my life and job responsibilities have changed, I've watched with greater and greater unease the ease with which people seem willing to kill, or at least let others die, for seeming ever more selfish reasons. And more and more, that 20-odd years of looking outward, loss of context, has loomed large, leaving the gap in my understanding that it did. The issues are not simple, nor, as the extremes at both ends of the issue believe, are they reducible to black and white stark, easy choices. There's plenty of gray in the margins. For me, the book helped limn things and understand how we found ourselves in this situation. Which will inform my voting, blogging, and politician-gigging.

Readers of this space span the gamut on these issues. We had a mini-meltdown over Terry Schiavo, but we hung together and agreed to disagree. I'll be happy to provide space for anyone who is a regular here who'd like to read the book and whack at it. Heck, I'll entertain input from you lurkers, too.

Just remember the rules. Attack the argument, not the arguer. And no spittle-flecked rants. Ya gotta have *full* posting privileges to do that.

Party of Death, by Ramesh Ponnuru. Copyright 2006, published by Regnery Publishing. 248 pages of text, with another 50 of footnotes and index. $27.95 cover price. Free if yer kewl.

Murder in NYC

Moving on to other news... how 'bout that NYT? They did some useful analysis, and must have *hated* writing the story to go with it. They analyzed 1,662 murders in New York City from 2003-2005. Summary chart available here. (if registration is required and you don't want to - go to www.bugmenot.com).

New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers By JO CRAVEN McGINTY Published: April 28, 2006 The oldest killer was 88; he murdered his wife. The youngest was 9; she stabbed her friend. The women were more than twice as likely as men to murder a current spouse or lover. But once the romance was over, only the men killed their exes. The deadliest day was on July 10, 2004, when eight people died in separate homicides.

Five people eliminated a boss; 10 others murdered co-workers. Males who killed favored firearms, while women and girls chose knives as often as guns. More homicides occurred in Brooklyn than in any other borough. More happened on Saturday. And roughly a third are unsolved.

At the end of each year, the New York Police Department reports the number of killings — there were 540 in 2005. Typically, much is made of how the number has fallen in recent years — to totals not seen since the early 1960's. But beyond summarizing the overarching trends, the police spend little time compiling the individual details.

It's really a very useful story - and the Times did a more thorough analysis of the statistics than the NYPD routinely does. Which I understand to a point - the NYPD wants to determine patterns and develop police responses.

The offender and victim were of the same race in more than three-quarters of the killings. And according to Mr. Farrell, they often had something else in common: More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.

I wonder how many New Yorkers take *this next* message away - given how the news is reported, both print and television (this particular story displaying one of the strengths of print journalism, btw, depth and persistence - you can just study it, not have to keep replaying a video...).

"If the average New Yorker is concerned about being murdered in a random crime, the odds of that happening are really remote," Mr. Farrell said. "If you are living apart from a life of crime, your risk is negligible."

I think the piece is really pretty well written, especially for coverage of this particular issue. There is a *screaming* "however," though....

The offender and victim were of the same race in more than three-quarters of the killings. [emphasis mine] And according to Mr. Farrell, they often had something else in common: More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.

That's the only place race is mentioned in the article. If the article is intended to inform, influence, and shape public policy, that would be okay - if race was a neutral data point. Here, however, it isn't. If you want some bang for your policy investment dollar, you need to target it, rather than develop one-size-fits-all templates. One reason drugs are more effective these days (*and* have more side effects it would seem) is because they are more refined, more targeted - in other words, people are different. Having three drugs available for a medical problem quite possibly accounts for differences between people, hence a drug works for you, but I get all the side effects - that other drug works for me. Same it true of one-size-fits-all public policy.

What am I ranting about?

Roger Clegg pegged it on National Review Online's The Corner:

While whites and Asians are underrepresented among murderers and murder victims in New York City, it does not appear to be the case that Latinos are overrepresented; in fact, their murderer/victim rate is the same as their percentage in the general population (about 27 or 28 percent). The overrepresentation is among African Americans, who are 25 percent of the population, but make up 60 and 61 percent of murder victims and killers, respectively.

The NYT skips that unpleasant little bit of analysis. But if you want to target your policy for effectiveness, in NYC at least, this tells you where to place your effort.

And it further highlights the seeming trend that inner-city black america is feeding on itself. Whether it's racism, poverty, the outgrowth of a flawed welfare policy, exacerbated by the effects of the Drug War providing a Prohibition-Style economic incentive, I don't know. It's *all* inter-related, I'm sure. But I strongly suggest that maybe, just maybe, Bill Cosby is right, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not. While there is much that society can do... the real impetus for change has to come from the sub-culture, aided and abetted in context by the larger culture it nestles in. It's a problem we all share - but ignoring the elephant in the living room isn't going to help it.

But we aren't allowed to say that, are we?

And we can't assume that what might work in NYC will work in San Antonio, Kansas City, Reno, or Los Angeles. Hence, the value of a "federalist" approach, coupled with in depth, honest analysis, vice either an "imposed from Washington" or "let's copy the NYC response" and make this generic template fit brute force approach that hasn't worked in the past...

You'd think the Left would embrace this. The brute force template approach assumes assimilation and acculturation, a concept anathema to them (well, except when it means conformance with their template). But, I'm guessing that's not how they want to work it - because it's just so much easier to use the Federal Government and the Courts to make the world look everywhere like you want it - especially if those hick locals don't want to have a Big Eastern City flavor to their midwestern town.

I have to admit - the big stick *is* appropriate at times. It took the Big Stick to knock apart the structure of Jim Crow. But the Big Stick isn't *always* the answer, and a more subtle and nuanced approach might well produce better results.

The whole story can be read here.

On the Fighting KeeBees.

Bad Cat Robot asks:

I dunno why you think you can't joint the Fighting Keebees, O Armorer -- Baldilocks and a bunch of other retired military have. And I hear we need grunts ;-)

I support what the Fighting KeeBees are doing.

But.

I can't bring myself to embrace the term Chickenhawk for myself... because I don't qualify. Others who wish to, are free to do so, and many have.

I understand the intent of embracing the term. However, it was initially applied to those who never served who yet supported or advocated the war, I'm not in that group.

