Random Trivia Generator

2003-04-13T08:37:00.000-07:00

As the saying goes...

Boys, don't mess with a sister. Specifically, this sister.

2003-04-12T15:46:00.000-07:00

Paging Mr. Powers....Mr. Powers, please report to the love shack, please...

So, you are a US soldier or Marine going through Baghdad, checking out houses in an area known to be the residence of high Baath Party and Iraqi officials...And you find a place that looks like somebody's idea of home deco while they are in their swinging college bachelor days....

(Before you mention it, the troops thought the same about Austin Powers.)

Here is a classic. No doubt this residence will serve as visitor's accomodations for when Michael Moore or Martin Sheen stops in Baghdad.

Then again, some of the Saddam's inner circle might actually want to be in college. While most of it is the usual stuff you would find in an official's home, what the heck is this doing here? "A Princeton Review test preparation book, titled "Cracking the GMAT," is marked with notes in the margins.""

2003-03-08T20:36:00.000-08:00

After reading Mark Steyn's latest special for the Daily Telegraph, let us indulge in a bit of fantasy for a moment:

The place: Hollywood. The scene: the 2003 Academy Awards.

Days before, a command decision was reached in the highest levels of the US government to send B-52s to attack, not Iraq, but Hollywood when the entire Fifth Clown Column of America is assembled for its annual act of self-congratulation. A B-52 flies high over Los Angeles, timing the release of its payload of ordnance so that the 750-pound bombs would impact the award ceremony just as Susan Sarandon and her cohabitating sperm donor Tim Robbins come walking out onto the stage for a Kumbaya moment with George Clooney, who has just finished-up his usual denunciations of the administration of President George W. Bush.

Or try this scenario: A F-15E let loose a GBU-28 precision guided munition at the center holding the award ceremony. Unlike other GBU-28s, this bomb (Nicknamed "Deep Throat" for its ability to punch clean through layers of reinforced concrete that could laugh off lesser bombs.) is specially modified to carry a video camera in the nose of its guidance package, instead of the usual laser. The Mr. and Mrs. Insomniac America who tuned in to the Oscars that night will be greeted with a split screen on their TV, one side carrying live shots of Sean Penn (Him of the incomplete sentence construction.) and Janeane Garofalo (Who obviously has been memorizing talking points fax to her by the Iraqi intelligence service in between public appearances to accuse Fox News Channel of getting talking points from the Republican National Committee.) warbling on about the "evils" of the Bush administration, cheerfully ignoring the evils of the Hussein regime (That would be so contrary to the talking points Ms. Garofalo been getting on Saddam's personal stationery.), the other side of the TV showing the footage being sent back by the camera in the GBU-28. Just as Ms. Garofalo gets to the obligatory references of "no evidence" showing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction to the "uh-huhs" coming from Mr. Penn, the GBU-28 enters the ceremony vertically and, for a brief moment, gives the viewer a chance to compare the quality of two cameras filming the same scene, side by side.

If only they could be true...

2003-03-07T12:43:00.000-08:00

Today's "Christened Herself/Himself/Itself An Idiot" Award Goes To...

Starting today, a Friday that is the 7th of March of the year 2003, this weblog will start handing out "Christened Herself/Himself/Itself An Idiot" Award every day to the individual that best examplifies:

A total lack of common sense;

Complete absence of knowledge no matter how much education they might have had;

Utter unawareness of reality;

Absolute dependence on nonsensical cliches and mantras in the place of well-informed argument;

Nonexistant ability to tell right from wrong, or to distinguish any difference between the two concepts;

Believing that known liars with histories of duplicitous behavior, outright deception, and treachrous activities should have greater credibility then honorable people of integrity and fidelity for the truth;

Willling to protest against the alleged "evil" actions of the democratic federal republics of the West in general and America in particular, while Simultaneously ignoring or even applauding the actual "evil" actions of authoritarian, totalitarian regimes and Third World tinpot dictators.

And the first ever winner of the "Christened Herself/Himself/Itself An Idiot" Award goes to.....Crystal (Or did your parents decide to exercise flower power and spell your name "Krystal"?) from New York! Crystal managed a double header, first by having her statement that "The money could be better spent on better education, health care, child care, training or jobs or anything" appear on Thursday (3/6/03) Rush Limbaugh Show, and then proceeding to call Rush on Friday and - mouthing a flood of cliches, platitudes, and feelings - removing all doubt as whether she deserved the "Christened Herself An Idiot" Award.

For her achievement in going above and beyond the normal bounds of stupidity and/or ignorance, Crystal will receive a plane ticket, one way, to Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein, along with a radio transmitter that Allied avaitors can use to target...I mean, avoid targeting you when the liberation of Iraq begins

Bravo!

Update - Well, it appears Crystal spells her name with a "C" instead of "K." Good. If her parents were sensible enough to refrain from getting overly creative with their flower power when they had to name their child, then maybe there is hope for the young lady that she will grow-out of her current state.

2003-03-04T00:25:00.000-08:00

Turkish Musings

As predicted, the Turkish stock market went into a tail-spin on Monday, after it watched the Turkish parliament effectively deny permission for American military forces to deploy in Turkey for the liberation of Iraq. They ended down over 12 percent at the close of market, and unless the government can pull a rabbit out of a hat (And allow US forces to deploy within the next week..), the market will keep going down no matter how satisfied the IMF may be with Turkey's latest budget.

An awful lot of ink and electrons have already been used on the matter, so maybe it is time to turn on another facet. Historically, Turkey's political maneuverings have been partially dictated by the military, and specifically, the Army, which actually has a constitutionally-mandated responsibility to maintain the secular nature of the nation. If a government falters in that regard, the Army can step in and either tell them to change, or replace the government entirely. The Army, naturally enough, wields enormous amounts of power in Turkish politics, society, and even the economy.

Another thing to consider is the nature of the current government in Ankara. The Wall Street Journal speculated that the Turkish military failed to tell "speak-up" for the US deployment as part of an effort at embarrassing the administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Gul on the eve of parliamentary elections. Given the antecedants of Gul's Justice and Development Party (A pro-Islamic party whose immediate predecessor was banned by the pro-Army Turkish courts for being too Islamic, and which required a certain amount of retooling to be acceptable under the Constitution.), such an attempt would not be surprising. However, the lack of a public voice by the Army may also be a result of attempts at trying to improve Turkey's chances at getting into the European Union. The republic is currently at its closest point to being officially on the membership track for the EU (Many Turks regard membership - And therefore part of non-Islamic Europe - as sine qua non of modernity, advancement, and progress.), and one of the criticism blocking such a move has been over the active role the Army takes in Turkish politics. Hence, a quieter military would offer a chance to impress the EU about Turkey's qualifications, though why the republic wants to be part of the Union is now something of a mystery.

All of this devolves down to an overlooked aspect - military procurement. Put simply, most of the equipment that arms the present Turkish military comes from the US, a legacy of the European distaste over Turkish actions in the 1974 Cyprus Crisis. The odd spectacle of an armed conflict between two members of NATO caused most of the Continent to slap arms embargoes on the republic. That distaste has largely disappeared in recent years, given the HUGE volume of sales in modern military equipment to the second numerical largest military in NATO, and one that has seen (As part of its modernization program.) considerable growth in its procurement budget at a time when the rest of Europe has cut their defense budgets to the bone. However, because the US was more willing to supply Turkey in the intervening time, the Turkish military now has a heavy reliance on American equipment, from frigates for the Turkish Navy, F-16s for the Air Force (Turkey has the second-largest aircraft factory ever (And the largest non-US plant.) used for the manufacture of F-16s, a plant that was built specifically for that purpose.), armored vehicles and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) for the Army (Oddly enough, the Turks are, along with the Greeks and South Koreans, the only non-US user of the latest and most capable version of the MLRS.).

That dependence gives an enormous, albeit relatively subtle, leverage for the Americans. Simply put, not only is Turkey dependent on new equipment from the US such as the Joint Strike Fighter currently under development (And a program that Turkey has a financial stake and is actively participating in.) and US financing for future procurements (Through the Foreign Military Sales office of the Defense Department.), but also material and technical assistance for a wide range of American equipment they currently have in service. From the American point of view, it would be comparatively easy and discreet to hold up shipments of parts and spares, push back the arrival date for technicians, add more red tape at the FMS office for current procurement requests. More importantly, even implying such actions would be quickly and clearly understood by the Turkish military for the message they are carrying. The potential problem that would pose is no doubt causing a great deal of discussion between members of the Turkish military and government right now. While I doubt there will be an overt move by the military, I would not be surprised to see a shift in the government's policy (Which apparently has already started.). While such a military angle would be only part of a motivation for a change, the power of it can not be underestimated.

The only question that now remains is whether Turkey can change enough and fast enough to matter? If it does not, the consequences will be severe for the republic.

2003-02-04T12:07:00.000-08:00

Other Weblogs of Note

For those who want to see other weblogs (At least, weblogs updated with a fair degree of regularity.), check out Steven Den Beste's USS Clueless, Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs (A wonderful weblog - check out the different titles for the page!), Tim Blair from Down Under (Full of an Australian-perspective, common sense view of the world.), Bjørn Stærk's weblog from Norway, and Clayton Cramer's weblog (The man who helped expose anti-gun "historian" Michael Bellisle's Arming America as a fraud of research and historical analysis.).

2003-02-03T00:12:00.000-08:00

News in Realtime

Opinionjournal.com had a link to a thread on the FreeRepublic.com messageboard covering the expected landing of shuttle Columbia on Saturday. There are still interested in the shuttle missions, and the thread was covering the landing of the space shuttle as it began its entry into the atmosphere on its way to Florida. It makes for chilling reading as people posted in realtime on the appearance of the shuttle, the flames of the reentry burn, and than when Mission Control lost contact with shuttle and afterwards.

2003-02-03T00:07:00.000-08:00

"A Fiery Chariot Riding Across the Sky"

I was going to update the log this past weekend, but I could not...What happened on Saturday left me without anything to say, and most everything else really pales in comparison. The only thing I could really add are the quote from Isaiah used by President George W. Bush in his address to the nation on Saturday:

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

And the poem President Ronald Reagn quoted from in his speech to the nation after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch in 1986, "High Flight" by American Pilot Officer John Gillespie Magee Jr. of the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War Two:

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds--and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of--wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence, hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along,
And flung my eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

2003-01-28T00:26:00.000-08:00

John Keegan Alert

The doyen of military historians all over the world, John Keegan, has penned a piece for the Daily Telegraph of London urging British Prime Minister Tony Blair to stand firm on Iraq against the doubters and appeasers of action against Saddam. He also does a wonderful job of noting the similarities and differences between the appeasers and doubters who opposed Winston Churchill's warnings about Adolf Hitler, and the differences.

Not surprising, many of the people who refused to heed warnings about Hitler were in same positions in British society as the people who now argue either against the US or for Saddam. Similarly, the appeasers refuse to recognize the dangers of madman in power like Hitler or Saddam (Though they are universially of the belief that George W. Bush is danger, if not to the world, then to their "enlightened" world view.) but as rational individuals with whom peace can be bought off with a piece of territory here (Sudetenland yesterday, Kuwait today.) or a relaxation of laws there (German rearmament versus Iraq's program to develop weapons of mass destruction.), always failing to realize that giving people this insane what they want is a sure way to get more demands later...And heaven forbid what happens when they finally demand something that can not be given (Look at Poland in 1939.)

But there are important difference. Appeasement of Hitler can be explained by the reluctance of people to undergo a repeat of the First World War, with visions of trench warfare, Verdun, the Somme, and Ypres in people's heads. Appeasement of Saddam naturally can not use the same arguments, though they quickly come up with another:

The new appeasers cannot therefore terrify the public with warnings of a battlefield holocaust. Nor can they advocate direct appeasement of the troublemakers, who clearly do not merit it. Appeasement therefore takes a new form.

The objection to war now stated is not the danger it threatens to one's own side, but, paradoxically, that it threatens against the other. It has become commonplace for the appeasers to speak of "millions of deaths" among the opponents' civilian population and to warn of widespread ecological and economic disaster. War itself, not the suffering to Britain that it might bring, is now the enemy. So the blacker the horrors painted, the better the new appeasement's cause is served.

Most of this horror is spurious. Western armed forces are now so efficient and their weapons so precise that, as was demonstrated in Kosovo, even an intense bombing campaign kills very few civilians and does the minimum of damage to the opponents' infrastructure.

The appeasers, with half their minds, know this to be the case. That produces a dilemma. If a war to deprive an opponent of his weapons of mass destruction will not harm our own side, will do little harm to the other's population and is unlikely to cause material disaster, what is the point of appeasement?

Mr. Keegan also pour cold water on talk of the "legality" of an attack on Iraq, namely the appeasers' contention that is it not legal, let alone right and proper (Watch out, Ron Paul.);

How can the new appeasers argue otherwise? They would say that nothing has been proved against Saddam. They would dispute that they are appeasing him. They represent Saddam as a weak little man, wicked perhaps, but not worth any violation of their interpretation of international law to bring down.

The history of appeasement does not change. Hitler was once a weak little man - and it was the concessions of the appeasers of his day that allowed him to grow strong. Once Saddam has his nuclear weapons, he will beat the drum of war. It will be a war that the new appeasers, like the old appeasers who rallied to Churchill after Hitler's first blitzkrieg, will bitterly regret that they did not fight when they had the chance to win.

Check it out.

2003-01-27T22:56:00.000-08:00

So You are in the Middle of Your Driving Exam....

