Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: Politics Archives

May 8, 2008

Heh. Keep this in mind as you watch the political ads this silly season.

See how many of them (from both sides) follow this recipe:

1. Simplify: Reduce all to a confrontation between Good and Evil.
2. Smear the opposition.

3. Manipulate the central values of the target audience to one's own purpose.

4. Use star performers to present one's views as the right thinking.

5. Repeat - endlessly repeat - the same message in different variations.

Mind you, as Don Marquis noted, "An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it." but it's instructive nonetheless. So, go off snipe-hunting and figure out who gets credit for that recipe.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on May 08, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

April 30, 2008

The Current Dem attack ad on McCain.

Running here and there, and on the Democratic Party website, as a fundraiser. Typical soundbite sniping, as practiced by both parties.

Expose the Real McCain
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his lobbyist-ran campaign has and will continue to viciously attack anyone who remind the American people.

We know it -- we have it on tape to prove it -- and with your help, the American people will know it as well with our latest ad on John McCain and Iraq.

Spread the word and contribute today:

Heh. The Democrats don't pander to lobbyists, nope. Snerk. Of course, my guys aren't lobbyists, your's are! Mine are just, um, well-intentioned people with agendas who funnel me information and, um, money. On to the ad:

Narrator: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.
Video of Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Text in the ad: 100 years.

Video of McCain: "That'd be fine with me."

Immediately cut to carefully edited footage of two US soldiers ducking when an IED goes off right next to them (no bodies or gore).

Then snippets of video of lots of screaming people at bombing aftermaths with text that says:

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

In case you'd not quite gotten the point, the narrator says:

"President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.

Cut back to Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Narrator: "If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future? The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Heh. The ad is mostly red meat for the already decided, to make them feel good about making sure they get to their max limits on giving. It's not really aimed at thinking people who are undecided. Unthinking people... well, hey, if they'll send checks!

Well, gosh, let's have some more of that... Lessee...

How about an ad that ran (using 2002 adjusted dollars (except for Gulf War II) and US casualty figures, both sourced from DoD):

WWI... Led into war by Democrat Woodrow Wilson
"6 years"

"564 Billion spent"

"Over 116,000 dead"

Um, but that led to...

WWII... led into war by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt

"67 years... and counting."

"4.6 Trillion spent."

"Over 405,000 dead"

Korea... led into war by Democrat Harry S. Truman

"58 years... and counting."

"391 Billion spent"

"Over 36,000 dead."

Vietnam war... led into war by Democrat John F. Kennedy.

"9 years, and we walked away from an ally."

"840 Billion spent."

"Over 58,000 dead."

Gulf War I... led into war by Republican George H. W. Bush

"12 years"

"9 Billion spent (after Allied reimbursements)"

"Over 300 dead."

Gulf War II... Led into war by Republican George W. Bush

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

Narrator:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

"Based on this performance, are Democrats the right choice for America?"

The Armorer of Argghhh! is responsible for the content of the political ad parody. ©April 2008 by Castle Argghhh LLC.

Of course there's a whole host of false parallelism in there. And who knows how those cost numbers were calculated. And a complete absence of context. But we never let that get in the way of politics, now do we?

The Republican Party may purchase the rights to this idea... for enough money for me to buy out the guy next door. But I bet they just steal it. H/t to Princess Crabby for bringing the subject up.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Please tag this article so it can be filed under "Why Princess Crabby loves the Armorer".

by Princess Crabby on April 30, 2008 9:16 AM

Well, Maggie - at least *you* liked it!

by John of Argghhh! on April 30, 2008 3:26 PM

We know that this was meant in good-natured humor, but

in the interests of giving credit where credit is due, we think it important to mention the importance of the role that Eisenhower, a Republican, played in involving the USA in Vietnam. In an effort to provide fodder for the discussion we expect to ensue, we offer the following:

Selected excerpts from the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] article on the Vietnam War

"In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war. […]"

+ + +

"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil."

+ + +

"The Republic of Vietnam was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region."

+ + +

"In May [1955], Diem undertook a ten-day state visit to the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor. Although Diem was openly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that he had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Had we had ready access to our reference materials (which, alas, we did not think to bring to the office with us today), we might have been able to provide additional points to contribute to the debate.

by Ministry of Talking Truth to Power on May 1, 2008 12:22 PM

However, Johnson ran on a 'I will not send one of our boys to spill American blood over to Vietnaaam' ticket back in 1964.

After he won on that platform, as well as his Great Society garbage, he escalated and then micromanaged the war.

Outstanding, John.

by Cricket on May 1, 2008 1:08 PM

Mark - I said it was going to be as accurate as any political attack ad.

I ignored Nixon for Vietnam and Eisenhower for Korea, though if I had chosen to add them, I would have mentioned they technincally ended the wars in question.

I didn't mention the Republican Presidents and Congresses which have supported maintenance of troops in Europe and Asia (since the point of the piece was ignoring the context of McCain's meaning regarding 100 years).

And I didn't even *try* to separate out the dollars in that respect. Any more than the Democrat's ad does.

I ignored the Balkans and all the small stuff like Grenada and Panama.

But I still say that the ad works in the context I intended it - as a parody of the Democrat ad.

Further edits and "truthing" notwithstanding.

That being the whole point.

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 1:30 PM

Okie doke. Fair enough.

by MOTTTP on May 1, 2008 2:36 PM

Hey, *both* parties rely on blind faith, ignorance of recent and not-so-recent history, and apathy to make it work. I at least said my ad was bad up front, well, more accurately, at the end. Be a hoot if we could make them do that kind of disclaimer...

"We know you're too ignorant of the details and too lazy to check the facts, so we think this ad is good enough for getting government work." or something to that effect.

If their ads suck... it's our fault.

That and the system of education we've constructed.

If constructed is quite the right word.

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 2:45 PM

Those cold hard equations are going to give you a gal stone, John.

by Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Nah, I've got plenty of gall left...!

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM

Cassandra likes this too.

Personally, I think it is a good attack odd.

The best defense is an excellent offense that overruns an enemy's OODA loop cycle.

When they are looking around trying to think up ways to explain why your figures are wrong, you hit them again from another side, John. Keep them guessing and expecting that axe-bat.

by Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM

I did like it! I said it was brilliant!

by Cassandra on May 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Yes, Cassie, you did. And in that phenom which is how the Blogs work... the commentary stayed at your place.

'Cuz they're your core herd, but you know me, fragile male ego and all that.

Heck, I let Kat tee me off upstream in posts today.

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 10:06 PM

You want to use this as a political attack ad? Come on, too easy. Here's the counter-ad: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem. (flash clip of the Argghhh! death ad) They claim it's the American way of doing business. (images of flag-draped coffins, teary-eyed widows, young kids saluting at grave-site, planes flying overhead) After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?"

This message brought to you by the Friends of Obama.

by Jason on May 2, 2008 7:22 AM

Gosh, Jason, I didn't know you had such a grasp of irony.

Jason: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem.

John:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Jason: "After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?

Flash up text: "Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Cue laugh track.

Your turn.

[Mind you, I'm not taking this seriously - but political ad makers, and politicians, do] Both of these approaches are bogus.

by John of Argghhh! on May 2, 2008 10:10 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 30, 2008

April 28, 2008

Jeremiah Wright

Much of his radical theology disgusts me, and I have a very strong intellectual disagreement with it. However, growing up a pastor's kid in a religion well-represented among both white and black communities (and more integrated than most), I understand a bit about where he's coming from--politics tends to be more overtly a part of black churches and theology than white, and there is more confidence in calling a spade a spade in the black religious tradition (church being a refuge from white control and interference going back to even the slavery days). But Jeremiah Wright is far beyond the tradition of black churches railing against injustice and pulling together to address or mitigate that injustice as much as possible.

While listening to the extended excerpts Hugh Hewitt played last week, I sat with my mouth hanging open. Literally. I had tried so hard to "understand," to consider that maybe Wright tended to get carried away to hyperbole with his emotionalism, that perhaps he spoke more metaphorically as is often the case in black churches. But there it was, staring me in the face.