I served. A long time. And I have been on the distaff side - a Blue Star Son, if you will. I answered the door to get The Telegram. I have been on both sides of the issue. Those who use the term as a derogative impute to the bearers that they are somehow unable to grasp the costs and realities and therefore are unfit to hold an opinion. Obviously, I think the Chickenhawk model inapt and seriously flawed, and the product of callow thought and shallower intellect at best, and venal manipulation at worst. I support the counterattack of embracing it.

However, I get two checks a month that bear witness to my service, the price of it, and which hold me subject to serve again when called. I have volunteered twice for recall - but as yet have no skill so needed as to pull the fat furry disabled guy back into uniform.

The simple fact is - I am *still* a soldier. I am *still* subject to the UCMJ.

Ergo, I'm not a chickenhawk, nor am I willing to support the expansion of the term chickenhawk to mean that only those who oppose (the) war *or* who are *currently* serving overseas can have an opinion.

I'm picky that way.

Just as I don't take communion in church. I haven't declared for any particular faith practice, and it's just my nature to skip that sacrament when offered in church, as I feel it is for those who *have* declared. I don't find my opinions on God or faith impaired by so doing.

I don't vote in Primaries, either, because I have yet to find a party I wish to formally declare for.

I'm stubborn like that, for good or ill.

I'm not a Chickenhawk. I'm not a Summer Soldier. I'm not a Winter Soldier (in the good, Valley Forge, non-Kerry manner).

I'm a Regular, By God! A soldier for all seasons. I'm one of a long line of soldiers of the ilk who so dismayed Major General Phineas Riall of His Britannic Majesty's Army at the Battle of Chippewa. My commission is for life. It does not expire, it ends only upon my resignation or at the President's pleasure. There is a reason a 70-year old 35 year veteran orthopedic surgeon was recalled and served in Afghanistan. I have no delusions that I am needed like that. But, as the recruiting song of the 80's says, "When we were needed, we were there." So too will I be, if I am needed.

You just can't make the term Chickenhawk stick on my armor. There's no place for it to hook into. I have an identification card that says I'm a soldier, still. But most importantly, I simply *am* a soldier, still. That's what I see, when I look at that bearded visage in the mirror in the morning. What I do to put food on the table and guns in the basement is also in support of soldiers. My spare time goes to charity. for those in the community, or, via Rotary, the world, who have not what I have.

I don't want to dilute the pool of those who embrace the title of Chickenhawk, because I am not one.

I am John of Argghhh!, Master of the Castle and Arsenal of Argghhh!, Field Artillery, United States Army, retired. It is enough title for me.

SWWBO has joined the KeeBees, though she, too, has a DD214. While our paths are generally parallel, they don't entirely overlay each other. More power to her, and those of you who choose to man the 'boards.

We are Allies. But I have seen the fields where the Iron Crosses grow.

I am not a Chickenhawk.

But I'll fight the good fight alongside you. I got your six, wingman. Just as I'll fight alongside a Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coastie. Or anyone willing to stand and deliver.

A case of the vapors...

Important battle rule for commanders: Always remember that the first intel reports are usually wrong.

That's what leapt to mind when I saw this Instapundit post.

Granted, I'm with a lot of conservatives on the frustration I feel with The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight, aka the GOP, but when you're up to your a$$ in political alligators, the correct strategy isn't to stick your head into one of the reptiles' mouths. Especially when the net result of staying home on election day or voting for Democrats will give us:

- An even more radical and totalitarian court system,
- Crushing tax burdens on business and individuals,
- A disastrous and capitualtory approach to foreign policy, e.g., what problems there are in the world are America's fault and we should take out lead from our UN and European betters, starting with a wholesale retreat from Iraq, letting Iran get the bomb (by relying on "negotiations" and the "watchdog" UN IAEA...run by a Muslim, no less), etc.
- Then there's immigration--the Dems want felons to be able to vote (at least some have raised the issue in public), why not illegals? Suffice it to say, for all their protestations about Bush's cavalier attitude on Mexicans, et al., in their heart of hearts, they see the 12 million+ new "constituents" as a good thing, so I doubt there'll be much of a change in policy...and what little there will be will probably not be in our national interest.

Shall I go on? Bottom line: Are we really ready to trust the Dems with the responsibility of keeping this country safe, it's aconomy strong and its people free?

In any case, I went on to read the comments associated with the above post. Fortunately, the vast majority are saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "OK, things are rough right now, but cutting the nose off to spite the face ain't exactly a prudent response."

Again, Glenn's "intel" has a little more to it than the impression left on Instapundit.

Personally, I like the Churchillian approach: Never, never, never give up.

Feingold Censure Resolution

From The Corner today:

THE FEINGOLD CENSURE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From Senator John Cornyn's office:

Results of the Feingold Censure Resolution (S.Res. 398): Day 2

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

I say we start adding to the list and invite our readers to do the
same, i.e.,

Terror suspects apprehended by Feingold Resolution: 0

Days usefully spent reducing the domestic terror threat by Feingold
Resolution: 0

Number of IEDs in Iraq neutralized by Feingold Resolution: 0

Number of good 5-cent cigars developed after Feingold Resolution: 0

etc...

Going to bed now...

Dusty

The Armorer adds: Profiles in Courage? Or just know that it's thin gruel? Dana Milbank on the Democrat Senators and the Feingold Question.

Bright shiny objects...

...that caught my attention.

One of the things I've been asking myself and others - how do the left and Progressives in general reconcile their seeming support of Islamic fundamentalists with their world-view? Especially how can feminists and gays do so?

Well, here's a gay man who left the US because of his experience of and dislike for, Christian intolerance regarding gays, and went to Europe, because they're beyond all that.

Only, they aren't. They are letting intolerance fester in a huge way.

Speaking of intolerance...

South Park's Chef is all about satirizing people... until his own ox gets gored. Ah, c'mon, Isaac, I thought better of you.

Hayes, who has played the ladies' man/school cook in the animated Comedy Central satire since 1997, said in a statement Monday that he feels a line has been crossed.

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem - and he's cashed plenty of checks - with our show making fun of Christians."

Your right to protest as you see fit, Isaac, but absent a lot more context and evidence of epiphany, I throw the Hypocritical Bullshite flag.

Read the rest here.

VA Nurse investigated for sedition...

Ry sends along a link to an article about a VA nurse in New Mexico being investigated for... sedition. Woo-woo! Heady stuff!