Imagine being in the middle of the typical teenage rite of passage of getting your driver's license, when two robbers decide to make their getaway by car-jacking you. And that automatically fails you on the exam.

The weirdest story I ever personally heard of was when one my acquitances managed to give her driving examer on one of her exams (She took three.) a heart attack. Fortunately for me, and despite my lack of parallel parking skills, I only had to endure the torture once.

Probably a good thing too.

2003-01-27T11:37:00.000-08:00

Why Can't They Come from Vermont and Pennsylvania?

The Daily Telegraph had an article detailing how South Dakota is enticing dairy farmers from the United Kingdom, among other countries, to help reduce the labor force shortage for the state's dairy industry. The big promise of the move is being able to sell milk at a profit, not at a loss, while the state has people keeping all those cows working

I have a brillant idea. How about South Dakota invite some of the farmers from Vermont and Pennsylvania to move there? That way, South Dakota will have people working the excess cows, everybody gets a greater supply of milk, and Vermont and Pennsylvania can stop the idiotic mandatory price supports on milk prices which currently inflates the price of milk and other dairy products here beyond what a free market would price them as.

Short version - the consumer wins.

Oh yeah, here is another article from the Telegraph talking about a miracle of genetic engineering - the possible birth of cows engineered to produce better cheeses.

2003-01-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

Humor Goes Weblogging...

Tim Blair from Down Under pointed out this piece of news a couple days ago, but humorist Dave Barry finally has a weblog! Woo-Hoo! Finally, entertainment that actually is intentionally funny (Unlike, say, Mariah Carey's online meltdown.). Check it out!

2003-01-25T23:47:00.000-08:00

VDH Alert

The always entertaining, always enlightening, Victor Davis Hanson has penned another piece for National Review. The latest article is titled “Evil Over Good”: The wages of dead-end logic. As usual, Dr. Hanson is definitely worth a read, such as when he takes on the supposedly pure intent of those in the anti-war movement:

Instead — if yet another of the recent protests in Washington is any indication — there is little offered but the old hypocrisy, shrillness, and carnival absurdity. Signs proclaimed "Evil Over Good." Ramsey Clark was still screaming on cue for the impeachment of the president; the provocateur Al Sharpton was presented as an exemplar of racial harmony. Support was again asked for the cop-killers H. Rap Brown and Mumia Abu-Jamal (honorary citizen of Paris). A vociferous minister reprimanded demonstrators for putting a few coins, not many bills, in his tithe buckets — while affluent suburbanites nodded as Imam Mousa, the Islamist, called for "revolution" throughout the United States, which in theory might even reach their outer boroughs of Maryland and Virginia. Honorable antiwar protestors showing up at a rally sponsored by such leaders would be like critics of racial quotas allowing David Duke to organize their protests.

And this gem, which answers does who believe America is an empire. Wonder what would happen if the US stopped being an "empire"?

Empire? Are we really a hegemon that must intrude into countries all over the word? In a post-Cold War age of 12 mobile carrier battle groups, hundreds of submarines that are being reoriented to a variety of new tactical missions, missile defense, and the spread of democracies, the American military — as we learned from its expulsion from the Philippines — will not dissolve if it is asked to leave from various conventional bases abroad. Gone is the habitual American worry of the 1970s about the need for anti-Soviet homeports. It is replaced by a sort of resignation that host countries should do what they wish — and in response we will adapt and continue as we can.

So instead of European elites constantly hectoring the United States about its imperial Roman aspirations, their governments should simply match their rhetoric by asking us to vacate Western Europe. Pronto! The United States is not holding back Germans from its "German way." There are places for American ships besides Crete — and the Aegean can be patrolled well enough by joint Greek-Turkish NATO fleets.

Thousands of Americans on the tip of the spear in South Korea, if asked to depart by Seoul, will be only too happy to get out of the way of nukes across the DMZ. The American public will be delighted by the subsequent savings — and relieved even more that they are not pledging San Francisco for the security of Seoul. Anti-Americanism apparently has resonance in German and South Korean elections, but when such nationalist administrations have power, they strangely are not so ready to follow through on their campaign rhetoric.

Check it out!

2003-01-25T23:37:00.000-08:00

It's Out...Er...Not Yet....

Being a computer gaming fanatic, the news that Master of Orion 3 finally went gold (i.e., the developer were finally satisfied enough with the state of the program to release it, so they burned the game onto gold master CD-ROMs for before shipping it off the CD plant for mass duplication.) was welcomed, though tingled with the lower expectations (The removal of the ability to refit existing ships; the removal of races because "we don't want races that look like humans with fur" rationale.). However, having missed the Christmas sales season, publisher Infogrames is taking no chances on blowing another release date or two:

After not committing to a release date for the game following its missed holiday release schedule, Infogrames has today announced that Master of Orion III is complete and that it will ship to retail "as early as" February 25.

Call it paranoia, but something tells me waiting for February 25 to come will be a waste of effort.

2003-01-25T23:26:00.000-08:00

VHS Versus BetaMax

I do not normally read the British newspaper The Guardian since their ideological view is about 180 degrees opposite of mine. But they had an excellent article the other day about the urban legend of how Sony's Betamax video standard was technically superior to JVC's VHS video standard, but for the grace of God (And licensing agreements.) allow VHS to triumph. Like most urban legends, it is very ingrained in the public psyche, and like most urban legends it is not entirely correct.

It is a pretty good read, all in all. I advise a look at it, as well as The AFU & Urban Legends Archive (AFU standing for the "alt.folklore.urban-legend" newsgroup on UseNet.), for some enlightening truth behind our "It's True!" tales you hear, including myth regarding the inefficiency of the QWERTY-style keyboard.

2003-01-22T00:11:00.000-08:00

USA Today published an article reporting that, contrary to New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel's claims (To help support his desire to impose an universal military draft on the US again, but with the aim of crippling the armed services.), more whites are in the combat units who and therefore are more likely to die, then blacks as a percentage of both the population at large and the percentage in the armed services. Indeed, blacks tend to go into non-combat military specialties "that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces." While 20% of the military is black, as oppose to 12% of the general population, less then 10% percent of the Amy's "45,586 enlisted combat infantryman" (An appallingly low number that will be the subject of a rant for another day.) are black, while less then 5% of high risk specialties like Special Forces and combat pilots for the Air Force and Navy (Less then 2.5% for both.) are also black.

To be sure, non-combat and combat specialties in the Navy tend to be a pretty loose distinction, given both sorts can and do get assigned to warships deployed in dangerous situations, and there always exist the possibility of combat or sudden danger for non-combat units of the Army and Air Force (The Pennsylvania National Guard's 19th Quartermaster Detachment, which was devastated by one the last Scud missile strikes of the 1991 Gulf War.), and all Marines are trained and expected to be able to go into the field and fight at a moment's notice - the type of person who should be complaining of greater risk of death in combat is someone that Congressman Rangel probably is not going to have much attention for:

"If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites," says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois.

The following passages are from the book Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War, by James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi, from the section in on the myths of the Vietnam War entitled 'The "Black Army" Myth': It explodes the various popular myths espoused by Charles Rangel and various others.

  This is strongly felt among African Americans and generally believed by most liberals and leftists.  In fact, there is some substance to the idea that the armed forces were "blacker" druing the Vietnam War than in ealier wars, but not in the sense that is usually assumed.  In fact, the notion that the war was fought by a "Black Army" is a myth created out of whole cloth for political purposes.  Since the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, African Americans have numbered between 10 and 12 percent of the population.  There were times when no black men were permitted to serve.  And even when blacks were recruited for military service, their numbers were kept small, never more than 8 percent of the total force, figures attained during the Civil War and the World Wars.  In these three wars few African-American troops were permitted to enter combat, so that black combatants usually numbered no more than about 3 percent of total manpower committed to action.  This began to change in 1947, when Pres. Harry S. Truman issued his famous order ending segregation in the armed forces.  The full effects of this measure were not felt until the late 1950s, by which time the armed forces, and particularly the army, had become relatively the most integrated institution in America.  With opportunities far more equal in the service than in society as a wholr, a military career held distinct advantages for black Americans.  As a result, by the early 1960s the percentage of career military personnel who were black had risen to more than the proportion of African Amercians in the overall population.  This was particularly the case among career enlisted personnel in the army and notably so in volunteer specialties such as the airborne, which received higher pay for "hazardous duty," which resulted in reports of airbone platoons composed "mostly of blacks." Perhaps a fifth of the NCOs in the army were of African descent, though the number of black officers lagged in all services.  This had serious consequences when Amercian troops became engaged in the war on a large scale.  During the first two years of serious American involvement (1964-66), black Americans do seem to have comprised about a fifth or a quarter of those killed in action.  Casualties were particularly heavy among career NCOs, the guys leading the troops.  Thereafter, as the armed forces expanded, the percentage of troops who were black fell markedly, as the drat brough in proportionately more whites.

    As a result, the percentage of black casualties fell, so that overall about 12.5 percent of those killed in action were black.  This was stiull somewhat higher than the proportion of blacks in society, but was about the average percentage of blacks in the army over the course of the war, and did reflect the proportion of blacks among men of military age in the population as a whole.  Of course the notion that the frontline troops were mostly black had by then become pervasive, spread for political reasons by pacifists, black radicals, and the merely misinformed.

    So black Americans were not disproportionately represented in the ranks in Vietnam.

Note the import of the US military as far and away the most racially integrated institution in the US, with racial harmony almost completely unseen anywhere else in American society. Indeed, the US military is the only institution in America where blacks routinely give orders to whites, and one where blacks can expect to rise to the pinnacle of their chosen profession by din of hard work, ability, and merit. The concept of meritocracy is a key part of the American fabric, and there are few places which match its execution in American society then the U.S. military.

After Vietnam, the pattern of ethnic participation in the armed forces slowly changed. By the Gulf War, whites were a substantial majority in combat units, while nonwhite troops tended to be in jobs requiring more technical traning. This switch was caused by the increasing tendency of white soldiers to stay for only one enlistment and to choose combat arms jobs for the greater, well, "adventure and excitement" would be the best way to explain it. Black and Hispanic troops wanted professional and technical training, either because they wanted to make a career of the military or wanted a leg up in the civilian job market when they got out. In the 1980s, the military raised the educational qualifications for enlistment. There were not a lot of poorly educated recruits of any ethnic persuasion, thus making just about everyone eligible for some kind of technical training and an interesting career. Many recruits who would have never gotten beyond hugh school took the opportunities, thus making a repeat of the Vietnam"dying for the white man" controversy remote. Or so it seemed until the Gulf War. As American troops poured into Saudi Arabia, the media picked up on the (woefully ill-informed) laments of some prominent Africa Americans that "black soldiers would suffer disproportionate losses." The Pentagon was quick to point out that the situation had changed, but the damage was done. Bad news travels farther and faster than good news, and for over a year it became much more difficult to recruit African Americans. Some recruiters saw drops of over 50 percent.

Old myths die hard.

2003-01-21T23:13:00.000-08:00

Disappreciation, (Cont'ed)

Just so nobody forgets about Kim Jong-Il and the armed concentration camp called North Korea, here is an article by Newsweek's Evan Thomas about the "Dear Leader"....Oops, I guess it is "Great Leader" now.

The title says it all; "Women, Wine and Weapons." Oh yeah, the article also talks about Kim Jong-Il's love of Friday the 13th series of moveis.

2003-01-21T23:06:00.000-08:00

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism

The Christmas holidays allowed me to clear some of the backlog of reading materials that had been building up in my "To-Do" file (Next: Find a job.), including a couple of that latest issues of Foreign Affairs magazine. The November/December 2002 issue had a real gem of an article among the usual items, a piece written by Barry Rubin entitled "The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism" which just demanded being read.

Foreign Affairs does have an online archive of all the articles published in print. However, except for a few articles in the current issue, you have to pay to read items from back issues. Fortunately, I managed to locate a free online copy of the article here.

The article itself does an excellent job of demolishing the idea that Arab anti-Americanism is primarily a reaction to American policies toward Israel or unpopular Arab governments, but is rather the result of "self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies."

Furthermore:

This distinction should have a profound impact on American policymakers. If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded in domestic maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing Washington's policies will affect it. In fact, if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse. New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

Curiously, the entire Arab hatred of America, a sentiment that changes in policy aimed at appeasement can not change, is balanced on a massive irony - to be a worthy of hate, America has to be perceived as a strong bully. But if people are to be motivated to challenge and attack America, America has to be seen as a weak coward;

To be effective, anti-Americanism must therefore persuade masses and leaders that the United States is simultaneously horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked, ridiculed, or disregarded. Powerless against their own dictators and dysfunctional polities and dissatisfied with their societies, every Arab or Muslim may at least feel it possible to spit on the United States and get away with it.

Consequently, anti-Americanism is most encouraged not by a belief that the United States is too tough but that it is weak, meek, and defeatable. Far from attacking the United States because it is really a big bully, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others have urged attacks to prove that the United States was a paper tiger. Unsurprisingly, these same leaders have made it clear that, in their view, power -- not popularity -- is the most important factor for political success. As Syria's late president, Hafiz al-Assad, once noted, "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden has agreed, commenting that people always back the side that looks strongest. Western weakness in confronting Hitler, wrote Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Nizar Hamdoon, encouraged Nazi aggression (as well, presumably, as Saddam Hussein's).