I had two reactions after I was done: 1) I now "get" the Obamas. Michelle's speeches, her tone, her body language... the awkwardness of having said she'd never been proud of her country until her husband ran for president... I had never been able to form a coherent vision of her. Listening to Wright's sermons was like a final piece of the puzzle that made the picture pull into focus. And even moreso, I understood the cult of personality that Barak cultivated in his campaign. Whether she and Barak Obama believed as Wright does when they joined the church, twenty years of hearing things like I did as I listened cannot help but shape a person's intellect and attitude. 2) I need a shower; I felt like I'd had the worst kind of sludge poured over me for the last hour.

Mere transcripts do not do justice to the mood of Wright's diatribes against this country and people who don't look like him or believe like him. I was stunned and appalled. So much rage, so much carefully-considered and clearly-laid-out venom for the country he once served as a Marine and which has enabled him to retire in wealth to a gated community. Those short excerpts we heard were not moments of overwhelming emotion or ill-considered metaphors/similes/parallels. They were snippets in carefully-constructed and consciously-delivered sermons of rage, hatred, uber-left-wing politics, and a desire for the destruction of this country and anybody who didn't agree with him.

In response, I at first felt anger. But that quickly gave way to pity, and finally a sense of filthiness for continuing to listen... much as one feels if looking too closely at the car wreck as one drives by. It is appalling, and even moreso when you subsequently listen to the mild-mannered and "oh-so-reasonable" man Bill Moyers interviewed last week. I was forcibly reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think I've ever seen the two sides so starkly drawn as they are in Reverend Wright.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker comes close to summing up my opinion on this, though perhaps with a bit more resentment/offense than I had (I mostly feel pity for someone so obviously consumed with rage and the more destructive emotions of this life):

I had a busy weekend, and missed it when Hugh Hewitt posted extensive transcripts of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright on Friday evening. The transcripts are devastating to Wright. He is a despicable human being, and the fact that has been ordained, apparently, is a disgrace. Wright has been claiming that he was quoted out of context, and Barack Obama has suggested that Americans would view Wright differently if they heard his whole sermons instead of a few sound bites. In fact, the context makes it worse, and the whole sermons are outrageous. It turns out that "God damn America" understates the baroque hatefulness of Wright's theology.

Still unexplained is what Wright's political screeds have to do with Christianity. I don't know anyone who would sit still for a minister who persistently abused the pulpit to preach hate instead of the Gospel. As a Christian, I am outraged that "Reverend" Wright has hijacked my faith to preach hate and to sow falsehood. How Barack Obama could have participated in this charade for twenty years, and then held himself out as someone fit to lead this nation, is inexplicable.

Let the charges of racism begin...

[Note: if you are unfamiliar with the original definition of baroque (the one NOT referring to classical music), look it up. Hinderocker obviously chose his words very carefully here.]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I have no problem with the good Reverend! I watched some parts on TV, yesterday and today and some snippets on YouTube. I think he's hilarious! Plus it's interesting to see him on Bill Moyers as opposed to the NAACP sermon (come on, it was a sermon!). The Press Club appearance was good theater.

But then again I am completely self-centered and focus only on how this benefits my Bad Boyfriend.

by Maggie on April 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Maggie,

*snort*

by FbL on April 28, 2008 11:52 AM

I never thought I'd be thankful for Billary. If she folded after the initial Barrack tidal wave, we wouldn't have had the pleasure of all the little missteps and gaffs produced by all those Dems, not least of which is Barack himself. Maggie's heart throb actually has a legitimate chance. He may not fit all my ideas for a President but he beats the hell out of the competition.

This is sure getting old though. Can't we just vote now and get it over with? Then Fox News can go back to covering Peterson or Aruba or other some such or whether Victoria Secret is changing their product line. For that I'll tune in.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 12:37 PM

This is really getting wild. The implications are not good. As pointed out somewhere (I can't remember where I read it), the ridiculous things Wright said about racial "differences" in his speech to the NAACP this weekend will be used by other racists... and they won't always be black, but they'll have cover to air their anti-black racism using Wright's own words. Ugly, ugly.

by FbL on April 28, 2008 1:01 PM

To true Fbl.

All those antics professed by so many unfortunates over the years are now given legitamacy by Rev Wrights ill informing speach. I felt good that my country matured enough to actually have an African-American candidate for the highest office. Unfortunately he's a liberal jerk. If Steele of Maryland had the nomination on the Reps side, I would deffinately vote for him.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 2:00 PM

Wright is only unique due to his being the pastor of a front running Presidential candidate. He is not alone, he is just recognised. I know many Christian preacher's say things which the congregation resonates with and yet are utterly vile.

While this is probably doing damage to Obama it's likely to be empowering Wright granting him contacts, recognition and exposure which may mean Wright will outlive his church member in political influence.

by Argent on April 29, 2008 7:43 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by FbL on Apr 28, 2008

April 25, 2008

A little photo essay on protests on college campuses.

In this case, regarding recruiters on campus. I think it speaks for itself.

Anti-anti-recruiter protest.

Perhaps not eloquently, but certainly gets the point across.

If you'd like a larger version to share, we can oblige.

Click here.

Heh. Dude. Recruiting is *not* militarism per se, though it can be a component. Yer english skillz are weak - but you're probably a marketing major or something, right?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

... you're probably a marketing major or something, right?

With a sign like that? LOL Probably more like an "Alternative Lifestyle/Pan-Gender Studies" major.

by fdcol63 on April 25, 2008 10:45 AM

Gandalf and Barnacle would be offended to be likened to a character like him.

by Boquisucio on April 25, 2008 10:48 AM

The Beast saw this via Jonah Goldberg's link in NRO's The Corner. Absolutely hilarious! Hopefully the brothers at his frat will buy that kid a few extra beers this weekend - he deserves it.

The pic is also timely - on the Beast's home blog there has been a debate about whether Conservatives can be funny. The Libs maintain that only left-wingers are adept at humor and they cite the usual suspects: Colbert, Stewart ad nauseam. Of course they ignore clinkers like Comedy Central's "Little Bush" and "That's My Bush". This kid shows we can be funny and the Beast thanks you for putting the picture up. He has linked to you here.

by The Hairy Beast on April 25, 2008 10:55 AM

Hey! I want a laugh, too, but your site doesn't work with the latest Opera beta - not a single picture shows up anywhere... Had to make do with Safari...

Ok, the picture was worth it, but still...

Best from Germany,
- DHH

by DHH on April 25, 2008 11:19 AM

If you want Conservative humor, just start reading anything by Mark Steyn. Even America Alone has humor in it. He's really quite adept at skewering the morons on the Left. Actually, he's not afraid of taking on the idiots on the Right, either!

by NukemHill on April 25, 2008 11:32 AM

They all look like geeks. Did the Computer Science program have a recess or something?

by Clark Mountain on April 25, 2008 11:39 AM

The Libs maintain that only left-wingers are adept at humor...

Wellll, considering that they think SNL has been *funny* ever since PJ O'Rourke left...

by BillT on April 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Bill, you meant National Lampoon, right?

Agreed, despite the fact that O'Rourque's Conservatism has had its ups and downs over the years, he's still funny and NatLamp isn't.

Let us not forget the late Doug Kenney, who would probably have become a Conservative too had he not pitched off that cliff in Kauai.

Wikipedia: "About Kenney's death, Harold Ramis famously quipped "Doug probably fell while he was looking for a place to jump.""

by The Hairy Beast on April 25, 2008 11:59 AM

Maybe they teach new spelling at colleges these days, but "terrorism" only has 3 "r"s. I'm surprised there's no Mercedes Benz peace symbol on his sign too.

by POTUS on April 25, 2008 12:18 PM

Gunner! Heat, troops in the open! Right Troop!
FIRE!!! On the Way!!! Target, cease fire.

by TankCdr on April 25, 2008 1:10 PM

Beast -- Actually, I meant Michael O'Donoghue.