A Veterans Affairs nurse in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was investigated for sedition after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. In her first broadcast interview, we speak with Laura Berg, as well as an attorney with the New Mexico chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

To continue:

The response to Berg's letter was harsh. Her office computer was seized. And the government announced it was investigating her for sedition - that's right, sedition.

V.A. human resources chief Mel Hooker wrote in a letter to Berg, "the Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition."

Operative words... bound by law. Um, why?

Based solely on the info in the article, this is probably what triggered it: "act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit."

If you want the rest of my bloviation - it's in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

A reasonable person can ask themselves, based on no other context provided - did the nurse advocate the violent overthrow of the government? If so, that's sedition.

The interviewer, Amy Goodman, quotes from the VA HR document:

AMY GOODMAN: Let me read again from the memo of November 9 from the Chief of Human Resources Management Service. “In your letter to the editor of the weekly Alibi,” the memo says, “you declared yourself a V.A. nurse and publicly declared the government, which employs you, to have tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence and advocated ‘act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.’ The agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act, which potentially represents sedition. You are reminded that government equipment is just that, and the government may apprehend, investigate use or permit the use of such at its discretion and direction. Signed, Mel Hooker, Chief of Human Resources Management Service. “ Your response to this letter, saying -- to investigate you for sedition?

Her office computer was not "seized". It belongs to the government, and she's had all the usual disclaimers provided. The ACLU lawyer acknowledges that in the article, btw. The government can do what it damn well pleases with that machine. Obviously they were checking for evidence that she wrote the letter on her office machine. *That* is a violation (admittedly policed by exception) of the terms of use for the machine - and it's perfectly legit for any employer to act on that impulse.

If they were really gunning for Ms. Berg, they would have taken her home computer.

Are they being perhaps a little overly officious? Probably. But mid-level bureaucrats are like that everywhere, in government or without. Especially if the first they heard about it was from the FBI, vice reading the letter in the local fishwrap, they probably decided to completely safeside it.

If I were her bosses, her day would have been like this:

"Good morning. Interesting letter you wrote. Official Question: Was it your intent to advocate the violent overthrow of the US Government, your employer, or was just some political hyperbole? Take your time."

"No? Just some powerful words? Kewl. Now, did you use official US Government property to produce this letter? Like, didya type it and email it from the office? Again take yer time."

An affirmative answer to either of those questions results in disciplinary action, appropriate to the full circumstances in the case - anywhere from a 'slap on the wrist' to termination, to prosecution as appropriate.

Regardless, she's going to get admonished (as she was) about identifying herself as a VA nurse. She could have made the same points without that. I know, she did it for credibility, etc.

LAURA BERG: Yes, I am, Amy. And, you know, as I say, subsequent to these memos, I have had a personal discussion with Mary Dowling, and she has said --

AMY GOODMAN: And again, her position with the V.A.?

LARRY KRONEN [ACLU Lawyer - I think they mean Ms. Berg]: She is my director at the Albuquerque V.A. And she said, you know, you may express your opinion, but we prefer that you do not say you are a V.A. nurse. And so, I am saying I am a V.A. nurse. And some of my fire in writing this letter about Katrina in Iraq is from my experience as a V.A. nurse. I'm stepping -- I'm stepping, you know, off the edge here, and I do feel that there is some jeopardy to me and my position. [emphasis mine] But at this point it’s more important for me to say this. You know, and if I have to risk my job, the V.A. is going to lose an excellent commission, you know, that does not bring politics into the workplace, you know, and is a very caring person. And this country, you know, will lose many, many dedicated, caring people, you know, if this continues. And, I mean, we are going to lose a lot more than that. We are going to lose a whole lot.

However, there is also this at work, I think. If you are the kind of person who feels that because you are right in your thinking and beliefs, and any rulez which get crosswise with that do not apply to you (but they probably would to the co-worker who wrote a letter supporting the war on office time and equipment, but perhaps not in this person's case) you get both scared and annoyed to find that there is *any* limitation on your speech, so you run puling to the nearest office of the ACLU/Protest Group, who happily takes up your banner, because if you go down, they have a Martyr to the Cause, and if you are (somehow) vindicated, even better. Win-win for them, regardless of outcome.

Let's look at this one more time:

And she said, you know, you may express your opinion, but we prefer that you do not say you are a V.A. nurse.

And Ms Berg no Takes A Stand Against Injustice and Venality:

And so, I am saying I am a V.A. nurse. And some of my fire in writing this letter about Katrina in Iraq is from my experience as a V.A. nurse. I'm stepping -- I'm stepping, you know, off the edge here, and I do feel that there is some jeopardy to me and my position.

And if she gets fired, she'll probably not understand why.

She certainly doesn't understand the First Amendment.

LAURA BERG: Well, people, you know -- I mean, we believe we have, you know, First Amendment right to free speech. But we have been -- you know, to have harassment or intimidation –

She does have a right to free speech. The VA administrator, Ms. Dowling, agreed with that. And pretty much said "We just don't want you identifying yourself as a VA employee when you do this." A perfectly reasonable position.

Ms. Berg's letter would have gathered attention because of her unfortunate choice of words. Imagine how the Left would spin those words coming from a rightwinger? The FBI is charged with investigating things like that. Remember SWWBO and her visit from the FBI? And would (and probably has) quickly come to the conclusion, "puff of smoke, no fire" and let it go at that. Pretty much like in SWWBO's case. If Ms. Berg hadn't id'd herself as a VA nurse, the VA might not have gotten involved at all. But, she did.

The First Amendment only guarantees the right to speak freely. It doesn't protect you from other, legitimate consequences of that speech. Like, losing your job.

There's a reason I don't blog about my employer or my client. I have the right to do so, within the constraints of the national security aspects of my work, but if I were to come out and speak about my firm as Ms. Berg did about her employer - my employer would be within their rights to fire me.

That isn't a constraint on free speech as envisioned by the Framers.

Can there be other, darker forces of intimidation at work? Sure, government employees don't have a lock on brains and good judgement (which baffles me why government employees are the court of first choice for the Left... unless they are working for a right-wing political master, then apparently the get stoopid overnight, but I digress). But I don't see any problem here thus far. I see someone who didn't think through the consequences of her actions. Welcome to the Big Leagues, kiddo.