As these comments suggest, it has been the United States' perceived softness in recent years, rather than its bullying behavior, that has encouraged the anti-Americans to act on their beliefs. After the United States failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its citizens, stood by while Americans were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon, let Saddam Hussein remain in power while letting the shah fall, pressured its friends and courted its enemies, and allowed its prized Arab-Israeli peace process be destroyed, why should anyone have respected its interests or fear its wrath?

This article indicate the only way America is ever going to stop terrorist attacks from the Middle East is to be unflinching in the application of strength, whether militarily, economically, or diplomatically/politically. If the US backs down from attacking Iraq, the move will only incite more attacks against the US. On the other hand, a smashing victory in Iraq and a willingness to stand-up (Despite the cries of all the anti-American protestors who gathered together last weekend.) against our enemies will serve as a better deterrent and serve as better foundations for geninue peace than any amount of appeasement or policy changes over Israel.

2003-01-19T14:28:00.000-08:00

America-Bashing and Marxism....Hmmm.....

Opinionjournal.com has published an interesting commentary by Lee Harris regarding how Marxism has gradually turned to Western-bashing in general, and America-bashing in particular. Anybody who wants to know the depressing rationale behind much of the left-wing agonizing among America's academia and intellectual elites, and the celebrities of entertainment and journalism, can do well making taking a look at this piece.

2003-01-19T14:23:00.000-08:00

Sheryl, Your Time is Up.

Right-Thinking from the Left Coast, as well as Andrew Sullivan, has commented on singer Sheryl Crow's decision to join the Idiot-Moron-Celebrity crowd. At last week's American Music Awards, Ms. Crow decided the rest of the world needed to "share" in her views on the coming war with Iraq. To wit, she dropped this gem in her speech;

I don't want to get into my own political diatribe, but I would say that I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.

I did not know that Ms. Crow had joined the Marxist-Buddhist crowd. Probably just an oversight on my part.

Flippant comment aside, I wonder if Ms. Crow actually believes the garbage she sprouts (As if there is any doubt.). Certainly, the history books have shown that such a belief is dangerously naive in the Real World, no matter how much good intentions the person espousing them have. Of course, if nobody ever had any enemies there would be no wars. Then again, if everybody were angels, then not only would wars not occur, but we would not need laws. However, there are always people for whom "karmic retribution" is pure nonsense, and some of them are really bad people who do really bad things, like murdering people or starting wars.

And what about those who have done nothing to gather enemies against them (Except succeed, or belong to a group.), like the Jews? Would Ms. Crow care to explain to an European Jew being overrun by Hitler's Wehrmacht exactly how they should avoid having enemies (Committing suicide, perchance?)? Or tell them not to wage a defensive war to defend themselves (Which is not a war about "greed.") against people intent on nothing short of their complete obliteration? Even Mahatma Gandhi admitted that non-violence was useless and actually lethal in such cases, not that Ms. Crow would bother herself to find that out. And would the Allies' just efforts at a war with the aim of destroying Hitler (Or Saddam.) who have inflicted such miseries on people likely to bring karmic retribution? One would think that, if there was a just, omnipotent force looking down on the world, they would gave good karma beyond merely overflowing to those who brought down a Hitler, a Saddam, a Kim Jong-Il.

What a pity that such an intelligent person music-wise (You have to have some intelligence writing songs and music.) can be such an ignorant idiot. Obviously, the botox injections probably responsible for her youthful looks (Why, oh why would you want to be injected with one of the deadliest substances known to man? Perhaps her stupidity has deeper and longer roots then everybody thought.) has rotted-out Ms. Crow's brain. At least that explanation would hold a hope out for the day when Ms. Crow stop taking such dangerous substances and some intelligence actually comes back. Unfortunately, the prognosis is that such an outcome is very unlikely

2003-01-19T00:30:00.000-08:00

VDH Alert

The always interesting, always entertaining, and always informative military historian and professor of classics Victor Davis Hanson has just had his latest piece of National Review posted here. As usually, the reading is excellent. Also, check-out the piece by Hanson published by Opinionjournal.com here - it surpasses just about anything else the man has written yet regarding the Axis of Evil, the War on Terrorism, and the aftermath of September 11th. For example:

For many, today's affluence is also accompanied by an unprecedented sense of security. Tenure has ensured that tens of thousands of professors who work nine months a year cannot be fired for being unproductive or mediocre scholars, much less for being abject failures in the classroom. In government at every level, job security is the norm. The combination of guarantees and affluence, the joint creation of an enormous upper-middle class, breeds a dangerous unfamiliarity with how human nature really works elsewhere, outside the protected realm.

Such naiveté engenders its own array of contradictory attitudes and emotions, including guilt, hypocrisy, and envy. Among some of our new aristocrats, the realization has dawned that their own good fortune is not shared world-wide, and must therefore exist at the expense of others, if not of the planet itself.

This hurts terribly, at least in theory. It sends some of them to their fax machines, from where they dispatch anguished letters to the New York Times about the plight of distant populations. It prompts others, more principled and more honorable, to work in soup kitchens, give money to impoverished school districts, and help out less fortunate friends and family. But local charity is unheralded and also expensive, in terms of both time and money. Far easier for most to exhibit concern by signing an ostentatious petition against Israel or to assemble in Central Park: public demonstrations that cost nothing but seemingly meet the need to show to peers that one is generous, fair, caring and compassionate.

As if that were not hypocrisy enough, those who protest against global warming, against shedding blood for oil, or against the logging of the world's forests are no less likely than the rest of us to drive SUVs, walk on hardwood floors and lounge on redwood decks. Try asking someone awash in a sea of materialism to match word with deed and actually disconnect from the opulence that is purportedly killing the world and its inhabitants. Celebrity critics of corporate capitalism neither redistribute their wealth nor separate themselves from their multinational recording companies, film studios, and publication houses--or even insist on lower fees so that the oppressed might enjoy cheaper tickets at the multiplex. Jessica Lange and Alec Baldwin so hate George W. Bush that they threaten to leave our shores--promises, promises.

An even less appetizing quality of the new privileged is their palpable and apparently unassuageable envy. Intellectuals and people in the arts are perennially surprised--no, outraged--to find that corporate managers and Rotary Club businessmen, with far less education and infinitely less taste than they, make even more money. To the guilt they feel over what they have is therefore added fury at those who not only have more but seem to enjoy it without a necessary and concomitant sense of shame.

Worse yet, because America is still a plutocracy where riches and not education, ancestral pedigree or accent bring status, it can be galling for a sensitive professor of Renaissance literature to find himself snubbed at dinner parties by his own university's president in favor of the generous but (shall we say) less subtle owner of a chain of Taco Bells. From there it is but a step to seeing the face of that same smiling and unapologetic plutocrat before him whenever he gazes upon the likeness of George W. Bush or Richard Cheney.

2003-01-18T23:59:00.000-08:00

Yikes! Again!

Sunday's Daily Telegraph had an article that hits ten point zero on the Skin-Crawl-O-Meter. It is a warning that not all long-lost child and parent reunions should take place, especially when the mother in question, even after three decades, still take pride in being a woman SS guard at the death camp at Auschwitz. I love the part about the "gold trinkets" the mother offered her grown child and the SS guard uniform she said would fit her daughter. The story is actually more disgusting, FAR more disgusting, then that, as hard as it sounds.

No doubt about it - This story will make your skin crawl.

2003-01-18T21:56:00.000-08:00

Smoking Gun Alert! Smoking Gun Alert!

Little Green Footballs had posted a link to this article in The Daily Telegraph which indicates that the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission or UNMOVIC, while "discovering" the small cache of empty chemical agent artillery shells in Iraq on Thursday, has also hit upon a potential jackpot of a "smoking gun" - a set of plans relating to Saddam's ongoing nuclear weapons program taken from the one of the two homes of Iraqi nuclear physicists members of the verification team visited at the same time others found the empty shells, plans that could very well be "the blueprint of Saddam's nuclear weapons project."

If the nuclear experts in Vienna determine that this in the Real McCoy, expect the fireworks to begin at 12:01AM, January 28, 2003.

2003-01-18T21:28:00.000-08:00

Navy Gray

Steven Den Beste has written an excellent summary of the US naval forces heading for Iraq on his weblog. I would add a few points, some of which can also be found at Andrew Toppan's superb website Haze Gray and Under Way (The ultimate online naval resource website, run by a guy who once, while still a college student, managed to shutdown Worcester Polytechnic Institute's webserver with the initial version of his webpage.):

The NIMITZ-class carriers are closer to 103,000 tons and up. Yes, I know they were originally designed for less then 89,000 tons, but the steady growth and improvement of the class over thirty(!) years of their construction program has added significantly to their tonnage;

The Navy is enormously secretive about the power plant capacity and maximum speed of their nuclear carriers (As they generally are with ALL carriers built after World War Two.). Anybody who knows the true figures are not telling (Least they face jail time.) and anybody who says they know the exact figures is lying. However, they probably can make 40 knots (For non-mariners, 1 knot = 1 sea mile per hour = 2000 yards per hour = 1.136 miles per hour), though much more would be unlikely, given that horsepower requirements for each additional knot of speed goes up rather steeply.).

However, a carrier will seldom be moving from any place to any place faster then its escorts. The extra speed (US escorts are all slower then the CVNs they are escorting.) is allow flight operations to be conducted. Typically, a carrier will be running all aross the ocean to conduct flight ops, while the rest of the task force steam steadily along the decided course around the gyrations of the carrier. Nuclear power allows for flight ops speed to be maintained for longer periods then an oil-fired carrier (Which would consume oil instead of uranium.) can. Not surprisingly, the operational importance of this point is always missed whenever the General Accounting Office conclude that oil-fired carriers are cheaper then nuclear-powered one.

The inequality in speed does mean that carriers, which almost never sail by itself unless under very unusual circumstances, will have their strategic redeployment speed determined by their escorts. Since any campaign in Iraq is not expected to begin for a while, any CVN leaving port right now will be proceeding at a steady pace acceptable to its escorts rather then running full-out;

The VIRGINIA-class SSN, which are currently under construction, is to supplement and eventual replace the LOS ANGELES or 688-class SSN. The SEAWOLF represent a very different capability, though whether the money the Navy spent to develop and build it is a hotly debated question. However, while during the 90's the Navy tended to decommission 688s (Even relatively young boats.) as they required refueling of their nuclear reactors as part of the draw-down process of the Navy, the policy is likely to be changed if it has not been done already. Therefore it is likely that the 688s will be around for a while.

The deadliness of the modern, first-line nuclear submarine can not be emphasized enough, though bad nuclear subs tend to die fast. Very few surface navies in the world can counter such threats effectively, and even then, it is not for the faint-hearted or stupid. As Tom Clancy noted, it is akin to going into a forest bear hunting with just a knife. (On a stranger note, Mr. Clancy has remarked that US submarine commanders would prefer going after a Chinese invasion fleet attacking Taiwan over " a weekend in Vegas with Meg Ryan." Figure that one out yourself.);

US carrier battle groups (CVBG) tend to have Aegis-equiped one or two TICONDEROGA-class guided missiles cruisers (CG) and one or two ARLEIGH BURKE-class guided missile destroyers (DDG), in addition to two SPRUANCE-class destroyers (DD) and one or two OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class guided missile frigates (FFG). There are usually one or two combat support vessels, though not all of them (In fact, most of them.) have naval crews;

Oddly enough, the PEARL HARBOR, as part of the HARPERS FERRY-class of dock landing ships (LSD) is closer in design mission to an amphibous transport dock (LPD). In fact, they were designated as such during the design phase, having been modified in favor of cargo capacity at the expense of docking capacity.

Along with WASP and TARAWA-class amphibuous assault ships, the LSD and LPDs form amphibious groups (Formerly Amphibious Readiness Groups.) that can operate within air cover or outside it if the air threat is mininal. Such capability provides the US with a wealth of options for reacting, quickly, to crises around the world. Coupled with Marine aviation, which allows Marines to attack deep inland without going over the beach like The Sands of Iwo Jima or The Longest Day and hitting any shore defenses, one of these assault groups can force an actual or potential enemy into reactions out of proportion to the amount of American forces committed;

Incidentally, I sincerely doubt that the amphibs of the "Gator Navy" can move to the Persian Gulf any faster then their stated speed. Some of them are dependent on diesel engines, which have maximum limits to their marine speed rating - they simply can not move the ships any faster then the rated speed though they can maintain maximum speeds almost indefinitely and at virtually similar fuel consumption rates as at lower speeds. The performance of other steam turbines of other ships are well known, and not very impressive compared to warships. While there are transport vessels in the US inventory capable of high speed (See the SL-7 transports I mentioned in an earlier post.), they are few and far between - simply put, the extra cost of higher speeds (Again, higher speed requires higher horsepower per shaft and therefore higher power plant capacity, higher capacity drive trains and reduction gear and higher cost for everything all around.) are not as worthwhile for most amphibs and sealift vessels then they might be for US carriers, submarines, and surface combatants.

Still....All the departures of naval forces from both coasts mean that Saddam's lease on time is now very short and getting shorter. I expect the real test will come when the transports carrying the Army's heavy equipment begin arriving in the Gulf from Savannah and Texas and whose departure has largely been overshadowed by the sailings of the more obviously combatants. Then...Well, not to be flippant about a dreadful business as war but I would not want to be serving in the Iraqi Army when that moment comes.

2003-01-18T16:42:00.000-08:00

End of an Era

Saturday's Daily Telegraph had an article marking the end of an era. The famed shipyard of Harland and Wolff, the last shipbuilder in Belfast (Northern Ireland or Ulster, depending on your opinion.), has received the last order it is likely to get. The company, famed for building the RMS Titanic among other famous ships, is likely to end its shipbuilding efforts after completing the car ferry Anvil Point. Such as sad fate for a distinguished name.