Things got a bit lively earlier and I get lysdexic when I'm multitasking...

by BillT on April 25, 2008 3:23 PM

Is that Adam Gadahn holding the yellow poster?

by bigjim-ky on April 25, 2008 4:20 PM

DHH - thanks for the note about Opera. We're doing a site makeover, I'll make sure to test it in that browser.

by John of Argghhh! on April 25, 2008 6:19 PM

Speaking as somone who was recruited from a collage campus I can honestly sat that I am happy to be in a place that is largely fri signed up, free of such clueless moonbats. I am damn glad that I joined up. I have four weeks of AIT left here at Fort Sill, and that one week in reception and ten weeks of BCT here. For John I will add that my MOS is 13D, AFATDS operator maintainer for the job title, but that leaves out the fact that first two weeks is spent on old fashioned manual gunnery straight from the 6-40.

by PFC Christopher Denny on April 26, 2008 9:08 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 25, 2008

April 24, 2008

Candygram for Hugo! Candygram for Hugo!

Navy Re-Establishes U.S. Fourth Fleet

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced today the re-establishment of the U.S. Fourth Fleet and assigned Rear Adm. Joseph D. Kernan, currently serving as commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, as its new commander. Fourth Fleet will be responsible for U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

U.S. Fourth Fleet will be dual-hatted with the existing commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (NAVSO), currently located in Mayport, Fla. U.S. Fourth Fleet has been re-established to address the increased role of maritime forces in the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of operations, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to regional partners.

"Re-establishing the Fourth Fleet recognizes the immense importance of maritime security in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere, and signals our support and interest in the civil and military maritime services in Central and South America," said Roughead. "Our maritime strategy raises the importance of working with international partners as the basis for global maritime security. This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests. "

Effective July 1, the command will have operational responsibility for U.S. Navy assets assigned from east and west coast fleets to operate in the SOUTHCOM area. As a result, U.S. Fourth Fleet will not involve an increase in forces assigned in Mayport, Fla. These assets will conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narcoterrorism, and theater security cooperation (TSC) activities. TSC includes military-to-military interaction and bilateral training opportunities as well as humanitarian assistance and in-country partnerships.

U.S. Fourth Fleet will retain responsibility as NAVSO, the Navy component command for SOUTHCOM. Its mission is to direct U.S. naval forces operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South American regions and interact with partner nation navies to shape the maritime environment.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Okay, who's making book on how long it takes before someone like COde Pink or World Socialist Workers call this a provactive action and intimidation of Brother Hugo?

I like it. If only we had the hulls to go around(LCS is not the low-end vessel we need for this!).

by ry on April 24, 2008 2:13 PM

Dude. You beat me to it. I expect an announcement from Hugo tomorrow at the latest. He already made some noise the last time they announced they were considering it, calling it a build up to an act of war or some such nonsense (though I am sure he and his Bolivian pal are some of the reasons why).

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 2:46 PM

My Gary! Was he a good pick or what?!

BZ, baby!

by Maggie on April 24, 2008 4:27 PM

John, I hope you'll forgive a "brain-dead old vet". "Candygram?" Does "Candygram" equal something like, "Special Services?" This, of course would be special services for a special character. Good grief, to this old vet, it could send like a delivery service. I just don't want to be the addresssee. Do we know the location of their office?

Ry, seriously, our biggest need is not systems, but a NEW younger force, schooled and trained for this region alone. Take a moment and think about something. Were did many of the Nazis go after WWII? At some point, it will become more important than the Middle East.

"Candygram for Hugo, Yeah Candygram for Hugo!"

Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 24, 2008 5:36 PM

Mm, I think that might be a "Saturday Night Live" joke. One of the absurd skits they repeatedly played had an innocent doodah woman answering a knock on the door. When she asked, "Who's there?", there would be a sotto voce reply, "candygram."

Being an innocent doodah, she would open the door, to be confronted by the fearsome and ferocious Land Shark, which would then proceed to bite her lots and lots, to the tune of the theme from "Jaws."

That's one of the many (and among the least, I assure y'all) reasons why I either answer the door with one hand behind my back, or go out the back door and walk around the house.

by Justthisguy on April 24, 2008 6:59 PM

Well Sr. Sulphur Hating Hugo, will be in Moscow shortly, so as to finalize a multi-million Ruble deal with Russia's new Tzar. High-flying MIGs, Submarines and other sundries.

In addition to SOUTHCOM, that should keep someone in Bogota awake at night too.

Besos de Negra para Hugo!!!

by Boquisucio on April 24, 2008 7:41 PM

Candygram for Hugo! is a take off of the 1970's movie "Blazing Saddles". Cleavon Little's character has to figure out a way to disarm and arrest this huge character named "Mongo" who is, of course, dumber than a box of rocks.

Candygram for Mongo

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 9:28 PM

Candygram for Mongo

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 9:29 PM

Grumpy - what Kat said.

by John of Argghhh! on April 24, 2008 9:34 PM

Well, considering that my sister in law's maiden name is Keller, is paler than my Celtic butt, speaks fluent Portugese(hell, I speak German better than she does, and I suck), and is from waaaaaaaaay south of the border I think you're a bit off on that, Herr Grumpy. Nazis? Really.

No, having people who know the region is an outstanding idea, something ADM Starvridis has put forth in public fora before and often, but Nazis?

Given how heavily Nazis and Commies hated each other, the number of Communist gov'ts that have come and gone in LAtin America I think this is a wee bit off. Nazis?

THe whole Bolivarist set is a communism retread. It's a danger in and of itself. No need for bogeymen of yore to stir the hearts. Bolivarism plain sucks, and is a threat to all democracies in the Western hemisphere. Plain and simple. (Oh, and go Columbia! SF Gate reports FARC is on the ropes.)

But hulls matter. We've got to police the Indian Ocean off of Africa(India's not going to and it is an important water way), Malacca still is a nasty spot, Formosa, the Arabian sea, and now a force to watch the Carribean, S. Atlantic, and S. Pacific? Tryanny of distance. Being able to surge is nice, but we need hulls. There's a reason why ADM Mullen wants to get back to a 500+ Navy.

Nazis?

by ry on April 24, 2008 11:57 PM

John, I agree with your assessment. Kat is dead on with the clip, "Candygram for Mongo". Even though I would "tweak" the special effects, just a little.

Ryan, I agree, we do need hulls, 500+, OK. Now if we have the hull capacity and not the people to use them efficiently, we can not complete the mission. Regardless of POTUS. The issue is not one above the other, it is BALANCE of all three. The thing I was trying to stress is this, we need new people. We can not plan on these same people forever.

Yes, Ryan, Nazis! I am not talking of the modern world "skinheads", but of the "old world Nazis". They have individual compounds and many larger groups of compounds spread all through the Southern portion of South America. When they would build a compound, they would start with the 3 outside walls of the compound, then build the house and complete it. Then they would build the front wall of the compound.

I knew a man who lived just outside the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina in the rural section on Garribaldi Street. There has been some dispute on the occupation of the resident. I knew a man who lived a block away. Some say the individual in the block house worked for Mercedes-Benz, Others say he had a mail order business, but both groups say he was a hermit. It was rare for him to come out of his compound. He had an assumed name or alias. One day, an old Dutch woman, who had a particularly bad experience with him, saw him and and called him by name. He denied the name, but the forensics proved him wrong. This would be late 50's or 60's. When he was captured, he "sang" like a canary. The information, at this point was accurate. The one who escaped was Joseph Mengala or the "The Angel of Death", the irony, my barber and his wife were freed from him.

Back to the Dutch Woman, she walked by this one man's house on Garribaldi Street. She looked through the gate and called him by name, he denied it. She said, "I lost my Mother, Father and Sister at your hand, your name is Adolph Eichmann."

History is important. Ryan, Thanks!

Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 25, 2008 12:09 PM

I still have a problem with the NAzi issue in LatAm. 1) Weisenthal et al have been all over that place hunting for them. 2) Communists. Fascists and Communists really don't get along. 3) Unless you're saying that the gradnchildren and great grandchildren of those who fled to LatAm have been schooled in it a lot more intensly than those Southrons who still bemoan the 'War of Northern Agression' they're all 80 year old men now, if not dead.