Do I know how she feels? In a way. This blog, along with a couple of others, is specifically mentioned in the US Army Infowar training about blogs for commanders. It was eerie seeing this space through their eyes. There were some things early on I did here they weren't happy with. In retrospect, with justification. Did they have a right to look into it? You betcha. And I have changed what makes this space - not because of the brief, I did it before I saw that - but because the whole paradigm was changing, and properly so. Have I been contacted officially about it? Nope. Nor do I expect to be. But I do know that what I put up here publicly has consequences. Which is why sometimes I comment on comments - to help myself, and you guys, avoid consequences you weren't thinking about when you treat the comment space as if it were a simple face-to-face conversation.

Read the referenced article here.

« Secure this line!

by John on Mar 08, 2006

Editorial Decisions.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants. -Flemming Rose

Re-read that: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

It's also the lesson of 1939.

Let's examine two looks at editorial responsibility, an issue of interest around here what with L'Affaire Schlussel, etc.

Flemming Rose - the editor who chose to publish the cartoons that have caused people to kill people and to threaten to do so some more killing - hell, *demand* some killing, on why he did it.

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

That's what it comes down to, isn't it. Speech, free or sensitive to the person with the most exposed nerve.

The best defense against speech you abhor is... more speech. It can get ridiculous, but that was the essence of the Swift Boat Veterans fight with John Kerry, wasn't it? Speech, counter-speech, counter-counter speech, both sides getting bruised and battered, yes. Decorum often falls to the wayside, especially for deeply-held beliefs. But did anyone in that fight seriously (aside from the stray Moonbat-with-a-grudge-hearing-voices-scenario) *truly* fear for the lives? No. Their livelihoods, certainly, but not their lives. And we all got more information about an era most of us really were ignorant of. And what wasn't said (or released) was as important as what was said and released. And people made decisions about that, which ultimately helped decide who subsequently sat in the White House for four years. But while a flag or two may have gone up in flames, I don't recall any buildings doing so. Or people dying. Or bounties being named.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Rose notes this:

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.

Hmmm. Wonder why *that* is? Those rampaging Christians? Um, no. Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh, maybe...?

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.

It comes down to this:

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. [emphasis mine]

Exactly. Exactly. As CDR Salamander observes - a point the Norwegians missed entirely.

And given the fact that people who otherwise send money to the ACLU seem to think that Muslims should get some special consideration, while evangelical Christians should be suppressed and driven from the public square would do well to look deep into their souls at the inherent contradiction of that stance.

Rose continues,

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Re-read that: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

It is also the lesson of 1939.

And a message that will not be preached from the pulpit of the Cathedral in Riyadh any time soon, either.

Heh. I'm not a racist? But I thought I hadda be...

...cause I'm a right-winger.

Heh. Remember the study that suggests we conservatives are racist bassids?

Go read this, at The Right Coast. I'll wait.

Back? Cool. Now go take the IAT that Gail suggests. My result is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

Dammit! I'm skewing the curve!

This just in! SWWBO got the same result (and she's a lot harder-core Right Winger than I am).

You have completed the Black-White IAT. The line immediately below summarizes the results of your task performance. Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

If your feedback was 'The result could not be determined', click here.

Your result, reported above, is already corrected for the order in which you took the parts of the IAT. If you have a question about the effect of order, please read the answer to FAQ 1 on the page of FAQs for this test.

The interpretation shown above is described as 'automatic preference for Black' if you responded faster when Black faces and Good words were classified with the same key as opposed to White faces and Good words. It is marked 'automatic preference for White' if you were faster when giving the same response to White faces and Good words. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'.

If you have unanswered questions about the task, please review the frequently asked questions about this type of research. Any followup questions can be directed to the researchers by email at that page.

Bad conservative! Get back on the plantation, boy!

« Secure this line!

by John on Feb 01, 2006

Eeewwww. Politics.

But since Bill and I (with a belated "Me, too!" from Dusty) were original Signers (though I don't know why NZ invited us, really) of the Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers... I'm going to make my totally pointless endorsement in the Republican House Leadership Race. I'm late at this because I'm not truly a pundit, I don't have an Insta-opinion. Not a slam, Reynold's life and work are vastly different from mine - he's more informed simply by what he does for a living - I currently study the Future Army for a living, which means this is extramural for me. However, in that regard, perhaps I'm more representative of the bulk of the right-leaning voting population, too - because they all have lives that make this extramural to them, too. But as I've demonstrated many times before - I have a tin ear for politics.

I'm speaking for me. I'll let Bill and Dusty speak for themselves.

I say they should go with Shadegg.

Blunt and Boehner are More Of The Same, and I'm just not that impressed with The Same, whatever their other qualifications. Sometimes, you *do* need to change for change's sake.

It's time for Something New in the Republican leadership, and I have so informed my Representative (that would be Jim Ryun, who listens politely, anyway, though I get better, more substantive answers from the staffs of Senators Brownback and Roberts). I'm something of a gadfly about guns, national defense and veteran's issues, though I have no delusions of my influence, given I don't give scads of money to any of those guys, because they don't need it around here.

I'm a fan of term limits, if only for the simple reason that one of the things that gets the political class in trouble is being so entrenched in their positions that they both lose touch with the reality of their districts, and, concomitantly, get sucked into the bubble of Inside the Beltway, which is fantasy world in many respects. I know - I've moved in those circles before, tangentially.

My sister and I had a discussion of that at Christmas - she's the family liberal, but she was receptive to the idea of term limits for a long time. Until Missouri elected Governor Blunt, who has done some (to her eyes) Dumb Newbie Tricks, especially regarding education, which gores a family ox for her. From that she deduces that Experience is Best.

I say Faugh! Change is good. Frankly, I see term limits a little bit like the NFL Draft. The draft keeps the Center of Gravity moving around the league, which, to my jaundiced eye, keeps football more interesting, as dynasties rise and fall. Contrast to Baseball, where their model tends to suck all the money to a few of the big players, which for me reduces the interest of the league to a few Big Teams and the Rest. No, it's not a perfect analogy...

But the concept I see is similar. New people, new ideas. Move the center of gravity around. Nothing against West Virginia, but is there anything left there that doesn't have Byrd's name on it? That's just one example. Move the center of gravity around the country, too. The Massachusetts Senate Contingent hasn't had a genuinely new idea in a long time. And the same is true, regardless of party, all around the country.