2003-01-18T16:28:00.000-08:00

The Anti-War Movement's Greatest Hits - Not!

As the sand in the great hourglass which marks the time left to Saddam Hussein steadily falls, and the US military forces around Iraq steadily rises, an urgent panic is engulfing the anti-war movement across the world as they try to find some way, any way, to stop the unstoppable toppling of Iraq's thug-tyrant dictator. However, having shown that they lack any new ideas or thoughts to inspire the "masses," the movement is predictably turning to the Vietnam War as a model for what to do. Unfortunately, the Vietnam War was hardly a success back them for the movement; it is even less relevant now. The choice of inspiration does allow an interesting opportunity to examine the flaws of the movements though.

The following passage is taken from the book Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War, by noted military authority James F. Dunnigan and Albert A Nofi. Take a note on just how much the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era is similar to the anti-war movement of the Iraq era. You may find the comparisons to be startling.

My comments will be in italics.

Some Notable Blunders of the Peace Movement

The peace movement was not monolithic. Its adherents ranged across the political spectrum to include a surprising number of conservatives along with a lot more liberals and radicals. Although it did have considerable support, it utterly failed to mobilize a majority of the American people. This was partially because the movement was so fragmented that it went off in so many differents ways as to drive away many potential supporters. Certainly some of the most characteristic actions of some of the more outspoken people in the peace movement actually served to increase support for the war among some groups.

Hard as some people might find it, not everybody on the right support the liberation of Iraq. A large number of libertarians oppose it for all sorts of reasons, and usually consistently (A classic example is the libertarian Cato Institute, which actually released a study in 1991 arguing that it was cheaper for the US in the long run to let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait.). Nor are they on the fringes of power; Congressman Ron Paul of Texas firmly opposes going to war with Iraq despite the latter nation's previous act of war against the US (The attempted assassination of former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait in 1994.).

Elitism. For a group that purported to represent the common man against the vested interests - militarists, capitalists, and so forth - who were supposedly benefiting from the war, the peace movement had a very anticommon-man thrust. For example, in the 1970 film Joe, the protagonist, a working-class World War II vet who supports the war, is depicted as homicidal, boorish, bigot, which, while it may have warmed the cockles of the hearts of many a sensitive antiwar intellectual, seems hardly likely to have presented some useful reasons why the much greater numbers of people who were working-class World War II veterans should join the pace movement.

Just look at the list of people signing the anti-war "Not in Our Name" petition.

Flag Burning. Many patriotic Americans had reservations about the war, but the anti-Americanism of many peace activits made the average person much less likely to listen to anything else they said. Level-headed elements in the movement saw this problem. Asked to comment on flag-burning, veteran Socialist Norman Thomas decried it as a poor gesture, saying "Washing the flag would be a better symbol." Arguably the strongly anti-American - even revolutionary - tone that much of the peace movement adopted probably drove many conservatives into being supporters of the U.S. policy in Vietnam, about which many of them initially had serious reservations: The John Birch Society, for example, opposed sending troops to Vietnam.

Supporting the Enemy. "Peace activists" who posed alongside North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns, raised funds for North Vietnam, or hobnobbed with North Vietnamese officialdom seemed to have a decidedly odd definition of peace. Likewise, opposing "war" but supporting "armed struggle" or "revolutionary struggle" was hardly a way to convince someone that you believed in peace. In fact, when antiwar advocates cheered for Ho Chi Minh and said things like, "I would welcome a Viet Cong victory," they immediately turned off the largest group of people in the country who reservations about the war, those whose sons were fighting it. By one survey conducted at the time, 85 percent of the people in this group were dissatisfied with the war.

Writer David Corn has written an article on one of the foremost groups demonstrating against war in Iraq. International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), which is a major sponsor of anti-war rallies all across the United States, is principly a front organization for the hard Left Workers World Party, whose world views can be determined by its firm support for every anti-Western dictator (Saddam, Milosevic, Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, etc.) and its roots as a group who split from the Socialist Workers Party because of the latter's opposition to the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956! In addition, they oppose further arms inspections of Iraq and, as a sideline, supported the Chinese suppression (With tanks.) of the pro-democracy movement in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The Powerline Weblog refers to these people as unreconstructed Communists. That description is far too mild - these folks are unreconstructed Stalinists and Maoists.

Incidentally, David Corn is no right-wing ideologue. The man usually writes for The Nation magazine, not noted for its right-wing or pro-war sympathies.

Violence. Blowing up offices and killing scientists or draft officials was certainly no way to promote the peace movement.

2003-01-12T15:28:00.000-08:00

The Puzzler of the Week

So I am wandering through the Barnes and Noble website this past week, and one question comes to mind....How did British writer and Tory politician Jeffrey Archer, who has been serving a sentence for perjury in one of Her Majesty's prison for the better part of the last year, manage to publish a new book entitled Sons of Fortune at the beginning of this year? While Mr...I mean, Lord Archer, is a pretty good writer (His collections of short stories are wonderful to read, especially the twist at the end of the tales he throws in...Hence the name of one of his collections A Twist in the Tale.), the coincidence in timing is certainly curious, not to mention a little unseemly.

Oh well, at least Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 3 DVD set came out over the week, with BN.com offering a nice discount on the initial release. Unfortunately, neither Season 1 or Season 2 have as good a discount as Season 3, though if anybody wants to get either one for me, feel free to do so. : )

2003-01-12T15:10:00.000-08:00

More Proof Kim Jong-Il is an Evil Bastard.

Another article from The Daily Telegraph about North Korea, this time talking about the horrendous state of its children, malnourished and ill-cared for. There are finally photographic evidence for the appalling conditions that a horrifyingly large number of children are in, trapped in the last Stalinist state in the world. Some have compared the situation in the hospitals and orphanages to what happen in Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania.

In Romania's case, the situation was alleviated by the overthrow of Ceausescu's regime and the death (Execution.) of the dictator. Given the despicable behavior of the North Koreans (The US asked that any additional food aid be released only if observers could make sure the food actually went to starving people and not diverted to, say, the army. The North Koreans refused and now tries to blackmail the US into giving food aid which the US was suppose to give only if the North Koreans followed agreements that the North Koreans broke from the day they signed them.), and the personality of Kim Jong-Il (He imported Italian chefs and pizza ovens so he can eat pizza whenever he wants, and owns one of the world's largest collection of Mercedes-Benz autos.), it may require nothing short of such extreme actions to help North Korea's starving children.

2003-01-12T14:41:00.000-08:00

The March of the West Continues...

Something that fluttered onto my desktop earlier this week: an article in The Daily Telegraph which talked about how Malaysia is bringing English back into their education system 30 years after tossing it away. Apparently, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the current prime minister of Malaysia and one of the most unstable people to ever be elected to run any country (He is also the one who, a couple of years ago, got into an argument with financier George Soros over the "despicable" behavior of Western "exploiters," i.e. the investors who saw Asian countries running into financial trouble and decided to save their money by pulling investments.), has decided that Malaysia needs to regain English fluency because those Malays who lack it (A lot of Muslims.) are being shut out of business dealings, which depend on English. So from now on, all math and science classes will no longer be taught in Malay, Chinese, and Tamil but just English.

Considering Dr. Mohamad was the brilliant genius who came up with the idea of expelling English from Malaysian education three decades ago, the U-turn is ironic, to put it mildly. Then again, Dr. Mohamad is a certifiable nut, so that may not be surprising. But it is continuing proof that English, not French or Arabic or Chinese, will be the dominant lingua franca for the world's marketplace (In fact, the Siemen conglomerate in Europe has mandated several years ago that all of its employees be able to speak English.), which will allow more people to learn such "evil" western ideas as individual liberty, freedom of religion, capitalism, free markets, governments of law and not of power, that sort of thing. If nothing else, the world is marching to a better place via its choice of a language of international communications.

2003-01-06T00:27:00.000-08:00

Be Afraid, Iraq, be Very Afraid

A follow-up to my earlier comment about how the US has superior military capability then the EU or most of the rest of the world - The Daily Telegraph had an article about how US forces - equipped with the finest and most widespread night vision equipment of all the militaries in the world - have been undergoing intensive and extensive training in night combat. Not even the British military has their average soldier as well trained and equipped for night fighting as the Americans, and the Iraqis certainly do not have anywhere near the material or proficiency as the Brits. The capability adds new options to the American arsenal, which seems precisely the intent.

Part of the reason for the new training is that America forces can now wait to summer, if they need to, for an invasion of Iraq. Traditionally, the intense heat of the Middle East in summer has been consider a major problem for conventional fighting, and the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons makes fighting almost nightmarish, since wearing a MOPP-4 suit (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) is akin to being in a sauna in temperate conditions. However, it can get quite chilly during the night, even in the middle of summer, out in the Middle East, and that would greatly ease the problems of fighting for troops use to night operations, as well as increasing the difficulties the Iraqis have targeting their artillery and surface-to-surface rockets which might be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons.

The training does not automatically mean that the US is going to wait to June before initiating their invasion of Iraq, but it does give them the ability to do so without pushing their troops to exhaustion. The capability also allows fighting in bad visibility situations like in the middle of a storm, and allows them to keep the pressure on the Iraqis (The famed "full-court press" of Operation Desert Storm.) during the night even if the US begins the war during the last weeks of winter.

Strictly speaking, there is no real reason why fighting can not be done in the summer day. Previous military forces have done so, with far less sophisticated equipment (For example, modern armored vehicles tend to be air-conditioned, to better protect them against NBC threats.). The strain and stress on both men and equipment has been severe, but daylight summer fighting is possible. Of course, the coming invasion of Iraq will see a critically weaker Iraqi force confronting a US force with weapons generations ahead of anything seen in 1991. Steven Den Beste's weblog, USS Clueless, covers some of these.

Incidentally, the prospect of city-fighting, and the US developmen to thermobaric weapons, has led the British to ask the US to supply them with the man-portable versions. The devastating new weapons - first seen in action in Afghanistan in the form of the BLU-118B PGM which were deployed after an incredibly rapid development phase - can take out a house a shot. Needless to say, if you own property in downtown Basra or Baghdad, better start making redevelopment plans because the walls are going to be tumblin' down.

And if you own a bunker with anthrax or other biological weapons stored in it, well, the US has already put into service "thermo-corrosive" bomb with will burn the biologicals up quite nicely, a different state of affairs from the 1991 Gulf War. Should be great for barbecues.

2003-01-05T23:31:00.000-08:00

The Religion of Peace.....to Women?

So you are a 39-year-old businesswoman from France who visits Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on business every once in a while. One night you are having drinks and a couple of local men offer you a lift. You make the mistake of accepting. They proceed to gang rape you. You go to the local cops to report the rape. Justice will be done, right?

Well, if any one of the men claim that you had consented to have sex with them (One of the most common excuses/explanations/alibi used by rapists.), guess what? You get arrested for adultery and the men go off scot-free. It is worse if you are a local woman who suffers the fate - you might get stoned or sentenced to some other unpleasant form of execution, and the male members of your family might be inclined to restore the family honor, not by going after the bastards who raped you, but by killing you, the "honor killings" that is still practiced in most of the Middle East. And these are often that same people who declare their intention is to impose the laws of shari'a upon everybody in the rest of the world, which sounds exactly like an open invitation to rapists everywhere.

And we got people in the West who run around and say we should "understand" and "tolerate" these Islamofascists and "accept" them into our "multicultural" society. Well, if "tolerance" in this "multicultural" society means we have to tolerate our cultures' intolerances, no thanks. Anybody who argues that clearly can not see the forest for the trees, or they just hope reality will somehow bend and shape themselves to their delusions. Needless to say, such advocates are the first people to be killed when Islamofascists take over (I mean, let us be realistic about Islamofascism - we are talking about a movement where homosexual rights consist of arguing whether it is more cruel to execute a person for being a homosexual by tossing them off tall buildings or collapsing a stone wall on the said individual.)

People - Western apologists and Muslim Islamofascists alike - want us to ask "Why do they hate Americans?" They have it exactly backwards. What those Islamofascists in the Middle East should be asking is "Why do Americans hate us?" because it is only a matter of time before these idiots will get their due, and I am sure, it is something they will not like very much.

2003-01-05T22:51:00.000-08:00

Remembering What We are Fighting For, and Against

A couple of websites suggested themselves in the past couple of days, one of which is more pertinent with the wake of the recent bombing in Tel Aviv. The first is "Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000", set up by the Israeli government. It makes for sobering reading, all the Israelis killed by Palestinians, especially the civilians. Tonight they will have to add at least another 22 to the list.

The second is The September 11 Digital Archive, a joint effort by the City University of New York and George Mason University. It is an online archive stories and emails people wrote on and in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks on September 11th. The reading makes for serious contemplation.

The last is from the website of radio DJ Rick Dees, who has a daily morning radio show out in Los Angeles and a nationally syndicated weekly Top 40 show every weekend. He managed to get a copy of the last communications between United Flight 93 and the air traffic control center at Cleveland, including the struggle as the terrorists stormed the cockpit and the chilling announcement by one of the terrorists for everybody on the aircraft to sit down because there was a bomb aboard. You can hear it in Realplayer streaming media here. If you had any idea about the people who gives us these terrorists as nice people, check it at the door.

2003-01-05T22:34:00.000-08:00

Sometimes....