I'm still not seeing the Nazi angle as viable. Revised communism? Si. Nazi? no.

by ry on April 25, 2008 12:47 PM

Ry, I understand the difficulty in understanding what I am saying to you. Let's go point by point, through the issues. First of all, Venezuela is not Latin American, its South American. This is not a minor issue, because Latin American rejected Nazis out right. But on the other hand, many of the South American Nations embraced them. Why? There was a brain trust and the stolen wealth and treasure. These people paid top dollar for their protection. You raise the issue of Simon Weisenthal et al. Weisenthal et al were not permitted into many South American countries, therefore the Nazis were never found. There were some very rare exceptions to the last sentence.

As you write about the age of the original Nazis, we must remember they taught their own, just like home schooling is done here. Don't forget, they were purists, they didn't want anything corrupted by any false teachings. This would include the passing on of military traditions in every thing they do.

You also talk about Communism and Facism not mixing. In a perfect world, you are most definitely right. Even in an imperfect world, you would still be right, this would still include revised communism. But the real question is this, is communism, revised or not, even on the table? Let's just say, yes. Let's, just for the sake of the discussion, let's do the same questions with Facism. According to your view, you say these two views don't get along. The real question is this, can they coexist? I believe we can look at our own history and find a workable answer. In our society we have law abiding citizens and organized crime. I agree with you, it is hard and we don't like it because of the split. The main thing is it can be done.

The last thing is this, I don't believe the Nazis are having a major impact, but I do think they are involved. About you, I don't believe there is anything I will write or say that will actually change your mind, but the reverse is equally true. I just want to say THANK YOU, for this chat.

as always, GRUMPY!

by Grumpy on April 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Eh, no problem Grumpy. I admit I don't have all the answers. I'd also say that I could be persuaded on this. I'm not a LatAm/SouAm specialist. More into Asia. I could be 100% wrong. I just dont see it.

On the manning/hulls issue: if you build it they will come. They always have. The hemmorage of hulls has created a personnel crunch. That'll be resolved(if/when) as we move upwards in numbers of major ships again.

by ry on April 26, 2008 12:44 AM

Ryan, There was an old saying or riddle, it went like this- "What is the difference between a wise man and a foolish man? A wise man knows that he knows not. A foolish man knows not that he knows not." Did you notice tho one thing in common, they BOTH don't know, it's all in how they respond.

I sincerely hope you're right about the hulls issue.

Have a GREAT weekend,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 26, 2008 12:05 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 24, 2008

April 22, 2008

A look at the campaigns from across the pond...

Subject: One Foreigner's Opinion
We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a witch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer . . . and a lawyer who is married to a witch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big gazongas who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?"

H/t, Princess Crabby

Aside from the fact that it's funny (and probably is even to many Democrats) the alignments, laid out like that, are... interesting.

Not that war hero, large glands and beer are qualifiers - but that the contrast, I'm thinking, does serve to show a possible source of the Dem's candidates troubles in connecting to significant chunks of the electorate which would otherwise seem an easy-to-connect constituency.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 22, 2008

April 21, 2008

Hmmm. This might be fun. Well, it will amuse me anyway.

Given the discussion that erupted in Kat's post One Man And A Symbol Of Freedom I thought I would toss this out for you to chew on.

The local Ford dealership takes up a full city block. They are ringed with flagpoles. The flags all fly non-standard-sized (there really is a spec) US flags.

Okay.

Since I'm one of those who is not going to beat someone up for flag desecration, edgy "art" and setting illegal fires in urban areas by igniting cloth imbued with symbolism, I thought I would pose this question -

How does wrapping your business in the flag in that way, clearly for crass commercial purposes, differ from the other abuses of the flag?

Or, how about those businesses that run up a flag, slap a light on it, and then fly it until it's little more than tatters?

Is that offensive and abusive?

Full disclosure - I'm the guy who goes to businesses who fly their flag to tatters and gives them a new flag, telling them how sorry I am that their business is doing so badly they can't afford a new bit of $15 bunting.

Fire away!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

TINS: once a month, maybe, i get over to the mega-box home repair type store (rhymes with Foam Re-po), and they have these two poles mounted just outside their main entrance. now mind you, these poles are advertised and sold by them as being "special", in that they rotate in such a way as to never cause Old Glory to get tangled. which of course, not so much...

so every dang time, i got straight to the "service" (word used with extreme irony) and ask to speak to a manager regarding said tangled-up-edness...

every time they say will do something, so i continue to shop, and every time i check out and go back to my car, you guessed it, the flags are still tangled. usually takes another visit to the manager, ask to see his/her boss, before it gets corrected.

so i get their customer complaint line toll-free number, and duly register my concerns with someone in Bangalore.

it wouldn't be so bad if i actually had another choice of places to get the materials i need.

by MajMike on April 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Luv the give 'em a new flag solution.

by Rod Thorsen on April 21, 2008 11:01 AM

The local Ford dealership takes up a full city block. They are ringed with flagpoles. The flags all fly non-standard-sized (there really is a spec) US flags.

I know exactly where of you speak because, when I see those flags, I know exactly where to turn to take care of business near there or how many blocks to go to get to a certain restaurant.

More flags at the Ford Dealership then at the Memorial day ceremony near by I sometimes think.

Materialism on display. Then again, as a true believer in capitalism, I sometimes I wonder what is more patriotic than...well...capitalism.

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 11:34 AM

Maybe it's true. Its great numbers cheapen its value as the rags from China whence they came.

by Boquisucio on April 21, 2008 11:44 AM

Well, the current flags at the Castle are proudly made in... Malaysia!

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 11:51 AM

Mexico here

Oh no! Free Trade!

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 11:54 AM

¡Ajujuy! Si Señora yo so El Frito Bandito!

by Boquisucio on April 21, 2008 12:01 PM

But the real irony is that the liberal-leaning UAW has put pressure on Ford and other domestic auto makers to "fly the flag" to promote "Buy American" as part of their protectionist agenda against free trade. LOL

by fdcol63 on April 21, 2008 12:48 PM

The school (in Coliformico) where SWHNOB attends her formal indoctrination has been given a flag not once but twice. Have I seen them flying anything but the faded, tattered rag that I first saw upon enrolling her last August?
Of course, I don't know why I expected better, this is the same school that had a Spanish language segment for the National Spelling Bee competition.
*sigh*

by DL Sly on April 21, 2008 1:07 PM

What's that quip about a dog kicked versus a dog tripped-over? Even he knows there's a difference? Intent can't be totally ruled out, but ignorance of due respect is so lacking these days that you're signing on for a LOT of work trying to fix it. 'Course, that's sort of this crowd's forte, isn't it?

by Ironside on April 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Ironside - what? Us? Tilt at windmills? Never!

[Sancho, keep that donkey under control, would you?]

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 1:17 PM

Sí Señor - Pero El Burro, habiendo comido tantas fabas, está muy peoso.

by Boqui-Panza on April 21, 2008 2:12 PM

What gets me are the political rallies with the flag printed on napkins. As far as I'm concerned it's barely better than having a flag printed on toilet paper. The people with the napkins all seem to think nothing of it but to me it's desecrating the flag to use it to wipe your greasy fingers on such a napkin.
If I weren't so lazy I'm sure I could find the relevant part of the flag code (but then with this audience I don't need to.)

by NevadaDailySteve on April 21, 2008 2:23 PM

Boq - I dunno what a fabas is, but are you telling me they make your burro gassy?

As the thread careens wildly out of control...

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 2:44 PM

Pero El Burro - Pardon. Donde es la bano?

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 3:02 PM

I think the bathroom is over there behind the Ballista, Kat. Just remember to open the ventanas(SP, blow me John and Bill) or light a match when you're done.
(I don't speak Spanish, I just know how to use it defensively. I resisted every attempt to force me to learn it back when I lived in Cali. I studied German and Japanese instead, and still suck at both. I was even yclempt 'Caballo' for having the odd running gait and blonde hair that flopped around like a mane back in the day.)