So, here's to the Republicans showing some leadership, rather than damage control. You've been in power long enough that you have the Power Disease; though you wield power badly. The Democrats are far better at that than you guys have ever been - which is actually a compliment, but I don't have time to go into that here.

The point is - you have the baggage, with no concomitant useful productivity.

So, try something new. Give a relative Outsider a chance. And gird yourselves to Make A Change.

Because I might just have to start voting in Primaries again, to try to send you guys packing, otherwise. I know I can't do much with the Democrats, so I'll pick on you.

Besides, with the Alito cloture vote, the Left's Moonbats are going to be picking on their guys, so I'll try to shape what passes for the Right.

**********************************

*tossing two cents on the workbench*

For what my opinion's worth--and I harbor no illusions in that area--I believe that John Shadegg most-clearly sees the need for reform. And he has the convictions and the passion to back them up:

“…I have a lifelong record of having fought for restricting government. I think many of you know that when I got here, I introduced almost as the very first bill I ever dropped, the Enumerated Powers Act. That was a bill that said that members of Congress...would have to identify in every bill they introduced, the provisions of the Constitution that authorized the Congress to legislate in that area…Congress is writing laws in all kinds of areas where it has no authority whatsoever. People have forgotten, members of Congress have forgotten, that the Constitution makes this a Congress with specific, limited, enumerated powers. And we have completely ignored that, aided and abetted by the United States Supreme Court. At a minimum, we need to get back to only doing those things that the Constitution allows us to do.”

The entire transcript of his conference call with the Big Bloggers is here. It's a fast read with a lot of substance.

Unfortunately, my rep is Rush Holt (D-NJ--12th District), who replies (seldom) to my missives with campaign literature from last year's election and an envelope for the sizeable check he hints I should send for his next campaign...

Just Curious

...but has anyone weighed in with their Congressman on who to vote for for the House leadeship post? I did.

Canadian Politics, US Blogosphere Credit for...

...not.

In my reading and email, the Canadian Blogosphere doesn't quite see Captain Ed as the Savior of All That Is Right And Good, as exemplified in this post by Austin Bay (I *do* share Bay's opinion of the 4th CMBG, however). Damian at Babbling Brooks covers that pretty well, I think.

Not that they don't appreciate Captain's Quarters efforts regarding Gomery. But they would suggest (with some, shall we say, *insider* perspective) that while Gomery was certainly a part of the environment that caused the election - the election was, in fact, more a result of bad political tactics in a parliamentary system rather than the prime result of the Gomery investigation. This in no way denigrates Captain Ed's showing we Americans (and Canadians) some of the quirks of the Canadian political and judicial systems.... Yet what seemed obvious to luminaries such as Reynolds in November must be viewed in the light of subsequent events.

Regardless, we American bloggers should, perhaps, not take *quite* so much credit for what is a vastly more complex drama than simply the corruption scandal (which goes to the heart of what I talked about regarding our problems here down south - too long in power, you're bound to have this problem, regardless of left or right. It's a genetic disease of political power).

But even I, sworn to the Annexation of Western Canada (snerk!) was a bit uncomfortable with all the praise heaped on Captain Ed, Caped Crusader for Canadian Justice. (That's not Captain Ed's schtick, that's me talkin').

It's a bit like me taking credit for bringing down the candidacy of the Prince of Darkness, General Clark... when, in fact, the Prince was his own worse enemy. I was just a tiny sliver of a mirror. Captain Ed is a much larger piece than I, to be sure - but he's not the single-handed Architect of Doom, as Damian Brooks (not to be confused with Damian Penny) points out in his piece linked above.

Just sayin', y'know? All y'all are going to ruin my plans for Annexation if you keep riling 'em up like this.

Stop it.

Perhaps some of the Castle's Canadian Readers (and they are legion!) will weigh in here. Denizen Alan is already rejoicing in Divided Government... a personal fave of mine.

That said...

The Conservatives win - with a minority. But they win, which is a change. They now have a chance to show they can do something. Such as come up with innovative ideas to help the Maritimes that don't just involve wealth transfers from healthier provinces to the weaker ones - unless it is (apt for the Maritimes) to help them to fish, rather than just giving them fish. Too often the Left is about taking my fish and giving it to the other guy, vice giving the other guy the tools and skills to fish - or some other useful skill so I'll happily *give* him a fish in exchange for something I need. Keep that in mind up there you guys. You can grow your party if you've got the skillz. But good luck with that whole Quebec thing.

Update: Quotulatiousness has a nice Canadian Blog Roundup.

Silly Government Tricks

If you live in Kansas, did you know that your state apparatchiks have decided that, despite the fact that others states allow it, and that they actually meet safety and roadability regs in place when built - you can't register something like a White Scout Car or Ferret in the state? I suppose on the plus side, it also mean they can't property tax you, either.

These things are registerable in other states. I have seen several (and ridden in one and followed it through downtown Atlanta traffic - see pic linked above) that are registered (and legal) in Georgia. This all arose from the efforts of a local KC man to register his Ferret (we're not talking tanks, here, people - there are SUVs bigger than a Ferret). This was seen tootling down a road in the PacNorthwest and the cop saw it as a photo opportunity, not a reason to call for air cover.

Those of us who collect aren't taking this lying down, as some unelected state officials make rulings based on ignorance, and yes, unreasoning angst. Rather than take up a lot of space with this, I'll put the rest in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »

This is the *newly-minted* state policy it starts and ends with commentary from the Kansan trying to register his vehicle):

The State of Kansas has provided me with a "official" copy of a policy declaring a Ferret, and everything else armored, unfit for licensing in Kansas. First the letter from Mr. Moser:

Dear Mr. Wallace,

Enclosed you will find a copy of the Director of Vehicles Declaration regarding the registration of privately owned armored military combat vehicles you requested. In view of the lawful declaration issued by the director, the Division of Vehicles considers this matter closed and no further correspondence will be
responded to. Thank you for you interest and attention.

Sincerely, Mathew H. Moser, Manager, Titles and Registrations Bureau, Division of Vehicles

Now we have the policy. The emphasis is mine!