An article in the Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram tells the horrifying story of Jennifer Michelle Sanchez of Irving, Texas. The 20-year old was working at a waitress at local Bennigan's when she decided to go out to the parking lot to take down the license plate number of the car used by four 18/19-years young bastards who not only skipped out on a $100 dinner tab but also got intoxicated as well. Well, the driver of the car (An 18-year old.) backed the car and fatally injuried Ms. Sanchez before taking off into the night., leaving the waitress dying on the parking lot asphalt. The driver is being charged with murder and two of her friends are also in custody. The fourth is still at large.

I do not know what angers me more, that a young, promising life was snuffed out in a most agonizing way, or that the girl who ran Ms. Sanchez over is going have coterie of the usual suspects come and argue about how it really was not her fault that she killed the waitress, that it was somebody/something else's fault, and therefore she does not deserve severe punishment but counseling and understanding. Sorry, but for somebody to exercise judgement this appallingly bad on such an act is where I think we should start extending the reach of the death penalty as punishment. At the very least, swift executions of a couple of the bastards might have a salutary impact on crime, and perhaps prevent something like this from happening again.

2003-01-05T22:15:00.000-08:00

Ah...Okay...

Just to show that governments always - always - try to plan for every possible contingency, here comes an article talking about a project to use laser-based scanning systems to get as complete design and architectural data on national landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, and the Capital building so they can be rebuilt exactly like the original in case terrorists managed to destroy the said landmark. Not exactly an original concept (Since the Japanese were the ones who first started doing it.), it does make you go "uh...huh."

At least, for me it did. Your mileage may vary (Actually, I am sure it does. If it does not, then something is seriously wrong in the dimensional shift here.).

2002-12-30T16:22:00.000-08:00

North Korea - A Disappreciation

The Orwellian-nightmare-that-is-beyond-George-Orwell's-worst-nightmare that is North Korea continues its road into delusion. The latest rant from Pyongyang is that the US refusal to negotiate with North Korea until they first dismantle their nuclear weapons program (Which, incidentally, is not a purely US-North Korea issue of North Korea breaking its word and treaty - as if they ever been known to keep any of it - but one that does concerns the world and the UN, no matter what the Communist propaganda agency will say.) is a sign of "Cold War thinking," a strange assertion since North Korea is still thinking of things in terms of the Cold War (Pyongyang still regards Stalin as a hero, for example.). They also want to have a "non-aggression" pact with the US, an odd goal given that they have not concluded a permanent peace treaty to officially end the Korean War yet (What is still around is an armistice, not a peace treaty.), and probably a not-so-subtle effort to force the US to withdraw all its forces from South Korea. Such an eventuality would almost certainly and immediately lead to a North Korea invasion, since national liberation is still a primary goal of the North. Yet amid all of this, there are still people like Jimmy Carter who, despite actually visited North Korea, believes that Kim Jong-Il is an honest man and (In the words of the Telegraph's Anthony Daniels.) "who managed to see in Pyongyang a second Manhattan. This was not blindness, it was hallucination."

Since the current regime in North Korea does not understand the meaning of the words "truth" and "reality" (Even though they publish a dictionary of words and terms according to Marxists, Communists, Stalinist, and Maoist thinking every year. Curiously, hereditary inheritance and any similar reference to the concept is completely absent.) and neither do kindred spirits in the West who still believe North Korea to be a wonderful place, it is time to present a disappreciation of that tinpot dictatorship, from past articles of interest. While the survey of Korea done by The Economist magazine is on the pay archive side of their website, the article archive on the website of The Daily Telegraph gives an eye-opening selection of topics, such as;

There is a joke in China (The People's Republic, not the true democratically-elected Republic of China.) about the consumer goods they make. The top quality, first-class products are exported to the US, Japan, and the West. Second-class goods are shipped to the countries that make up the "Asian Tigers" - relatively free nations will good economies making a lot of money and many people who want to enjoy the material fruits of a good economy without interfering in the money-making of the nation's export-driven industries. Third-rate stuff are kept for the home market so Chinese consumers can enjoy the material fruits of a good economy without interfering in the money-making of the nation's export-driven industries and/or accept the rule of the Communist regime without requiring military force to coerce it. Lastly, fourth-rate crap are sold just across the border to Russians in search of cheap goods to carry home, which allows the Chinese to empty their warehouses of crap nobody wants to buy and give Russians good deals on consumer goods that is still better quality then what use to be made in the former Soviet Union (Where the concept of "quality control" in manufacturing did not exist.). Well, it looks like the joke has to be amended, because the North Koreans have begun to buy from China the fifth-rate garbage that nobody wants to have, always by buyers with a lot of hard currency and a list of various consumer durables wanted back home. To quote the Telegraph;

"In light green summer suits - each lapel bearing a red badge with the beaming face of North Korea's late dictator Kim Il-sung - the visitors from Pyongyang carry shopping lists for consumer durables made in China: televisions, video recorders, rice cookers and electronic pianos."

""They never have less than £2,000 to spend," says Jin Songzhi, an ethnic Korean Chinese citizen who acts as an interpreter for them. "What they want are brand-name goods that are famous back home. They usually carry letters from family and friends with very specific instructions on what to buy.""

"The area around the embassy has become a little Korea. Restaurants, shops and even an optician have put up signs in Korean and hire staff who speak the language. The shopkeepers are delighted with the influx."

""They want old-style clothes that the factories are selling off because no one here wants them any more," said Hong Xunzi after selling £1,400 worth of light cotton dresses to one chain-smoking visitor."

"Hundreds of North Koreans enter the embassy compound - which has become a cargo hub - carrying suitcases or cardboard boxes full of goods to sell back home."

Given that North Korea has an annual export total worth around $1 billion, it is amazing that they spend precious foreign exchange/hard currency on such luxuries when people are starving to death (Possibly up to 2 million deaths in the last decade.). Then again, the currency for such goods my have been earn through forgery of said currency (North Korea have actually used its diplomatic bags to transport forged cash to other countries, a big no-no.) or trafficking in illegal drugs, or through other criminal enterprises;

North Korea has an unique distinction of being the only country in the Communist bloc of nations to have a hereditary, dynastic sucession for dictator (Actually, that is not quite true, since the late "Great Leader" Kim Il-Sung is still technically co-head of state with his son, the living "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il.), with a personality cult centered around the ruler that not even Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Saddam has or have ever managed (Every room and everybody in North Korean have to have an image of the Dear Leader at all times.). So it may not be surprising that the supposedly godless Communist country now has in the lyrics of one of its official songs the line, "We believe the 'dear leader' Kim Jong-il is a God.";

For somebody regarded as a god by his country, Kim Jong-Il is sure sensitive of his height, which is a state secret, as well requiring platform shoes and a weird haircut. Of course, the North Korean "god" is no slouch for his self-gratification, with a South Korean director kidnapped to make North Korean versions of the Japanese Godzilla movies and an Italian chef flown brought in to teach the staff of the "Dear Leader" how to make pizza, even as millions of people in the country suffer malnutrition and millions are believed to have died;

The next thing on Kim Jong-Il's menu after fresh lobster...."Heavenly Cow" i.e. roast donkey. Funny, I thought a**es did not eat other a**es;

Still, it is better then reading about human flesh for sale at market;

But aside from being a**es, Kim Jong-Il and Hitler both have a penchant for large monuments to their own worthiness. Kim's desire is so great that, despite the fact that North Korea can not grow enough food for itself and millions of people are starving even with foreign food assistance, a major goal of the country is to have a city with a skyline of skyscrapers to rival that of Shanghai's, which Kim apparently made a secret visit to in 2001. Even though the North has to import food, fertilizer, basic medicines, and fuel oil, the nation's "number one priority" is to have foreign countries giving aid or reestablishing relations with the Stalinist state offer architecture scholarships to North Koreans at foreign universities. Failing that, Pyongyang has offered to pay out of their own pocket for the education of world class, North Korean architects, as well as urban planners. Of course, the "Dear Leader" has no understanding or desire to implement the foundations of Shanghai's skyline, which is economic growth or reform. But in a nation where they just had to build an Arch of Truimph that is three yards higher then the original in Paris, rational thinking has never been high on the list of things to do. A space program, however, is on the list of important goals for the country (No wonder the North has so much interest in developing ballistic launchers....);

Finally, if you believe you are a god, then perhaps it is not surprising to claim the ability to control the weather. North Korea apparently believes the Dear Leader as having that ability, but somebody must have been listening because shortly after that was broadcasted, Kim's arrival in Russia at Vladivostock to meet with President Vladmir Putin was greeted with a rainstorm.

The list is not really a complete one, unfortunately. There are still plenty of stories that can be used to tell of a country that is completely bizarre, led by a leader and ruling class who are completely delusional, even as they and the country spiral downwards into darkest part the abyss. However, it should be enough to give a taste of the country that so many in the West wanted to be friends with, and why the Bush Administration must not back down against. George Orwell may not have been writing about North Korea when he published 1984, but nobody can deny that the country is the embodiment of what Orwell feared could come. If any nation belongs on an axis of evil, North Korea fits the bill to a 'T'.

By the way, thinking a James Bond movie is worthy of an official propaganda campaign of condemnation for its protrayal of you is not a way to get yourself taken very seriously, or say much of your sense of reality for that matter.

2002-12-30T01:59:00.000-08:00

Netscape stinks

Well, I was going to post something about North Korea, but because Netscape is a bunch of idiots when it comes to programming, all my work got wiped. I will try to put it up later today.

And for all your Microsoft bashers out there - Netscape stinks!

2002-12-30T00:30:00.000-08:00

"The Last Liberal To Move To Idaho"

Clayton Cramer (Whose writings about guns, gun laws, and gun control through American history came to fore when he help discredit Micheal Bellisle's fraud of an anti-gun work, Arming America, where fictional records and dubious methods of statistics were used to protray an ahistorical America where guns were a rarity and the traditions behind the Second Amendment created by gun nuts.), has posted a photo to his weblog with a very, very funny caption to it. Check it out!

2002-12-30T00:17:00.000-08:00

Disorder in Academia

Since we are on an academic roll, here is a piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz published two Fridays ago at Opinionjournal.com. She talks about the case of a professor at Brookly College in New York named Robert David "KC" Johnson, who is coming up for a vote on his application at tenure at the school. Unfortunately, the history professor is not exactly of a similar quality with his history department. As Ms. Rabinowitz writes:

"It soon became clear that Mr. Johnson had certain views likely to put him in the path of trouble. He had the idea, for example, that the department's hires should be chosen on the basis of qualifications other than gender, that students should have the opportunity to learn from instructors who had shown some minimal proof of competence in their fields. He went so far as to maintain that search committees should actually read the dossiers of the applicants they were considering. His resistance to gender-driven hiring didn't endear him to the department's small but vociferous faction of political ideologues--a group that the chairman, Phillip Gallagher, had himself once described, in an e-mail to Mr. Johnson, as "academic terrorists.""

If this sounds like the standard leftist, touchy-feely university/college department in academia, it would except that Brooklyn College's history department is even more to the left then most:

"How much power such factions can exert was made clear in 1988, when the history department was asked to vote on an honorary degree for alumnus Eugene Genovese--author of "Roll Jordan, Roll" and widely considered the nation's most distinguished historian of slavery. Normally such a request from the administration would sail through. But arrayed against Mr. Genovese was a vocal core of opponents. Jerry Sternstein, a Brooklyn College history professor at the time (now retired), recalls that these opponents included a historian "who regarded the demise of East Germany and the Soviet Union as Paradise Lost."

"Mr. Genovese was, to this faction's horror, a member of the National Association of Scholars, which it proceeded to denounce as a right-wing academic group hostile to women and minorities. (Such was its description of an organization mainly concerned with academic freedom.) Small though it was, the anti-Genovese faction won the vote by a substantial majority. There would be no commencement honors for the historian."

Considering that the late Dr. Genovese (The former doyen of American historians.) was a self-confirmed Marxist who joined the NAS because he was also a firm believer in solid, careful research and argument, not the garbage claptrap that comes out of a lot of departments of fellow travelers today, this would be hilarious if it was not so sad.

Watch for the term "collegiality," which is the new quality which leftists in academia use to disqualify anybody who fails to match in lockstep with their ideological and political beliefs. And they will go to anything lengths to enforce it....even if it means deliberately lying.

Fortunately for Mr. Johnson, he has a lot of friends including the student body and members of academia across the country, raising Cain at his mistreatment. Signs are that Brooklyn College is seriously rethinking its behavior. But it is a pity that it takes a mass action to get a little balance and fairness, does it not?

2002-12-22T21:58:00.000-08:00

Hypocritical Swedes

Guilty of child molestation in the US? Convicted of murder but having the proper political ideology? Kidnapped your kids from your ex and got some Swedish blood in you? Come to Sweden, where they will flout international treaties and laws they have signed on to and ratified, flout their own laws if need be, give you the customary welfare payments, and pay for your legal defense just to cock a snot at those evil Americans, Brits, Europeans, etc. And all at the same time that the prime minister of Sweden will tell the US to "respect international law."

Opinionjournal.com has a piece by William McGurn (Who also covers the abduction and imprisonment of American children by their Saudi fathers and the Saudi government's cover-ups and run-arounds on their behalf...as well as Bill O'Reilly's role as an useful idiot of the Saudi government on the subject.) for Monday's edition about the case of Amanda Johnson, whose mother spirited her to Sweden nine years ago and who the Swedes have refused to follow international law to return. The following excerpt says it all:

When it comes to countries playing dirty with American parents, most of us tend to think of places like Saudi Arabia--not modern Sweden, Germany, or Austria. But in defending their own abysmal record here, the Saudis do have one point: Of the 1,100 cases the State Department estimates are open at any given time, the Europeans well outnumber the Saudis. And unlike the Saudis, who never signed onto the Hague provisions, the Swedes just ignore them when they prove inconvenient. This from the same nation whose prime minister recently lectured George W. Bush on his need to "respect international law" on Iraq.