You're going to have to teach me this 'soft hand' approach one of these days, BB. I've contemplated it, but don't understand it. And I'm getting too old to continue to be a screamer.

by ry on April 21, 2008 4:08 PM

(SP, blow me John and Bill)

Heh. Potty mouth again.

[Opens bag of cheetos, puts out on the deck to "air out."]

Fine. You want stale cheetos, you get 'em. I *was* going to be nice.

Oh, and you *did* spell "windows" correctly, boyo.

Same-same cannot be said, however, of your changing the religious affiliation of 'yclept' to some form of Yiddish construct.

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 4:37 PM

Maudit Americains...

Asti, parlez en anglais pour eux autres, en collisse de tabernac!

(Avant la question inevitable, non, je n'peut pas parler francais/quebecois sans sacrer. Asti de niaseux.)

by Damian on April 21, 2008 5:20 PM

Pardone me?

Yo hablo poco Frances. Digame "collise en tabernac!"?

Church?

and are you asking if we can speak french?

If yes, only enough to get me in serious trouble on this blog and abroad. ;)

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Kat - I thought you liked guys? What's this about a broad?

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 7:36 PM

well, those french women sometimes look like men with their hairy upper lips.

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 8:26 PM

Behold Fabada Asturiana: Faba Bean Soup with Blood Sausage. My favourite. Just keep dat donkey down wind.

by Boqui-Panza on April 21, 2008 9:12 PM

John,

What's the spec for lapel pins?

When you find out, send a note to Nancy so she can pass it on to Barack.

Frankly, I'm more affected by a tattered flag than a too big/too small one.

My feminine side says, "Size doesn't matter." Of course, my masculine side says, "Yeah, right." But that's another story.

Anyway, I'm now sensitive to another improper display. I am honestly offended every time I see Obama talking while standing in front of a bank of Old Glories. He, and his wife, view a very large segment of this nation with (poorly) disguised contempt (see remarks made during recent fund raising meeting in Kollyfornia) and the hypocrisy makes my head swim.

Desecration comes in many forms, some worse than others.

by Attila on April 21, 2008 9:36 PM

Kat, I was feeling left out, given that I have only Dora The Explorer spanish (the benefits of having a four-year-old daughter!), and so I decided to switch to quebecois french, just to tick you guys off. Unfortunately, you have to swear to speak it properly.

A rough translation:

$*&(@! Americans...

*%&^, speak english for the rest of us, fer #$^*$ing *&^%$ sake.

(Before the inevitable question, no, I cannot speak french/quebecois without swearing. *(&^!@$ing *&^^%%heads)

Pay no mind to the crazy Canuck with the bilingual Tourette's...

by Damian on April 22, 2008 12:02 AM

Not to be the wet towel and get back on track, but check out this effort: http://www.operationnationalanthem.com/
Due respect for national symbology- check
Tastefully done- check
Implied violence for the willfully disrespectful- not enough.

by Ironside on April 22, 2008 7:37 AM

Well, Ironside, it's only appropriate you grab the tiller... since the thread went adrift after your previous post.

by John of Argghhh! on April 22, 2008 7:50 AM

Sheesh, wander out above decks one time...

by Ironside on April 22, 2008 12:35 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 21, 2008

April 18, 2008

Why vigilance (and informed, vice emotional, voting) matters.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, which makes me a minority around here among the people who have expressed an opinion one way or another on the subject, but Justice Scalia's shot at Justice Stevens in the recent decision regarding Kentucky's Death Penalty methods was, well, interesting.

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, " 'objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.' " Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).

A classic "Living Constitution" argument, since the Founders didn't seem to have any huge problems with the death penalty... A classic example of "rule by judicial fiat" so beloved of people who can't convince the people of the merit of their ideas, and so instead rely on finding "right-thinking" judges to enact their will.

A slippery proposition to be sure. Because both good and bad has come from it.

However, the only way we the people influence this is through our choices for President and Congress. We have no direct input on the Judicial branch at all.

Yet that branch has been imbued in the last 100 years with a vast amount of essentially unchecked (on a day to day basis) power, the only checks being over generational time spans as Judges retire and new ones are appointed.

It means we really, really, really should be paying attention. And keeping that in mind when choosing.

And it's a really good argument to keep the levers of power churning around between the centers of gravity, and for heaven's sakes don't let either herd of asses or elephants hold all the levers.

The potential for mischief is great.

As Justice Scalia further notes:

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as "the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process." Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a "thirst for vengeance." Ante, at 11. It is JUSTICE STEVENS' experience that reigns over all.

More accurately, it is the experience of 5, mostly unaccountable people, that reigns over all. Which makes picking the people who do the picking important, even if those people as individuals are really nowhere near as important as politicians are wont to believe they are.

The Supremes, however...

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 18, 2008

April 15, 2008

Bellavia takes the plunge...

Bellavia Files For Congress In New York's 26th District
Batavia, NY – Retired Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia announced today that he is filing the necessary paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission to form a campaign committee. The move allows Bellavia to begin raising money for his much anticipated Congressional campaign.

Mr. Bellavia chose to file his candidacy on April 15, 2008, to highlight the need for tax reforms that allow workers to keep more of what they earn.

"During this time of challenge for the U.S. economy, Western New Yorkers need someone who will go to Washington to fight for their job and their families," Mr. Bellavia said. "The last thing voters want is a tax-and-spend liberal who will further burden their wallets with the threat of more taxation."

"If elected to represent the 26th district of New York, I would oppose any effort to raise the personal income tax. I firmly believe that Americans' hard earned income belongs to them – not the federal government."

Mr. Bellavia is the recipient of both the Silver and Bronze Stars, and the Conspicuous Service Cross, New York State's highest award for combat valor. He also has been nominated for The Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions in a fierce, urban hand-to-hand fight in the battle of Fallujah in November 2004. Mr. Bellavia is the author of House to House: An Epic Memoir of War, which recounts his experiences on the ground in Iraq.

Mr. Bellavia, a native of Buffalo, lives in western New York with his wife and two sons. There he has founded a local Veteran's Coordination Center that focuses on the early treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other veteran's-related issues and outreach programs. Bellavia is also a co-founder of the non-partisan, non-profit Vets for Freedom organization.

I'm thinking they could do worse, much worse.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 15, 2008

April 14, 2008

Of strategic thinking and presidential candidates

The other day J over at Armchair said that he believed Sen Obama was the better ‘strategic thinker’ of this campaign season. This intrigued me a bit, so I thought about it. I don’t think J is right. Note, in classic Castle Argghhh! style I’m not advocating for any candidate (not like that stops Dusty from doing it, but then he outranks me. And nothing stops Attila, except a chicken bone in the throat---stay away from the chicken and fish, Dusty.). I’m just saying I think that saying Sen Obama has ‘the vision’ superior to others is rather wrong.
(more below the fold)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Why? Let’s look at his stance on Global Warming. In a sense, this amounts to a strategic game of ‘Red Rover’ where we all line up to stop a freight train by linking hands and willing it to stop. I’m saying that if you take the science seriously, and the conclusions that have been made from the data, the whole idea of carbon trading and sequestration is tantamount to trying to close the door after the cow’s bolted. If you listen to Al Gore (ManbearPIIIIG!!!) and the broader scientific opinion we’re slated for serious climate change. And if you take their arguments seriously you have to laugh at them when they say that simply cutting carbon emissions is going to turn it all around, even in your great-great-great-great grandchildren’s time(Seven tenths of a degree by 2050 in temperature savings is what we get if we went the full Kyoto. I wonder how long it would take to get back to what people say we should be at, or to return to what we had in 1986?). Look at how much a change you’ll get in 50 years. Oh, and don’t forget the cost, either. You think this current economic downturn is bad and requires all kinds of gov’t bail outs for people? Jeebus, that looks a whole lot worse to me.

So, this is true strategic thought? Hardly. You want a *real* strategic thinker on this? Find the politician who is following Bjorn Lumborg’s recommendations or Tom Barnett’s instead of ManbearPIIIIG’s!!! and you’ll have a real visionary instead of someone reading from the Book of Dystopia, Chapter Doom, verse Gloom. If you really believe in the predominate scientific view you are left with no choice but to accept that sea levels will rise, and the problems that come with that. If you accept said view you also accept that weather patterns will shift in ways that make the Dust Bowl, in many places across the US and the world, possible and likely. You have to accept that very real problems will come down the pipe that have to be dealt with, and that by simply capping carbon emissions (or moving them in the negative direction) those problems will not be resolved.