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DIVIS ION OF VEHICLES

POLICY DECLARATION 06-01

PRIVATELY OWNED SURPLUS ARMORED MILITARY COMBAT VEHICLES

Whereas armored military combat vehicles are not manufactured or intended for general transportation purposes or use by the public on public reads and includes: tanks, half-tracks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery and armored anti-tank or scout vehicles.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are not manufactured with proper safety equipment and pose a traffic hazard if operated on public roads.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are dedicated weapons of war with no private adaptable civilian purpose.

Whereas privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles are a cause of concern for law enforcement and homeland security.

Whereas the Division of Vehicles is to exercise administrative functions and authority for the development of vehicle registration policy.

NOW THEREFORE pursuant to K.S.A. 8-127(a), and the authority vested in me as the Director of Vehicles, I declare it shall be the policy of the Division of Vehicles not to permit privately owned surplus armored military combat vehicles application for registration. Any operation of privately owned surplus military combat vehicles on public roads shall be in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 8-2002(a)(3) and under the regulation of local authorities permitting or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.

I hereby direct the Titles and Registrations Bureau to make available copies of this policy to all county and state motor vehicle offices and personnel charged with the administration of motor vehicle registrations. This policy declaration shall be filed at the Titles and Registrations Bureau and is effective November 18, 2005.

Signed: Carmen Aldrett, Director of Motor Vehicles

Now some observations. First, Mr. Moser is getting tired of the pressure, and won't respond any more. Little does he know that others will be in contact.

Second, look carefully at the policy. It is Policy #06-01. Perhaps the Division of Motor Vehicles thinks that we are all dummies, and that they can pull one over on us. I am willing to bet 00DC81 that this policy was entered into official Kansas records NO EARLIER than the date that my letter requesting the written policy arrived. That would be around the first few days of January. Their policy numbers relate to 1) the year of issuance, and 2) the sequential number of
the policy. I am positive that this policy was not created back on November 18th as stated in both the policy and the hand written same date on the policy by the Director. THERE WAS NO POLICY IN 2005.

THIS WAS THE FIRST POLICY CREATED IN 2006, #06-1

The language of the policy is also very disturbing. Note that "homeland security" is mentioned. Well, read it for yourself. This is a very, very dangerous policy if allowed to stand. There was no mention of the name of their legal advisor that I asked for. I guess we will have to find that out ourselves.

I will also post this to other military lists. Copies have been sent to Mr. McManus (Consumer Affairs Advocate) at Hagerty Insurance and the MVPA Board of Directors.

So now begins the fight!

Next step:

Ok folks heres the latest: My Day in the Trenches

This AM I rec'd a phone call from C Varner Pres MVPA. I related to him what is spelled out in earlier posts. He agreed that handling this first through cordial calls to state elected officials might produce a favorable result and encouraged me to bring Kay at MVPA HQ up to speed by relating all details to her. This was done so she could give accurate information to those members calling in.
This afternoon my state rep John Edmonds and the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Gary Hayzlett met with a Matthew Moser whos name is connected with the policy against historic combat vehicles. Mr Edmonds related the conversation as not very informative and that several "reasons" for the policy were given but all were rebutted by Hayzlett/Edmonds. Plans for a meeting tomorrow or Monday involving several key members of House Transportation, KDOT Kansas Dept of Trans officials, Dept of Motor Vehicles officials, as well as Highway Patrol officers are being firmed up yet tonight.
Rep Edmonds has asked that I call upon any Kansas citizens MVPA members etc. to this evening contact their state elected rep and senators and tell them that Edmonds and Hayzlett need their support on this issue and to contact their offices first thing tomorrow AM 20 Jan'y 06. This is no time to check your shoelaces we need to bring some feet to the fire ASAP. If you are reading this and are from Kansas please make a respectful phone call to your elected officials tonight, or tomorrow morning call the state capital and ask for their office. Keep the call brief and simply state that a motor vehicle policy is running amuck and you think vintage combat vehicles have every right to be driven responsibly on our roads.

Tell your officials to get their details from Edmonds/ Hayzlett's offices don't add details which might confuse the issue. You will all have my THANKS ahead of time. Kevin Lockwood

The referenced meetings have already passed - but you can still contact your local politicos, as the MVPA and others intend to solve this through the legislature.

As I noted earlier, things like White Scout Cars, Daimler Dingos, Daimler Ferrets, Humber Pigs, etc - are smaller-than-SUV to Brinks Armored Truck sized. It's one thing to require them to have headlights, taillights, brake lights, etc, and sufficient mirrors or windows for rear views. But that isn't really the reason they are being banned (most of these vehicles were designed to operate on regular roadways, in traffic). This is more about "I don't think you should have these things, they scare me, and what's more, I won't take a risk of allowing it over my signature because someone somewhere might misuse it, and I would get the blame. So make me - that way I'm covered" than it is good policy.

Comes the Collecting Community - to see if we can't make them work up some good policy.

As for "not adaptable to civil use" they haven't seen the half-tracks and yes, tanks, that farmers bought and converted to farm implements - heck, the Russians *market* their surplus T-55s as tractors (less guns, less turrets if you don't want 'em).

« Secure this line!

by John on Jan 23, 2006

I guess I should say something about Murtha...

...judging from the email I've been getting, largely sparked by James Webb's NYT OpEd piece, Purple Heartbreakers.

I haven't scoured the archives, but I don't think I've attacked Murtha's Vietnam record. There have been harsh words expressed in this space by others (mostly former Marines or deeply involved with them) about Mr. Murtha's "Marineness" in his current incarnation - which is not quite the same thing as questioning his service in Vietnam. As I said, I'm not going to scour the archives, y'all can do that.

I have attacked Mr. Murtha's policy and pronouncements, and I find his comments regarding "any appearance of a victory" unsettling, though, in context I believe he meant that he since he feels we lost already, he wants us to treat it as a loss, and leave as losers, tails between our legs, dejected and demoralized, so that one, we learn our lesson, and two, the Democrats get the political leverage. He doesn't want us declaring victory and going home - he wants us to wallow in defeat. And if you don't believe my part two is in there - you're fooling yourself.

I don't believe we have lost (we certainly can, however), therefore I think his position leads to bad policy (and losing).

Ah, you say - but you *did* attack Kerry's service. Yes, I did.