So much for Swedish neutrality.

2002-12-22T00:27:00.000-08:00

Headline News Dimwits

I was doing the usual channel-surfing when I ran across two quick blurbs on CNN Headline News. One was on the impending election of Senator Bill Frist (Republican - Tennessee) as the Senate Majority Leader. Being CNN, the Headline News segment was unsurprisingly heavily slanted toward the leftist, Democrat view of Frist. However, when the segment reached the part about Senator Frist's opposition to therapeutic cloning, CNN manage to outdo itself by getting a sound byte from a guy at the Georgetown University Medical Center, who after proposing that Frisk is doing it on political grounds more or less said, "All thinking people support therapeutic cloning," basically writting off those opposed the process as unthinking, ignorant, backward cavemen.

That remark slanders the many people have many serious and well-thought-out objections to therapeutic cloning, as much as it writes off any opposition based on medical grounds. The cloning that is being referred to is the "embryonic stem cell" research. More specifically, it refers to federal funding of the research. While the advocates of the research have pointed to the limitless possibilities of cloning embryo for stem cells, the actual progress has been almost non-existant. In fact, stem cells from a baby's umbilical cord and placenta has proven far, far more productive in actual research and medical use then from the embryo. From the medical and science standpoint, the advocates are promising the world on nothing more then hope, which does not bode well for convincing skeptics on why the Federal government and the taxpayer should pay for it. While the Constitution calls for the Federal government to do a lot of things, paying for medical research is not one of them, and paying for controvesial medical research which has failed to live-up to any of its hype is even more so.

What is more, the Federal government is not banning research into the field, or even refusing to completely fund it. What it is saying is that "We are not going to pay for the entire research, just parts of it, until we know more and the issue has been discussed." For advocates like the Georgetown University doctor to accuse, implicitly or explicitly, people supporting the stance of the Federal government as unthinking fundamentalist rubes is akin to supporters of a national missile defense accusing opponents of wanting to kill Americans. Like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are controvesial items that the government has no mandate under the Constitution to automatically support (Unlike, say, national defense.). For advocates to demand full and immediate support without debate (And trying to shut down debate by trying to silence the opposition through the implication that opponents are not "intelligent" enough to understand the issues and therefore should not speak at all.) is the height of arrogance and presumption. After all, they want other people's money to pay for the research (And not, presumably force them to go out and raise it themselves.) - it should be their burden to convince people why we should pay for it, and without insulting us in the process.

The other dumb item from Headline News was a story about a mother who had just been arraigned for stabbing her two children with a 4" knife. The kids are doing fine, thankfully, and are out of the hospital and in foster care, while the mother (Complete with a shot of her in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs at the hearing.) is currently being held pending her trial. The kicker in the story was that the mother had been awarded custody of her children during her divorce hearing, despite the father begging the judge not to do so because of her emotional state. While other people have gone into greater detail about the current situation in America's family court system, it is a sad commentary on the family courts that a mentally unstable woman is almost certain to win custody of her children then a stable, emotionally balanced, with-means father (And that does not even begin to go into awful absurdities like men being forced to pay child support for children who are not their's, on the basis that "They should do it because it is good for the children," even if the mothers in question did not know or deliberately lied about the parentage.). While custody hearings in divorces tend to bring out the worst in people (Witness the many charges of child abuse leveled against fathers that only appear during the hearing, and usually to the surprise of everybody who knows the family.), it is a fact that most family court judges still believe that a bad mother is infinitely preferable to keep the kids then the best father. As long as family courts do not change their stance into looking at the welfare of the children through an objective look at which of the couple is most capable of providing for it, and to miminize the trauma children have to go through (For example, mothers being able to put all sort of obstacles in the way of the children's father being able to visit with the kids.), we will continue to have cases like this stabbing on an ever increasing basis, which can not do the children in America much good. Childhood in America is already in precious short supply; the judicial system should not be the business of destroying more of it.

2002-12-21T15:55:00.000-08:00

Stalwarts from Down Under

If the US has anybody who is a closer friend to it in the War on Terrorism then Great Britain, it has to be Australia. The Aussies were one of the earliest countries to offer its support for the US after 9/11, and Australian troops have been involved in fighting in Afghanistan and will probably be engaged in the campaign in Iraq. Not to mention the history of fighting alongside of Americans from World War Two to Korea and Vietnam.

Anyway, Australia also takes seriously a lot less politically correct guff then most nations, which is why they are not afraid to evict people if they have failed to pay their rent, even if they are both immigrants and Muslims. As it turned out, the fellow in question had been stockpiling explosive devices alongside the usual horde of Islamic literature that you have come to expect to find, as well as material to make more bombs. The deliquent in question, a naturalized Australian citizen from South Africa named Gill Daniels, was caught by the local police after coming back to the apartment driving a silver BMW. The local neighbors' description of him includes this particularly charming comment:

""He used to call anyone who wasn't a Muslim a heathen," one neighbour told The Daily Telegraph."

Thanks to Tim Blair and the folks at Little Green Footballs for the heads-up and link to this article.

2002-12-20T23:18:00.000-08:00

Dimwit Alert

For some reason, MTV likes to think it has a serious news department (Though how serious can it be when it reports both of Bill Clinton's presidential inaugurations with wall-to-wall, all-day coverage, and let George W. Bush's presidential inauguration go by without any trace of reporting during the entire day.), which handles "serious" topics, like the coming war in Iraq (And not, bless them, Courtney Love's latest all-day TV marathon. That might be cause MTV to fold really fast as people flee from the channel.).

One of the things they do is "man on the street" interview with the young and hip. For the Iraq segment, they managed to get some young lady from Britain (Judging the accent.) who said "we should use peaceful means to resolve it" and "haven't we learn anything from the years?"

Well, yes, we have. We have learned what kind of man Saddam Hussein is (The type that deliberately use nerve gas on civilians as "punishment," who take positive enjoyment in watching people get executed, and who has on the government payroll a man whose official governmental title is "violator of woman's honor," i.e. an official professional rapist.). We learned how trustworthy he is (Not very, as even the UN, as well as Iran and Kuwait have learned in the past two decades.). We learned what he would do to fulfill his ambition (A lot, which is bad news to even more people.).

We also learned what to do to people like this. At least, we learned that sixty years ago when a similar person took similar power in Germany. I certainly hope people remember that particular lesson, but it is obvious that some people can not or will not do so. Considering how one British authority on Iraq have called Saddam's regime, "Like the Nazis, but without the human warmth," it is high time we start educating people on the real lessons of the world, instead of ones that advocate Neville Chamberlain's deal with Adolf Hitler as a wonderful idea.

2002-12-20T22:47:00.000-08:00

Yikes!

Perusing the website for the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, I ran across this article about the 85th birthday of the KGB (Well, not exactly since it is the birth of the first organization that would become the KGB, and the KGB does not exist anymore, but this is a matter of continuity here.), and the opening of a museum detailing the history of the agency from its birth as the "All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Struggle against Counter-Revolution and Sabotage" which later turned into the Cheka under Felix "Iron Felix" Dzerzhinsky. The museum seems to contain a wide-array of collectibles, ranging from the October Revolution to the on-going conflict in Chechnya, though the statue of Iron Felix that once stood across from the KGB headquarters is nowhere in sight.

One detail about the life of Iron Felix really took the cake, though:

"Dzerzhinsky unleashed the "Red Terror" on Russia. In a famous bureaucratic mix-up he ordered 1,500 political prisoners shot in a single night because Lenin had put a cross on a list of names. Only later did he realise that Lenin often put crosses on documents to remind himself that he had read them."

Yikes! Talk about a mix-up in the bureaucracy!

2002-12-20T22:36:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Sequels....for Games....

Incidentally, for anybody interested in the gaming console series Parasite Eve and Parasite Eve 2, which are produced for the Sony Playstation by Squaresoft (The same company who makes the Final Fantasy series and the recent collaboration with Disney, Kingdom Hearts.), check out the ultimate fanpage for the series here. You have to click through some pages of Flash animation before reaching the main index page, but it is worth your while. The site is very good.

And while you are there, you can sign the online petition to Squaresoft for a Parasite Eve 3. Since Squaresoft is only going to do a sequel if it feels there is enough interest in it (i.e., ship about 250,000 units for the title.), the petition has a way to go, so sign if you want to support these guys.

2002-12-20T15:19:00.000-08:00

Completely Uninformed, Long-Term TV Speculation

Fox's recent cancellation of the sci-fi TV series Firefly left fans of the show with one glimmer of hope. Fox has given its release to series creator Joss Wheadon to shop the show around to any other networks interested in taking it. UPN, whose series line-up has generally struggled since Paramount launched the network, has expressed interest in picking up the show.

The news about Firefly comes at a time when UPN is involved in negotiations with Wheadon regarding the other, more famous, show they have that he created, namely Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The network and Wheadon are currently in negotiations over the fate of the series, which is rapidly approaching the end of the current contract for both the series and the series' cast. At the moment, a lot of attention is on whether Buffy's Sarah Michelle Geller will come back if the series continues (Paramount is thinking of offerign her $750k per episode to at least make guest appearances in a future season.), but most of the talk swirls about whether BtVS will continue and if it remains as is or is replaced by a spin-off.

Like most guesses, this will probably be wrong. But I got a sneaking suspicion that if Paramount decides to pick-up Firefly, it will be doing so as a packaged deal with Joss Wheadon, with the other half either Buffy coming back for a eighth season or a Buffy spin-off for next season.

And that is a good thing, even with the odd plotlines and twists in the last two seasons.

2002-12-20T14:58:00.000-08:00

The Gaming Genre that Refuses to Die

Gamespot.com has an article from way back announcing that Microids, the maker of 2002's wonderful PC adventure game Syberia, is teaming up with Benoit Sokal (The driving force behind Syberia.) again to make a sequal. Syberia 2 is tentatively scheduled for release in October 2003, which does sound a bit optimistic (For the date to happen one year from the announcement - which came out 10/14/02 - they either have to be working on it for a while now, have added a lot more people to the development team, or recycled a lot of stuff from the first game. The only other explanation is that they are being wildly optimistic.) for a game with the attention to detail Syberia has.

Still, this is a most encouraging sign in a PC gaming genre that has been declared "dead" quite a few times for the last five years or so. Like Edgar Allen Poe's cat, adventure games keep popping back up every year to surprise and astonish everybody. Not all the products are good, but that is the same story all across the gaming spectrum. What is so exceptional is just how good some of the games really are. Games like The Longest Journey, which was released to the US market in 2000 by Funcom (The same guys from Norway responsible for Anarchy Online.), continue to show that adventure games can be fun, innovative, and enthralling if the developers pay attention to story and gameplay and the myraid of details that can make or break any game. While Funcom has basically admitted that a sequal to TLJ is highly unlikely to ever develop (Meaning actress Sarah Hamilton is not going have a chance at voicing TLJ's heroine anytime soon.), it is good to see some people are continuing the mantle.

While Microids - which has been releasing a series of adventure games for a while now - is a Paris-based developer with a subsidery development studio in Montreal, other people besides them and Funcom have been churning out adventure games. Presto Studios, which also made The Journeyman Project series of adventure games, came out with the latest episode in the Myst saga, Myst III:Exile, this summer under the Ubi Soft label. And Lucasarts (The gaming division of George Lucas' business empire.) surprised many when it announced plans to release sequels for two adventure gaming stalwarts in the form of Full Throttle 2 and Sam and Max 2 (Of Sam and Max Hit the Road fame.) in 2003. In addition, several other "surprise" releases from overlooked game companies will doubtless add to the mix for the coming year.

So for fans of PC adventure games, 2003 looks bright indeed, with promising games on the horizon. I still have to get my own copy of Syberia, but I also know what I should be getting for the Christmas stocking next December.

2002-12-20T01:06:00.000-08:00

Daily Roundup for the Daily Telegraph 12/20/02

Well, the other topics of interest in The Daily Telegraph for today are:

Africa deciding to stand-up to Europe (And the world.) in a sign that "nobody can push us around!" by showing solidarity with Robert Mugebe's Zimbabwe. Apparently, being a thug-dictator who is destroying the welfare, economy, and society of his country to retain power and punish his political enemies (Zimbabwe use to be the bread-basket of southern Africa - Now it is facing mass starvation, due the ruination of the agriculture sector and the ruling party's use of food distribution as a weapon against the opposition.) is a thing to defend and show solidarity with if he is their thug-dictator as oppose to a non-Africa one, when faced with oppostion from the rest of the world. Wonder if they will understand the next time the West says "no" to more aid to Africa because we have lost interest in helping thug-dictators;

Nothing like a good old fashion duel for honors between Michael Caine and Jack Nicholson for the Golden Globes. I hope Sir Michael wins, even if the movie he is going for (A remake of the 1958 movie The Quiet American.) is basically a typical anti-American screed. After all, the man was in Zulu. That is enough to get a thumbs-up despite all sorts of sins;

South Africa's current president, Thabo Mbeki, has had some curious ideas about the cause of AIDS (A virus that is ravaging the population of both the Republic of South Africa and the African continent, due to a variety of reasons and none of them to do with evil, white, Western pharmaceutical corporations intent on killing black Africans.). Specifically, he use to openly believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, but rather "somebody" introduced AIDS into Africa, despite all the scientific and medical evidence to the contrary. His government has went so far as to sponsor a global conference of the world's leading deniers of a link between HIV and AIDS, with a welcome from the then-health minister. The conclusions of the conferece was therefore not surprising. Fortunately, Mbeki has toned down the rhetoric since the infamous letter to President Bill Clinton where he blamed AIDS on "outsiders" rather HIV and led Clinton to ask the State Department whether the letter had actually come from the President of South Africa. Unfortunately, President Mbeki's less the pressing concern about the serious impact of AIDS on his country is not shared by his younger brother Moeletsi, who has openly criticized the older man's mere passing concern with the virus at the recent African National Congress party conference at Stellenbosch University (Ironically, the place where white Afrikaners help formulate the policies of apartheid over half a century ago.). Should make for some exciting conversation at the dinner table at the next Mbeki family reunion.