What’s Obama planned to do on these? Nothing, at least nothing in his publicly declared positions. What’s he going to do about crop failures from drought and weather pattern shifts? What’s his plan to ensure potable water is available to continue agriculture (even if we all became vegan soy eaters)? Sorry, saying he’ll support waste water plants out in CA is not having a broad visionary plan, particularly since those plans were already in place and moving ahead (my home town already has treated waste water being fed back into the watershed from which it draws water, something they started building in 1998. When I was helping my Mother out this summer I was drinking that foul smelling and tasting stuff.) He’s got nothing so far, same caveat as before. So, this is strategic thinking? I. Don’t. Think. So. A real strategic thinker wouldn’t take what amounts a plan that would halt the oncoming crisis back in the 1950’s and push it now, as if it was visionary and going to halt the freight train, nor would a real visionary try to pass off to the country stuff that someone else already did as something he’s bravely moving to support (it’s done and over, sir, they never needed your support.).

He’s running with a forty year old plan on this. One that isn’t likely to work without killing a large number of people off, whose cost is major (you think people are annoyed at how they’re suffering because of the housing crisis and current economic slow down? Look at the cost in standard of living *if* we follow the Ed Bagly Jr. inspired plan in the link above.), and only deals with the ‘first half’, to steal a Barnettian phrase, while it ignores all the other problems that are inescapable if you accept ManbearPIIIG’s numbers.

Sorry, I’m not buying Obama as having ‘the vision’ over the other two (Clinton or McCain), not if his environmental plan is an indication of this ‘strategic vision. If he did he’d have plans, in place and delivered publicly, to deal with the potable water issue, soil erosion issue, dike and levee ideas to protect things like Manhattan (or, if one were really bold, most of India). Sorry, Sen. Obama (and J), but you’re not selling gollum on this vision thing. You really aren’t showcasing it.

What I’m seeing, when I read the plans listed on his web site linked above, is populism and the cynical use thereof. It may sound tough to walk into Detroit and tell them need to be more fuel efficient, but it isn’t really when they’ve been working on hybrids, flex fuels, and other non-petroleum derived energy source vehicles for a decade (that dang educated populace thing Jefferson talked about comes up to nip the good Sen. In the ankles). The way his stated plan reads, and he’s not alone in this, it looks like he believes in a closed carbon loop/perpetual motion machine. Who taught these people thermodynamics (sure wasn’t BCR, that’s for sure.)?

If he comes up with a real long range and truly visionary plan--- instead of the hodgepodge of green-truther, ‘I’ll create jobs!’, and petroleum boogie man hating that he’s put out--- I’ll listen. You got plans to actually deal with the real problems of climate shift(feeding people, keeping shoreline communities from being ‘Veniced’ given the inevitability of sea level rise, etc) then fine, I’ll listen. Come to the table with something like building the Taiwan 101 but using it as a self-sufficient as possible agro-dome that’s got much of the engineering problems resolved, or a massive aquaduct system ala what Jerry Brown came up with in CA lo these many moons ago, and I’ll call you a frackin’ visionary, ‘cause you would be. But what Obama has put forward is not visionary.

Sorry, J.

(Note: ry doesn’t buy the anthropogenic theory, yet. He finds the data sketchy and other theories (like the albedo shift or the increase in solar radiation theory) to be equally supported. Hence, he says doing something about the real problems (crop failure, water shortage, coastal city drowning) is more important than anyone’s pet whipping boy---whether that be the evils of consumerist culture, big oil, non-vegetarian living, or what have you in the mid-to-long term.)
--ry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I'd agree with you and up that ante by saying the complaing could be easily applied to several of his other so called "plans".

He talks about saving social security, but his plan basically calls for forcing people to put money in an IRA which they already can do, starting at a $100 easily. His difference is that he is going to make it "mandatory" with an "opt out" that he knows will not happen often because people are, in fact, lazy sometimes.

He's not going to save Social Security. That plan doesn't even do that. But he is going to take more money out of some poor shlubs pocket to put in an IRA while simultaneously continuing to take social security taxes out of his check.

The question is who is going to run these IRAs and what will the interest be invested in? Government stocks and bonds?

The whole time, he never actually mentions saving social security or how he's going to do it. Not once because he knows the only way to save it is to a) cut people off or b) raise social security tax or c) all of the above.

It's ridiculous slight of the hand stuff that I can't believe anyone falls for.

by kat-missouri on April 14, 2008 11:28 AM

And Ry moves into the Armorer's corner (he may have been there all along, he's just slunk into the open) - all the hooey posited about Kyoto etc, is more about the elites grabbing more power for themselves (and the consequences of which are usually borne by superstitious armed myrmidons clinging to outdated notions) and control over ever greater aspects of human endeavor.

I said long ago - if all the efforts put forth were going to make only about 1 degree of difference, far better we put that money and effort to figuring out how we're going to deal with it, since it would seem we really aren't going to do much to truly prevent it.

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 12:07 PM

My point is John that at this time there's little we *can* do, we can't truly prevent it(not now, and not likely in`80 either). So why not figure out how to deal with the rest of it? Why, that's because some people can't "move on". ;)

This isn't leadership. It's jumping out in front of the lemming pack and yelling follow me.

by ry on April 14, 2008 1:05 PM

Oh, and an unseen gollum is a much more effective gollum(damage x2 backstab! ).

by ry on April 14, 2008 1:10 PM

Waittaminute. You're going to use global warming to measure Obama's strategic sense? Couldn't you find something more abstract to use, say, preferred defenses against asteroid bombardments? What I was referring to (and this is clearly in my post) is the sense of strategic vision on national strategy issues. I don't think global warming is (yet) a national strategy issue, but it may be soon. Who knows.

The point of the post was to identify that Obama, at the least, is debating the need to engage the region as opposed to just Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, seems very satisfied with ensuring the smooth military execution of a failed strategy focused only on Iraq. I am sure I don't have to spell out the differences in strategic warfare vice operational warfare. McCain doesn't have it, or at least he hasn't expressed the desire to engage the regional challenges.

No, just keep chanting "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." yeah, that will solve all of our issues in Iraq. Or not.

by Jason on April 14, 2008 2:06 PM

And Jason shows up to defend his man!

Gimme some popcorn.

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 2:22 PM

"bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." yeah, that will solve all of our issues in Iraq.

I don't think any of us just want to "bomb Iran" in the naive belief that that alone would solve anything, but I think most of us would acknowledge that the Iranian regime is behind a LOT of our problems in Iraq and elsewhere, with respect to their state support of terrorism and their constant efforts to undermine US interests and security around the world.

by fdcol63 on April 14, 2008 2:52 PM

Elements of Strategy (Art Lykke Army War College Model):

Ends (What you want to achieve)
Ways (How you will do it)
Means (What resources are required to do it)

Obama is long on ends, short, or at least extremely unrealistic, on the other two.

Also, any strategy must meet the FSA test: it must be Feasible (it can be done), Suitable (It will solve the problem it's trying to solve), and Acceptable (meaning, in this case, acceptable to the voters and Congress)

Obama fails on all three counts.

by Heartless LIbertarian on April 14, 2008 2:55 PM

"Failed Iraq" strategy?

Where has it failed?

islamization has been largely discredited right in the center of the Arab/Islamic region (regional strategy?)

2) Al Qaida has taken a huge black eye along with it even though, at some point, it certainly was able to draw in a nice crowd of wannabe warriors for Allah. In fact, as I once premised, the act of taking Baghdad acted as an accelerator, on purpose or not. If you want to get inside your enemy's OODA Loop, sometimes you have to do the unexpected or force them to commit some place they are not ready to either materially, monetarily, organizationally or ideologically. That was what happened, as ugly as we like to think it, accidental or not. Kind of reminds me of Sherman's march to the sea.