While not a Vietnam vet my father is. By his understanding of at least two of Kerry's wounds, Dad would have come back from Vietnam with 8 Purple Hearts (as it was, he came back with 5, all requiring stitches or better, to include a through-and-through of the lower leg.) For then-Lieutenant Kerry to use a policy intended for draftee enlisted (3 Purple Hearts, go home) to clear himself from a combat zone he *volunteered* to go to, while leaving his enlisted crew to finish out their tours facing dangers he no longer wished to face, is simply unacceptable conduct for an officer. Mr. Kerry volunteered multiple times (his enlistment, acceptance of officer training, acceptance of the commission, asking for the combat tour) and for him to leave early is, to this officer, unacceptable conduct.

By my lights, Kerry was a dilettante poseur. He wanted his "Kennedy" credential, and found that the price for it was higher than he was willing to pay - so he ran from it, and when he discovered that he could get laid being a protester, he went for it. No, I don't have much respect for either Senator from Massachusetts.

For those who accosted me with "But, John, was it not *more* honorable for him to leave to go home to protest a war he knew from personal experience to be immoral and unwinnable, than to stay and fight it?" my response is thus:

No.

That is *exactly* why I call him dilettante poseur. He says he went because he was troubled by the war, and wanted to go to see for himself. If this was his all along intent, then staying the whole tour, or resigning, taking his lumps, and fighting his fight would have been the honorable thing to do. He chose to leave early when he found the way to do so, then go chill on an Admirals staff for a while. I dislike David Hackworth, but he at least did something along those lines when he threw it all away and went to Australia - and in his later life, he made it clear he was *still* all about soldiers. Mr. Kerry is all about soldiers when it suits him to be. Which is true of much of the political class, on both sides of the aisle.

Back to the point - the difference between Mssrs Kerry and Murtha is that Kerry waved his credentials at everybody, used them to hammer on President Bush, and made his credentials the issue. Representative Murtha has not. And his detractors should not, in truth. The letter from Marine Corps Headquarters affirming his awards wasn't needed - I know how chintzy the Marines are that way. I saw how difficult it was for a Marine battalion commander to get a 'V' device for a Bronze Star when he was leading a counter-attack against tanks attacking a towed artillery battery.

Former Navy Secretary Webb makes some valid points and slips in some duds - but his central thrust is, in my view, correct. Accept service for what it appears to be. Unless the individual in question makes it the issue, as Mr. Kerry did.

On the flip side - a politician's supporters shouldn't throw it around as a shield against criticism of policy stances, either. It isn't.

Politicians harried by blogger attack pack.

As signatories to the Blogger Manifesto regarding the Abramoff fall-out in the Congress, we've been privy to the behind-the-scenes work that group of bloggers has done to observe, report, and yes, influence, the Republican Intramural elections for the leadership positions in the House. It has been instructive seeing some big bloggers at work and how they interact. We have enough collective power these days that all three major players in the drama, Blunt, Boehner, and Shadegg, agreed to conference calls with us. While *I*, who work at a government site wasn't about to dial-in on a government phone from my government workplace on my non-government employers time - that's okay - the smart, informed and involved *were* able to do so - and NZ Bear has a round-up of their posts, and links to the audio of the conference. I realize from all of this just how minor-league I am and will stay a boutique milblogger! This is stuff the MSM won't - almost can't, provide. No wonder they worry about us.

The Center-Right of the Blogosphere publishes an appeal...

And Bill and I signed up. Dusty is so wrapped up in taking over an airplane as the Captain, he hasn't gotten back with me yet.

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

We stand with these others:

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd, Polipundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface

Scaliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiito...

The Alito hearings are just becoming more and more surreal. After listening to the Tedster grill the nominee over whether he recalls random sentence fragments from twenty year old articles, (explanation here) I can hardly wait for Sunday's WaPo when Senator Kennedy (or more accurately, one of his junior staffers) will undoubtedly put out a translated version of the hearings so we can finally learn what the nominee really meant:

Never apologize for your past, my friend. Never apologize. It’s a sign of weakness. Which I despise.

Yeah, I was a member of Concerned Alumni for Princeton. Who wasn’t, in those days? Everywhere you look… blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. Those people don’t know their place anymore. You know what I would do if you put me on SCOTUS? I would find their LEADER. The guy they respect and fear the MOST. And I would go up to that guy, and I would shake his hand and say I was glad to meet him, and with the other hand, I would put my piece in his mouth and ba-BOOM, I would earn myself a little respect.

You think I haven’t eliminated a few minorities and women in my time? Of course I have. Mainly law clerks.. you know, that sort of thing. You have to prune the ranks once in a while. To set an example. What happens if you don’t? They run roughshod over you. They give you no respect. So although I abhor violence, about once a month I grab one in the hallways, and I turn him around to face his buddies, and I take out my gavel, and ....well, you can guess the rest.

None of this is personal. It does not bring me joy. I just want to be able to relax with the Constitution and a cup of coffee and a cigarette and not have the neighborhood crumb-snatchers trampling my hydrangeas.

The simple pleasures. Aren’t those the things that really make life worth living? Of course they are. Of course they are, my friend....

Gentlemen, if you make me your next SC Justice, one thing I promise you: these lowlifes will never trouble you up on the Hill. On that...you have Scalito’s word.

I'm looking forward to Joe ("Talk to me like I'm your father") Biden grilling Alito about the NSA, individual privacy rights, and the "domestic spying" program. I can hear it already:

26 minutes into Biden's allotted time, and he still has not asked Alito a single question, nor allowed him to get a word in edgewise....

BIDEN: The world really went downhill, since 9/11. You know, Quasimodo predicted all of this.

SCALITO: Who did what?

BIDEN: You know, the middle east. The end of the world.

SCALITO: Nostradamus. Quasimodo's the hunchback of Notre Dame.

BIDEN: Oh, right. Notredamus.

SCALITO: Nostradamus and Notre Dame, that's two things different completely.

BIDEN: It's interesting that they'd be so similar, though. You know, I always thought "Ok, you got the hunchback of Notre Dame. But you also got your quarterback and your halfback of Notre Dame".

SCALITO: Notre Dame's a f***ing cathedral!

BIDEN: Obviously, I know. I'm just saying. It's interesting, the coincidences. What, you're gonna tell me you never pondered that?