2002-12-20T00:29:00.000-08:00

Another Military Advantage the US has over the EU.

Yes, my piece about the problems of modern military procurement is far, far, far behind schedule. Blame it on my job search. But the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph has an article today which talks about how the British military is searching for more roll-on/roll-off vehicle transporters to contract so they can help move the expected forces the UK will deploy to the Middle East for the coming action against Iraq. The article also contained the surprising news that both France and Holland have been also in the market for ro/ro ships, perhaps the clearest signal that even in Europe, countries are falling in line behind the US for a military action against Iraq.

While the US military have also been contracting ships to help move forces and material, the US is in far, far better shape sealift-wise then it was in 1991 during the run-up to the last Gulf War. Then, US efforts at mobilizing the mothballed transports of the National Reserve Defense Fleet to move equipment from the US to Saudi Arabia was a disaster in every sense of the word. Old ships (Some dating back to the World War Two period.) which were too far gone in condition to use, vessels that should have been ready to steam from within a few days to a month after the start of mobilization requiring additional weeks and/or months of work to be in condition to go to sea, ships breaking down a few day to just a few hours after leaving Savannah carrying heavy equipment and supplies, and the general state of disrepair that the entire US merchant marine suffers from - it was a good thing the world shipping market was there to support Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Of course, foreign ships being charted to carry American military cargo presented their own problems - one charted freighter carrying explosives needed to be unloaded on the Mediterranean side of the Suez Canal - with the cargo shipped overland to the Red Sea and reload to continue the journey to Saudi Arabia - because one of the ship's officers was a Libyan and it was feared the ship might be scuttled in the canal and block maritime traffic completely.

In the decade since those experiences, the US has added 2 million tons of ships to its sealift fleet, one of the few good things to happen to national defense under President Clinton, vastly improving the age, condition, carrying capacity, and numbers of the transport pool. While there is no new ships like the SL-7s (Big vehicle transports capable of extrardinary 30+ knots speeds, originally contracted to be built for the SeaLand shipping line. The US, under the auspices of the young Transportation Command, owns and operate - with civilian crews - all eight ships in the class.), most have been big vehicle transports with pretty good speed and endurance. Some, like the Bob Hope-class, are new-built. Others have been purchased and refitted to American standards, including ships built in the Ukraine. Airlift-wise, the US has a smaller pool of long-range, heavy-lift military transport aircrafts then in 1991. However, most of the C-5A/Bs (The 'Big Daddy' of Western airlift.) are still around, and the new C-17 Globemaster III aircraft (Of which the one hundredth airframe was just delivered to the Air Force and named after retiring Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina at the same time he turned 100.), which is partially a replacement for the C-141 and partially to fill the gap between the Starlifters and the Galaxies is proving to be everything the Air Force hoped for and paid to develop and procure, has given the US a better availability in airlift then in 1991. The depression in civilian air travel since 9/11, and the decade-worth of growth in the air delivery business, have also improved the pool of civilian aircraft available to the US military that can be impressed to move personnel and material quickly.

Contrast those encouraging signs (Though the US could always use more SL-7s and definitely needs to procure more C-17s more quickly.) with the situation in Europe. Not a single nation in Europe has anything more then a trivial force of heavy lift transport aircraft or ship. Britain, for example, has three ro-ro vessels in her military which are usually operated under civilian charter to help pay for their upkeep. No other nation in Europe has even that much sealift, and some operate their fleet logistical vessels under charter. In terms of airlift, beyond some C-130s and French-made C-160s, there is no real long range, heavy lift presence. The situation is not likely to improve anytime soon, despite Airbus's proposed A400M military transport aircraft which the European Union is keen on to promote military cooperation and improve efficiency. It can all be traced to the fact that European defense budgets are smaller and less stable (Being subjected to the whims of the current government even within the approved fiscal year.), and the spending priorities those same governments have where defense is not very high. One reason why the A400M will probably never see the light of day is that Germany, which is suppose to purchase about 40% of the projected initial order for the aircraft, is going through a major governmental fiscal crisis right now, and is likely to cut her military budget severely, leading to cuts in the order. This will raise the unit price for each aircraft, since Airbus will have to spread the A400M's development costs over a smaller number of aircraft, which will force other countries (Being unable to raise the funding for the program as easily to compensate.) to cut their orders with the higher price, which will lead to increased prices and more cuts. Since the only other competitor in the military heavy lift market is the C-17, which is rather expensive despite being worth every penny, it is likely that Europe will not be able to assemble a military airlift pool anytime within the next decade, with all the deleterious effects that implies for the rest of their military capabilities.

Needless to say, the transport situation is paralleled in a number of other defense fields and technology, like precision guided munitions. If the current course continues, it will be very hard for Europe (And the European Union.) to ever achieve military equality with the US. That is ironic, since one of the aspersions of a unified Europe that has gone through the years was to serve as a military challenger to American power. Short of America handing over both the technology and the systems themselves to Europe, it is increasingly difficult to see how the EU will ever hope to match, let alone overtake, American military supremacy.

2002-12-19T23:33:00.000-08:00

Tooting My Horn

In case you have not seen it before, check out Steven Den Beste's weblog at USS Clueless. I do not agree with everything he posts (I tend to be suspicious of atheists' arguments against the value and foundations of religion - not to mention the practice of it thereof - even if I am an agnostic.) but on most subjects he is tough to beat.

And yes, some of the stuff I write makes it onto his weblog occasionally.

2002-12-19T23:28:00.000-08:00

Holiday Observations

A note to everybody who runs charities: when you decide to put bell-ringers and pots out in public places and in front of stores like the Salvation Army does, try to avoid choosing bell-ringers who look like they are waiting for the casting call for the latest remake of Psycho or any other horror movie you can name. You will get more donations that way.

2002-11-29T20:50:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving

Well, yesterday was Thanksgiving, so it was time to go into the city (Manayunk) and see people from the high school class. Saw a few, even if it did take most of the evening for that to occur. Very good conversation in the meantime among the few of us, and I am pretty certain I will be drinking nothing but Yuengling lager in the future if I am going to drink American beer. Otherwise, I blame the draft. All in all, a nice way to pass the evening.

2002-11-29T20:39:00.000-08:00

Another Fine Theory Down the Drain...Again.

Thomas Malthus was a English clergyman who, during the 1790's, gave the world one of those bad ideas that nobody can really get rid of. He hypothesized that the entire world could only support a certain amount of people before they ran out of room and food. At that point, mass starvation and death would occur, lowering the population down to a more supportable level, at which food was in surplus again and restarting the entire process over and over. It was a lovely idea for the pessimist, and it has been repeated over the years by such personages as Paul "The Population Bomb" Erlich, and who proved to be even worst at predictions then Malthus (None of Erlich's predictions - which including the US being attacked by nuclear missiles for the use of pesticides - came true, contrary to what my first year high school science told me.). Given the fact that the Earth's population has long exceeded - by several times - the population limit predicted by Malthus, it might be a good idea to chuck the man's hypotheses into the great round circular filing cabinet.

Unfortunately, Malthus' legacy lives on. In its current form, starvation is explained by the total population being higher then the total amount food available in region/nation/continent/world to feed humans. Therefore, raising the total level of food available for consumption should solve any problems at starvation. It is an enticingly simple idea, useable by any number of people for any number of causes. Here is my letter to the editor, (As well as this one.) refuting one person's belief that global starvation can be solved by stop eating meat (And therefore the raising of food animals.), among othert . The following passage is especially crucial:

"..he is ignoring the real, often deliberate, causes of famine and starvation - poverty, barriers to trade, corruption, mismanagement, war, civil disorder, and even antagonisms between ethnic and religious groups. Indeed, there would be few if any starving people at all, if people would stop using starvation as a weapon to destroy rival religious groups, or stop supporting absurd restrictions on food imports."

Steven Den Beste's weblog recently covered a breakthrough by researchers at Cornell University in developing a new strain of rice that is more resistant to water shortages. Suffice it to say, the use of genetic engineering as well as the advance of free markets, along with improvements in storage and distribution, and various other factors will do more to increase the amount of food available for each person then any reduction in the feed given to animals.

Here is another article that proves the fallacy of Malthus and his intellectual offsprings. There are currently people starving to death in Argentina despite the fact that the country is one of the largest exporters of food products in the world (Only the US, Canada, and Australia export more.) with agricultural and animal husbandry sectors that produce far more more food then most countries can consume. By the logic of total population/total food supply idea, there should not be any starving people in Argentina, since there are far more then enough food to stuff everybody every day of the year. Yet, people are starving, primarily because the very poor and destitute can not find work in a country whose economy has been in turmoil for the last two years and therefore pay for enough food to adequately feed themselves. At the same time, aid and assistance from the various levels of government and private sources have been disappearing into a morass of official corruption, not reaching through the distribution pipeline to help the people who need it.

This is a sad fate for a country that, at the turn of the 20th Century was among the world's ten richest nations, and whose economy was built on staples of grain farms and cattle herds. The beautiful central core of the capital of the "land of silver," Buenos Aires, including the stock market and the building house the federal government's legislative bodies, were built from the money of cattle barons who at their height rivaled the American captains of industries (Often disparagingly called "robber barons."). That was before Argentina's leaders embarked on protectionist, French-style dirigiste economic policies that depended more on Colbert's mercantilism then Smith's capitalism. The result of over fifty years of neo-mercantilism is Singapore, with none of the natural resources, amount of land, size of population (Argentina has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, comparable to the developed world.) or history of wealth and investment, being richer then Argentina and easily able to feed itself despite having to import virtually all its food.

More to the point, the starvation in Argentina exposes the biggest flaw in the arguments of the modern Malthusians. The Indian economist Amartya Sen, who won a Noble Prize for his work in development economics, notes that people - especially governmental officials - who believe that starvation is based on a lack in the total amount of food to feed a total amount of people, often do not recognize that food shortages can exist even in regions where the food supply is sufficient for the population, if the shortage is due to a variety of other reasons. Consequently, such people can overlook the catastrophic effect of deliberate or unintentional problems in food production and distribution caused by political, economic, technological, natural, even ethnic and religious reasons, as long as they see the total supply of food in the area is enough to feed it, and fail to correct the problems. This is slightly better than the people who fully understand and intentionally bring about such shortfall in foods (Like what Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe is doing to his political opponents.), but only slightly.

Either way, it is not very encouraging, and it needs to change.

Addendum: Yes, in the interest of full disclosure, this was not the only time I knocked the aforementioned columnist in my alma mater's student paper. Here is the other.

2002-11-26T00:54:00.000-08:00

A Step Toward the Future.

Last week, the Navy recorded the first successful intercept of a ballistic missile simulator by an AEGIS (The Navy does not spell it 'Aegis,' even though the name is not an acronym, surprisingly enough.) cruiser, the LAKE ERIE (CG-70), using a protype of the Standard SM-3 missile currently under development, as part of the emergency program to test the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense's ability to destroy incoming short to medium range ballistic missiles. The current crash project (This is in advance of what both the Navy and the Defense Department-wide Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has on its schedule.) is being brought about by the expected action in Iraq, hopefully before military action in Iraq begins.

Saddam Hussein will no doubt try to bait Israel into any war by firing the usual volley of Scud ballistic missiles armed with the everything from chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads to high explosive payload to concrete blocks at the tip of the missile. Israel already has fairly recent variants of the anti-missile Patriot Advanced Capability missiles (Not the same as the Patriot anti-aircraft missiles - the two missiles are entirely different except for the P-name, another example of the screwed-up nature of US military procurement.) as well as its indigenously-developed Arrow anti-missile system. However, the PAC missiles are hardly the best response to ballastic launchers and the Arrow has had a troubled development and teething troubles. More exotic technology, like anti-missile lasers are in development but not even the recent successful test by the US Army of laser shooting down an artillery shell was proof positive of the feasibility of the weapon system (And might not be terribly useful under the circumstances. Hence the crash program on the part of the Navy, so some anti-missile capability can be deployed on an AEGIS destroyer (The DDG-51 class.) to the Middle East to help protect Israel (And keep them from being drawn into the war.).