3) We are creating (and they already exist), some pretty adamant, free, democratic thinkers (though they are all at different degrees of that concept, they exist) who are becoming a credible voice for freedom in the region and will continue to do so as long as we don't abandon them to chaos and the potential rise of another dictator. It will have an effect on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and many others in the region. They won't be able to help it.

4) don't tell me that bombing Iran hasn't crossed your mind once or twice. It sure has mine every time I read about more rockets and EFPs coming in and killing our men and women. Fortunately, I am ready to finish the two projects we have going before seriously considering it, but it is still on my list if we don't get something else going to shove the mad mullahs back in their cages and our men and women stop being killed by their weapons.

We've staked a flag in the heart of jihadi Wahhabi land and I'm not willing to give it up. I believe there is a serious long term advantage to that that some folks are too short sighted to see.

by kat-missouri on April 14, 2008 3:20 PM

And the notion that the Bush Administration is just chanting "bomb bomb bomb Iran" and not actively and directly "engaging" Iran in diplomatic efforts is contradicted by stories like this:

US and Iran holding 'secret' talks on nuclear programme

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-and-iran-holding-secret-talks-on-nuclear-programme-808647.html

... Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret "back channel" discussions for the past five years on Iran's nuclear programme and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal. ...

Some people think that unless they read about it in the NYT, or that if it's not shouted from the rooftops, that "quiet diplomacy" is not happening.

by fdcol63 on April 14, 2008 3:35 PM

Oh, bother. Yeah J, I'm taking Obama to task for being touted as a 'strategic thinker' on a whole host of issues. It was inspired by you, but isn't only about *you*.

So, leaving a country, a powder keg that makes Franz Ferdinand look like a piker, 'as fast as possible'(meaning 18 months if not sooner) is engaging the region in a smart manner? Sorry, not buying. Leaving Iraq like Obama wants to puts a major conflagration on the table and a real non-zero possibility(but, hey, anything is better than staying, right?). Staying in Iraq, and as you say 'only Iraq'(which I think is a gross misstatement of the case and your oppositions reasoning for staying), is in part because we've now created something we simply cannot leave, it's the TS/slow step of the reaction(something that if you change the conditions you don't get the product you aimed for, to misuse an organic chemistry analogy). What I hear out of Obama is 'we've spent this long on it and now we're casting it off because we aren't getting results as fast as we'd like. It's hard and we don't want to do something hard anymore. Let's do all that gov't deficit spending here at home instead.'. Real nice. Real strategic.

And all the other work with people like Jordan, Lebanon, all those mil-mil, mil-pol stuff that engenders isn't nor will it ever be actually working with the region, will it(at least not while a Bush sits in the presidential chair anyways)? Talking to Iran instead of 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran'(and where the hell did this meme come from, and why are they massacring the Beach Boys. Sacrilegous wankers?) as Bush has done--- continuing the diplo angle in conjunction with the Euros over Iranian nucs. working with Pakistan, and India(Mil-mil and mil-pol, despite what the Indian Communist party says) doesn't count. Right. Okay, lets just define everything so the opposing side is nothing but jackals, then.

No, we stay because the scenario we believe in, the one the data points to, is a worse one than if we stay(no, not be channeling Cheney with the aQ takes over bogeyman, but the sectarian spill over looks very everyone else versus the Hapsburgs to me). Yeah, Obama's got the right track. Never has he even mentioned(in public) the problems with leaving. Only hit on how we're going to get everyone to get on board by talking to them(never a mention of what we're going to have to offer to get them on board, just the promise. Hell, if that's all it takes I promise everyone a unicorn and million dollars. Can we all end wars now, then?).

Yup, I call it like I see it homey. He's not a strategic thinker. He's a talker and someone who jumped out in front of the lemming pack(wow, the American public is so fickle that when the nightly news is 'Surge works' they side with it, when the nightly news was 'Iraq is scary' they were onboard with the invasion, but given a steady diet of anti-invasion/surge they side with the anti. Lemmings.) and does what they want, but only from the front of the pack. He's not a strategic thinker. If he was he'd see Iraq as the seam state that it is(as Barnett does) and how that it needs to be leveraged to forever alter the ME(much like Afghanistan needs to be leveraged to alter S. Asia forever), instead of saying we'll leave it and somehow(again, specifically) get people to sit down and talk thereby achieving it all without arms. Pie-in-the-sky doesn't count as leadership or strategic vision. They count as day dreams or impossible campaign promises. (Oh, you mean we can't use Iraq as an, i dunno, staging area for further operations(political as much as military) at all? Well, I guess that's just a stupid strategy then, huh? We shouldn't even consider pursuing it at all. Nope, just leave because it got hard and more expensive than we originally thought. Just like Somalia(and how is Somalia with the plans of talking instead of bombing going post-BHD, eh? Oh, went back to a hell hole didn't it? Repressive regime(but it provided stability!) that was a haven for pirates and terrorists(but at least it was stable!) took over. bummer.). But, at least it's not being stuck in Iraq.

We couldn't' possibly want to use Iraq as a means of imputting new ideas and institutions into the region(even if we do wind up having to do 'Nixon to China' vis Iran.), and so it must simply be The White Whale(in other words, what a load of $3i! such a reduction is.). Which is why Sen. Obama *isn't* a strategic thinker in terms of military strategy.

But that's okay, I don't expect most presidents(unless they were Flags before they became president) to be military strategists.

So, instead I looked at him from a multi-disciplinary angle. And you know what? He *still* came up lacking. He's been billed as this great man of vision(by you, Jason, and others) and I'm not seeing it. I don't see how your reason for leaving Iraq makes sense(the purpose of strategy is to ensure a better peace, leaving makes a better peace how, concretely? I know the fairy tales coming out of FP and FA the last couple of months. But how does that jive with the historical record that reconstruction and rehabilitation takes decades and not years to do regardless of the on the ground culture?). So I'm not seeing Obama as all that bright there. He, along with you, are classifying it as The White Whale and thereby dismissing out of hand that there could be any other rationale for continuing nor that Iraq in itself is a battle that's part of a campaign to deal with the region as a whole(a baby step, so to speak). Nope, it's just The Whale. Nor is he showing it in other areas as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry Jay, not convinced. I made my case. Now tell us why you think I'm a fargin' idiot(and no telling me about last weeks BSG either, or I'll ankle bite, I swear I will.).

by ry on April 14, 2008 4:03 PM

Congrats Ry - the response is longer than the original post by an order of magnitude...

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 4:25 PM

Well, I have to let the verbosity out somewhere. At least the post was concise and to the point, which is what you want(and at least I didn't burn up the front page with it neither). "He doesn't show the traits, here's the evidence." And verbosity is what you get when I'm IMing, reading about Asian mil-pol(what a bunch of fear mongering tripe about China is out there. Jeesh. Not saying that China isn't a problem or that their modernization changes the number of equivalents they get in the '3:1' calculations, but does it always have to be so 'they're coming to get us and they're soooo scary'?), and writing a response to Jason.

by ry on April 14, 2008 4:47 PM

You may want to take a look at Drudge. A Rep Congressman has a comment about Obama's finger on the button and his strategic thinking capability.

by Fishmugger on April 14, 2008 4:56 PM

Obama: I disagree. Obama has to be a strategic thinker already. He did not get into the Presidential race without thinking ahead with some degree of intelligence.

Obama's 'policy' on this sort of thing is not about him it's about his voters and saying the crap they want to hear which seems to be all this man does. As such it's not a reflection of his skills at strategic thinking. It's more a reflection of his lack of real dedication to global warming and probably anything actually.

Iraq: No staying is better now until the Iraqis tell those soldiers to go away. I would be the first to stick my hand up for the idiocy of the past strategic Iraq war policies. I would even venture to say it very nearly turned into a pile of goo for which I really thank the soldiers for preventing. However the general gist of facing nutso Islam and changing the ME from a policy of division with control to freedom and progress I fully support. Iraqis are becoming progressives haha! Now I bet that stirs the pot. I cannot even imagine the good these ppl could do. They will not be Democratic Americans. They will be new with a totally different cultural level.