SCALITO: [surreptitiously looking at watch] No. I never did...

Mrs. Alito looks at her watch, bursts into tears....

In other news...

An activity the MSM doesn't seem to care about continues - in addition to all other duties in the GWOT.

Local Pakistanis receive medical treatment at the U.S. 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, on January 5, 2005. The United States military is participating in Operation Lifeline, the Pakistani-led relief operation designed to aid victims of the devastating earthquake that struck the region October 8, 2005. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Barry Loo).

Emphasis in the caption is mine.

The Kansas City area is participating - our Army Reserve Chinook unit, Company B, 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment in Olathe, is deployed in support of Earthquake relief. The were diverted from their skedded deployment to Afghanistan over the mountains to Pakistan. Yes, Virginia, we're diverting assets from the war to help these people survive the winter. The MSM isn't covering *us* doing this - so I'm sure they aren't covering anyone else, either. Does anyone know what other nations are still involved trying to help the Pakistanis deal with winter?

A CH-47 Chinook helicopter of the Army Reserve's Company B, 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, makes uses of a tight landing zone during a relief flight to a remote Pakistan village.

Murtha's "Semper Fidelis" Moment

It is often said there's no such thing as a "former Marine".

On that point, Jack Murtha seems bound and determined to challenge the conventional wisdom. An enormous controversy was launched recently after he proposed we renege on promises made to Iraq, Afghanistan, and our coalition allies to stay the course. Rep. Murtha wanted the United States to strategically "redeploy" its fighting men and women to a safer location, leaving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan defenseless against brutal terrorists who could, after all, simply take part in the democratic process if all they wanted was a voice in the emerging government. I have a question for Rep. Murtha: what, exactly, makes him think a ruthlessly unprincipled enemy will suddenly stop the killing when the only protectors of the emerging democracy are whisked across the border to safety?

Rep. Murtha's "plan" was enshrined in the unassailable sanctity of a combat veteran's admirable service to this nation. No one, we were told, could question his motives, or his patriotism. Not even, it appeared, another Marine: one who had the temerity to speak publicly what any Marine with any sense at all was thinking privately: that his "plan" flew in the face of 200 years of proud Marine Corps history. Attend any ceremony where Marines gather and you'll see something special: the Marine Battle Colors. During the color ceremony, you'll watch the Marine flag lowered proudly, as it should be, in deference to the stars and stripes: Old Glory. But if you're lucky, you may also get to see another brave sight flying in the stiff breeze. The Marine battle streamers. One for each engagement the Marines have fought in over their long and glorious history. And on the unofficial Marine emblem appear these words: "These Colors Don't Run".

Marines take those words seriously. Dead seriously. Because a lot of men - good men - have died to earn the reputation the United States Marine Corps enjoys throughout the world. They are respected, and feared, wherever they go. They command the field.

They do not leave it in the hands of the enemy, despite what Representative Murtha would like to see us do. And despite the waggling fingers of Democrats like Harold Ford, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Colonel Danny Bubp taking a fellow Marine down a peg on the House floor that day. Marines police their own ranks. They have always done so. One Marine is never afraid to take another to task when he thinks honor is at stake. And they all have a stake in the future of their Corps. And their country.

General Peter Pace, USMC, did so again the other day when Rep. Murtha stepped out of line and damaged our recruiting efforts, and rightly so. I commend him for having the courage to speak out. It must have been difficult for him. Military men do not like to involve themselves in matters political. General Pace should not have been placed in that position:

"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."

Representative Murtha might do well, if he can find a quiet moment when he is not listening to the sound of his own voice, to consider the motto of the Marine Corps:

Semper Fidelis

It is a short one, for Marines are men of few words, preferring deeds to flowery expressions of feelings. It means "Always faithful". A Marine considers it his highest duty to be faithful: to his country, to his Corps, to what is right. Rep. Murtha might ask himself, to what has he demonstrated faithfulness?

His nation has made commitments to its coalition allies and to two nations which are now dependent on us: Iraq, Afghanistan. Whether or not he likes the cost of those commitments, an honorable nation does not shirk its duty once it makes a promise.

The Marine Corps will have a future that extends beyond this war...or perhaps it won't, if he has anything to do with it. Enlistment rates, whether or not the war lasts, have an impact far down the road. If his words have half the impact he hopes they will have, what damage is he doing to the future of the Marine Corps? Does he even care?

Certainly his words are having an impact now. Consider this news item:

Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in a videotape aired Friday that the United States' decision to withdraw some troops from Iraq represented "the victory of Islam" and called on Muslims to attack oil sites.

Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and gray robe and seated next to an automatic rifle, waved his finger for emphasis as he spoke in the two-minute excerpt aired by Al-Jazeera.

"I congratulate (the Islamic nation) for the victory of Islam in Iraq," he said.

You remember I told you more than a year ago that the American withdrawal from Iraq is only a matter of time, and here they are now ... negotiating with the mujahedeen," al-Zawahri said.

"Bush was forced at the end of last year to announce that he will pull out his forces from Iraq, but he was giving excuses for his withdrawal that the Iraqi forces have reached a good level."

This news, of course, is very worrisome to many on Capitol Hill. Rep. Murtha is certainly worried. He appears to have finally realized the impact of his words:

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

You remember... those would be those Iraqi forces that Murtha says "aren't ready and will never be ready". That's why we need to skedaddle...err...redeploy as soon as possible. And we see what the response of al Qaida is to the withdrawal of our troops.

Attack. Full speed ahead.

It would appear that the question of just who Mr. Murtha is "faithful" to has been definitively answered. Al-Jazeera and Mr. al-Zawahri certainly like what he has to say. It seems, so far, only to be his fellow Marines who disagree with him.
And combat vets who know what it's really like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fear Not!

Despite the official banishment of Piglet to the Outer Darkness (aka the Colonies, aka all of us benighted souls on this side of the pond)...

Despite the efforts of well-meaning but slightly-gone-over-the-edge PMs...

There'll always be an England.

At least as long as they maintain their monomaniacal pursuit of the one-off, slightly daffy bit of humor.

Heh. Turn the speakers on. Work safe and kid safe--an admitted change for something from yours truly. Although the li'l nippers probably won't "get" most of the visual snarks, they'll get a kick out of the animation...