Afghan will not be so smooth. It's been ignored and disfocused and has little basis of economy.

Global Warming: I am not on the conservative side with the environment. For one thing I think global warming is real as I do many other environmental considerations. Conservatives stick their hand in the sand and sing lalala it isn't happening. One only has to go to the river to see the damage conservatives created which most probably will never be fixed and know sticking the head in the sand is not very bright.

But much of the liberal side has jumped on the bandwagon and it often seems to me the bandwagon goes waaay off course. For one thing wastewater reuse has nothing to do with it. It's a different environmental issue.

These people are coming up with nothing to.. well, as Ry puts it, strategically solve the problem. If one takes that global warming is real then one puts in a plan of what to do about it. So far I'm not impressed. I hear too much romantic talk of solar cell and other marvelous technology proliferation and not enough on dealing with rising sea levels or severe weather or climate changes effect on nature, people or farming. *Practical* solutions to slow global warming and mitigate the effects are far too rarely implemented.

Iran: Actually.. I find bombing Iran somewhat appealing. Certain places you know. Suggesting that it's all Bush wants to do is sheer idiocy. It hasn't happened yet. What is preventing him? Well the answer is simple. Him. So the idea is complete bull. Besides it's not about solving problems in Iraq alone. There are far far more problem than Iraq no mater what anybody pretends. Iran is one of them.

by Trias on April 14, 2008 5:34 PM

But, that's my point, Trias. It won't hurt Obama with the people he's trying to woo to vote for him(centrist republicans, true independents(not the fools who claim they are but have voted and continue to vote for the same year after year), and what's now called the 'crunchy con') to come out with a much more detailed and far reaching ecoological plan. I get that there's a level of the 10 second attention span involved in all of this, but that he refuses to do so for something like the environment, something more people understand than military strategy or geo-political strategy, says something, imo. Either he doesn't think very far ahead and the inter=realations, or he's an elitist who doesn't think he needs to tell us(and that goes for most pols, not just Obama.).

When I look at the ME I do see things as being more reminiscent of the Hapsburgs being beset on all sides or pre-WW1 Europe where there's a ton of intrigues looking to set things off. I use the Hapsburgs because you've got not only the secular reasons(all the nations want what's best for them, and many don't like the pull of the COG east toward the former Persian empire) but also the religious thing(Sunni and Shiite). Without a strong influence in the region you've got people looking to off or annex someone---which explains the Hapsburgs troubles since they as big fish were either fighting someone off or wasting their strength trying to take someone out. In how this is pre-WW1 you've got people, again, not wanting to see the rise of a powerful Iran(the formation of the Triple Alliance as a countering tool against Bismark's machinations and the rising German economy) forming formal and informal alliances or taking other measures to limit Iranian influence(like picking up nuclear programs, or looking to do it(SAudi), Oman(?, I know there's a second nation doing it, can't remember who)). All it took was one nationalist to assasinate one minorly important public figure and Europe was in flames. So, pulling out, removing Gulliver, is somehow a stabilizing event in this how? I can't see it. Again, the purpose of a strategy is to bring about a better peace once it's all said and done. Leaving does not produce that, IMO. So why do it?

Enviro: yup, that's where I'm at, Trias. Lots of people talk, but what they say is very meaningless. We'll cap carbon and shift to hydrogen. Fine, what's the second biggest GHG culprit? Water(has to do with the way their O-H bonds oscillate). What's the product of hyrodgen reactions? Water. Great, we've really solved that problem. We'll just eject tons more steam into the air every year and that'll lick GW. How're you going to feed everyone with weather instability leading to massive drought in central parts of continents? Oh, well we capped carbon and that'll take care of all of it. Sheer self-righteous idiocy. But that's what the man's running publicly. If he's all that he's made out to be(Jason) he'll push more than 'Hope' and 'Belief" but actual policies we of the Gray Tribe can mull to be either wonover or lost based on the logic and reasoning.

by ry on April 15, 2008 12:14 AM

This feels more like some psychedelic compression of 1901 to 1941 complete with the rise of nationalism, fascism and communism (just call them the names of their modern counterparts) and many "little corporals" trying to stir the masses and take over the world.

by kat-missouri on April 15, 2008 12:27 AM

Iran. Sigh. Would bombing it actually get us what we want(which is nuclear weapons out of the hands of the terrorist(historicly speaking) supporting Mullahs(Amindijad is nobody, actually, it's the Mullahs who are the real power) and instituting a more Western friendly, market economy friendly, liberal(ish) regime.)? Just bombing Iran does not do that. It might forestall the first(Mullah's getting nucs) but it seriously makes the second(different regime) much harder. It may be necessary to do, if things take certain turns(say, they admit to actually turning out a few dozen warheads and our intel knows where those warheads are, so when we hit the production sites we also hit the launchables), but not right now. It *should* be in the workshop, but thought of as a specialty tool(lathe) instead of a common pair of channel locks that're really versatile.

Iran makes sense in some very limited scenarios. ONe that does make sense is classic interdiction of supplies/manpower(if we can ever confidently ID where and how stuff may be coming in). Beyond that I'm not seeing much.

So I don't know where J is getting the Beach Boys inspired 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' thing. Nobody so far as I know simply has a hard-on for bombing Iran or sees it as the pull on the gordian knot that solves Iraq. Sounds more like the demonization and infantilization of our position that I see on his side of the fence(not from him so much as the side he happens to be on) than a real criticism of any real policy(how many times have people like Sy Hersh and HuffPosters claimed a massive attack on Iran was immenent? At least twice in the last five years that I can remember.).

by ry on April 15, 2008 12:33 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Apr 14, 2008

Breaking news! New Acquisition for the Arsenal of Argghhh!!!

Eschewing contact with shady arms dealers in the Miami area (based on Boquisucio's advice) I worked with reputable Merchants of Death in the DC area... and the Armorer of Argghhh! can definitively support Senator Hillary Clinton's "dodged sniper fire in Bosnia" story!

We have acquired the *actual* rifle used in that event! The Senator is un-equivocally telling the truth.

(click the pic for a better, more stealable view)

Unsurprisingly, when we examined closely, we discovered that this rifle, like most phallic objects in the Senator's orbit, only shoots blanks, and displays a disturbing tendency to deposit firing residue on the person pulling the trigger.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 14, 2008

April 12, 2008

The President's Radio Address.

In case you missed it - here's the text of the remarks as prepared for delivery.

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Fifteen months ago this week, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results.
Since the surge began, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress. While there's more to be done, sectarian violence, civilian deaths, and military deaths are down. Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic progress. The Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. And many economic indicators are now pointed in the right direction.

Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq . Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda was using bases in Iraq to kill our troops and terrorize Iraqis; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq , and now we are working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq ; today, thanks to the surge, we've revived the prospect of success in Iraq .

This week, General Petraeus reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades. By July 31, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down 25 percent from the year before. Beyond that, General Petraeus says he will need time to assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making recommendations on further reductions. I've told him he'll have time he needs to make his assessment.

Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny. So what would this transition look like? On the security front, we will stay on the offense, continue to support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them, and move over time into an overwatch role.

On the economic front, Iraq 's economy is growing. Iraq is assuming responsibility for almost all the funding of large-scale reconstruction projects, and our share of security costs is dropping as well. On the political front, Iraq is planning to hold elections that will provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence.

Our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. And no one wants to achieve that goal more than the Iraqis themselves.

The turnaround that our men and women in uniform have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success.

I'm confident in our success because I know the valor of the young Americans who defend us. This week, I commemorated the sacrifice of Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who gave his life in Iraq , and became the fourth Medal of Honor recipient in the war on terror. On September 29, 2006, Mike and two teammates had taken a position on a rooftop when an insurgent grenade landed on the roof. Mike threw himself onto the grenade. One of the survivors put it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"

It is heroism like Michael Monsoor's that pays the cost of human freedom. Our prayers remain with Michael's family and with all the men and women who continue his noble fight. We look forward to the day when they return home in victory.

Thank you for listening.

Provided as a public service of the Castle. Discuss to your heart's content.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