This brings to point one of the biggest attacks critics of national missile defense have constantly been bringing up, and one of the issues that should receive more coverage. The attack is "Well, we shouldn't build missile defense because it will never work for so many reasons and therefore we should not work on it," which was banned by the non-dead Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (And good riddance, too.). Of course, the problem with this circular argument is that if you did not try to experiment and test different ideas for it, you would never know for sure that missile defense would not work. People trying to argue against doing experimenting and testing are opening up a major flaw in their arguments in the process - if you do not, then how do you know for sure missile defense is a waste of time? Leaving aside the moral argument about being able to defend yourselves from the most dangerous weapons man has yet fashioned without either relying on somebody's word (Which may or may not be trustworthy.) or the threat of "You try to kill us, we will try to kill you," the logical inconsistency of this particular line, and the fact that all the test to date have proven the critics wrong, show more then ever that it is not logic, facts, or common sense which forms the primary motivator behind the anti-missile defense movement, but rather a vague yet strong emotional pull that argues either the goodness in all men or the evilness behind any American and American actions. The fact that nobody has protested both Russian possession of a missile defense system (Which is allowed by the ABM Treaty within certain guidelines.) or the pre-September 11th Russian proposal for a missile defense system to cover Europe (Which was seen at the time as a blatant attempt by a pre-September 11th President Vladmir Putin to break Europe from the US over missile defense, as it they needed the effort.) shows that the latter opinion seem to be the predominant one.

The issue shown by the US Navy's latest effort is the paralyzing effect even the threat of nuclear weapons and/or ballastic missiles can have in terms of foreign policy. In order for the US not to be bound to nuclear blackmail, it is forced to obtain ways to counter the threat, either by destroying the capability before it becomes operational (Hopefully the case with Iraq and Iran.) or by building defenses to counter and protect from them (In the case of North Korea.), otherwise any actions around such nations who possess the most of powerful of WMDs will be subjected to the whims of those nations. While some would argue that no rational leader would use WMD unless he was completely crazy, such beliefs depend on that fact that 1) The leader in question really is not crazy, something you can not really say for sure regarding Saddam or Kim Jong-Il, and 2) That they are rational and operating with an accurate appreciation of the real world, something that the leaders of all the countries in the "Axis of Evil" lack.

If America wants to avoid having its foreign policy and national security decisions dictated by every tinpot lunatic tyrant with a nuclear warhead in his presidential palace, we either go in and destroy efforts to build such capability or be able defend ourselves for said capability. Going into countries who already have such capabilities, unfortunately, will be a chancy thing at best, even assuming the odds are pretty good (But look at what would happen if you lose the bet.). Going in to prevent tyrannies from developing such capabilities is the best bet. But if that is not possible, or if we are not sure about that country, having a working missile defense as a back-up would be the only sensible thing to do. With these countries, you can not bow to their demands because they will inevitably make more, until they will demand for something you can not give, at which time apalling levels of violence will break-out. If we are to remain free of blackmail, and free of the paralyzation the fear of nuclear weapons will impose on us (And therefore give aggressor nations too much freedom of maneuver for comfort.), we have to be able to defend ourselves as soon as possible, as best as possible. We have a moral obligation to defend ourselves from submitting to evil, and we have a practical obligation to protect ourselves from the loss to the general welfare and reputation possible with such weapons, within the limitations of real life and not the delusions of the critics of such a stance.

And that is what missile defense is ultimately about.

2002-11-25T22:11:00.000-08:00

Remembering What is Important over the Holidays

One of the odd things you can pick up when randomly walking through a store (In this case, the CVS drug store chain.) these days is a lovely set of 4 10oz mugs produced under license from the Curtis Publishing company, with reproductions of Norman Rockwell's famous illustrations of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms printed on the sides. While there are many issues that can be taken with FDR, one of the great positive contributions he has left to the world is the enuciation of the "four essential human freedoms" he made in his State of the Union speech in 1941. The freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear were the basic needs that applied to everybody across the world, regardless of their nationality, religion, beliefs, and whatnot.

Those ideas, the sum of all the effort that has gone into the classical liberal tradition of Western Thought, still applies today, perhaps more so. When President Roosevelt made them, the world was faced by a force which took as part of its creed the total and absolute elimination and suppression of every one of those four ideas. Today, the world and the Four Freedoms are confronted with yet another opponent who is diametrically opposed to them and desires their elimination and suppression. More then one, actually (The "Made In China" stamp on the back of the packaging is an ironic reminder that Islamo-Fascism is not the only opposition to the Four Freedoms.), but Islamo-Fascism, as embraced by the Usama bin Ladins and Talibans of the world represents the biggest current danger because of the sheer unreasonableness of it. You can not negotiate with it - they will accept nothing less then your complete surrender or absolute destruction. As the former head of Hezbollah, a man by the name of Hussein Massawi, said "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

I think it is high time that America start again promoting the values of the Four Freedoms. We can start by doing what the government did after The Saturday Evening Post first published Rockwell's illustrations - put them on as many things as possible and cast them over the nations of the world, to tell the world what we are fighting for, and what they are fighting against. For too long, America has taken counsel from those who would see as the root of all evil in the world, and chain the nation in the irons of cowardice and meekness. It is time that changed.

And for those who enjoy using the freedoms they have in the land of the Four Freedoms to try and destroy, both here and every place else in the world, one wonders if you can take a look at Usama bin Laden's latest letter and answer some questions - Do you want to live in a world where a 'discussion' of homosexual rights is about whether it is better to toss a gay man off a tall building or collapse a stone wall on top of him? Where worshipping any God (Or Goddess, Gods, and even no God.) other then Allah is punishable by death? Where women can not go anywhere without a burka on?

Well?

2002-11-22T02:24:00.000-08:00

Hurrah!

The annual season-ending rivalry football game between the Panthers of Cheltenham High School (My old stomping grounds.) and the Galloping Ghosts of Abington High School (2 miles distant and a short drive up 611.) was washed-out from its scheduled Saturday time, so it was played on Monday, November 18th, at Cheltenham. The result was a 14-7 victory for Cheltenham! Great work, guys!

Quite a change from the stretch of eleven straight years Cheltenham lost to Abington in that game...

2002-11-22T02:14:00.000-08:00

The Long Silence....

Well, other things have been drawing my attention for the past couple of days, so sorry for the lack of updates. So....Here, for all you Lord of the Rings fans who are impatiently waiting for the release of The Two Towers is something for your amusement.

2002-11-18T15:21:00.000-08:00

Don writes: (Update 11/19)

My concern is that Franks is violating Economy of Force. It is stripping all other theaters of the means of strategic maneuver. If the Chinese do an impromptu dash at the Straits, the NKPA does a death ride south, the Serbs do a Tet, there's very little left in the lift or quick reserve to plug the hole. The commanders in those areas are going to have to do with what is on hand. Those commanders are not going to have all the insurance that Franks is cramming into his operation. Let's hope that others will remain very quiet during this time. And hope is not a plan.

The point is as valid as it goes, but it can also be argued that a plan for the use of a larger force will serve the principle of economy of force by giving Central Command the ability to finish the war quickly. At the very least, larger forces (They do not need to be 250,000 - redeploying most of V Corp from Germany could be done without too much danger, since the situation with the Serbs is one where the NATO allies are useful, albeit marginally - And Serbia has to deal with former members of Yugoslavia who are armed enough to make life unpleasant for anyone staging a Balkan Tet, not to mention a government situation that makes Italy's seem stable.) will be less likely to call home for reinforcements because they are less likely to run into a stalemate or a situation they can not deal with. In that case, the most violent phase of the Iraqi operation will be concluded a lot sooner and most of those units can be freed up for deployments elsewhere, rather then being tied up either already in theater or in-transit to a stalemate in Iraq.

As for China, the forces needed for that situation are almost all naval and air units. While Navy is probably going to pay close attention to the situation (I sincerely doubt the PLA is going to try an invasion, since it has nowhere near the amphibious capability to more then annoy Taiwan.), the air units can be redeployed relative quickly, more so if Japan allows combat operations.)

Finally, even assuming a relatively heavy deployment (250,000+ troops, heavy divisions waiting at the line of departure in Kuwait for the 'go' order.), that still leaves a considerable amount of forces in case the Korean situation heats up. At a minimum, the 3rd Marine Divisions, the 25th Infantry Division, the 1st Marine Division (Probably.), and one Army heavy division. I believe that the Joint Chiefs - and therefore General Franks - are not blind the possibility of trouble in Korea - there was a rise in tension on the Korean peninsula during the 1991 Gulf War. But there should be no problem (Barring something odd like the German Bundeswehr suddenly intervening on Saddam's side.) with increasing forces available for a war with Iraq.

What all this build up has demonstrated is that the old "fight two wars", then "fight a war and a half", strategy is a pipe dream along the lines of the old plan Orange for the defense of the Philippines, circa 1940. Its time to admit, that even with the force structure as large as it appears, we can fight one high intensity campaign and hopefully hold in another.

The "two wars" doctrine has always been regarded as a chimera. And personally, I think the force strength of the entire US military needs to be increased. That being said, I think the US does have enough forces to deal with Iraq and hold off one other foe. A final point to remember is that the US is not always going to be alone. For example, North Korea invading South Korea will bring a large, very well-trained and fairly well-equipped ally for the US - the ROK. Taiwan will not take kindly to an attack on it, while the members of NATO may be generally lacking in the ability for modern warfare, but Serbia will not have it easy either.

Update: 11/19

However, the lift ability is finite. It's the choke point in any deployment or redeployment. If there is a fight of any significance, then the strategic mobility will be severely loaded without the benefit of maintenance or refit. The airlift, on which rapid deployment is dependent, has a very high maintenance hours to flight hours ratio. The sea lift will take weeks rather than days. Hours become days, days become weeks.

Yes, there are limits to strategic mobility. But it is possible to reduce the maximum possible strain on it. I am in favor of putting more forces into theater as soon as possible. Reduce the strain on strategic lift during the operation by putting in as many conponents that are needed for it before it begins.

Another thing to consider is that the longer the war goes on, the greater the strain there will be on strategic lift. Using a larger force in the Iraqi invasion will give the US a higher probability of a short conflict, and is also more likely to save the effort of having strategic lift being used to bring in large amounts of reinforcements in the middle of the campaign if a stalemate occurs in Mr. Den Beste's scenario.

Furthermore, if trouble does develop in, say, Korea, the US is almost certain to obtain Allied assistance in its ability to move troops and material, as oppose to using its own ships from the NRF and whatever charters we can contract.

The key point from an antagonist point of view, is that if you are ever going to exploit the Americans at their most vulnerable point, then this is it. The point about Tet is that it was a military defeat for the VC and NVA. However, it was a political victory. The Serbs never lost the capacity for overawing their neighbors, it took outside intervention to end it. It will have to rely upon the Europeans to respond. They have the capacity to fight, a more limited means to project the fight, and amply demonstrated limited will to do it. With a will they can clean it up in a couple of weeks, but damage well beyond what an effective and [force structured] backed American could prevent. The political fall will be interesting to say the least. All avoidable by not massively padding the load bill for the Gulf.

The problem is that Serbia is not North Vietnam. North Vietnam was a lot stronger then Serbia is, given comparative conditions, and while I doubt that the government in Serbia is about to suddenly turn revanchists, planning and launching a Balkan Tet is not something you do right out of the barracks. Secondly, Serbia's neighbors are generally not friendly to Serbia, and better armed - One thing which actually prove out in Croatia and Bosnia was as soon as Serbia's opponents became as well armed as the Serbs, the Serbs generally began to lose. Third, America will still be involved even if both divisions of V Corp leave Germany. Currently, a large percentage of the US troops in Kosovo and Bosnia are Reserve and National Guards activate for service overseas. I can see a deal being made at this week's NATO summit in Prague for NATO countries to raise their complements in Yugoslavia to allow the US to draw more troops for service elsewhere.

If worse comes to worse and Europe needs to be minded, there is no need to draw all the forces out. Sending the 1st Armored to Iraq and keeping the 1st Infantry Division to mind the store would work too, and it would still give Central Command more options.

I recall in one of the last incidents, it took over 5 days for a carrier group to redeploy from the Indian Ocean to the Straits. As long as everyone is betting that the Chinese are totally incapable of a coup d'main, no problem. Of course we didn't believe Saddam would actually be stupid enough to invade Kuwait. While Japan likes the American protection, it has interests which go beyond being a parrot to our foreign policy. Demonstrate weakness or vulnerability and they can be expected to look to their own arrangements with the 1,000 pound gorilla in the neighborhood. What, we're going to pull out of defending the Japanese any faster than the Germans if they don't permit the use of facilities to conduct military operations?

I think both the JCS and Pacific Command are aware of the possibilities. That is why I expect to see some reshuffling of the carriers among Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean areas, with most of Atlantic Fleet's available carriers going to support the war and/or for immediate call, while Pacific Fleet's play the 'swing' role - and that is just for carriers. It will be even easier for other assets like submarines. As for Air Force units, it will be hard but they can make life interesting for the PLA just from the Marianas. If the Japanese decides to let America exercise its basing rights (And a Chinese attack astride one of the busiest sea lanes in the world might cause Japan to take a closer look at the advisability of letting the PRC has its way.) it will be a lot easier.

There is also the fact that Taiwan is not going to let such a thing happen without a reply. The ROC military will pay even closer attention to the situation across the straits with a war in Iraq then they do normally. The Chinese might catch them by surprise, but it will not be invading Taiwan itself.

Finally, we are not going to pull out completely from either Japan or Germany to reinforce the effort in Iraq. If there is a major threat to either of them, they will invoke the defensive treaty they have with the US and we will honor them. Even if they are not attacked, there are treaty obiligations which makes it better to keep forces in both countries.

Considering that the Great Leader didn't care about a million of his own starving to death in the last couple of years, why worry about the rest? There's got to be a big drop in the number of draft age males somewhere in their demographics. Better to do it now while you have a large force. Once again it's the lift problem. Nice to have assets, but you need to get them there. Note, I did say 'death ride'. I did time with the 2ID in Tongduchon. The ROK Army will stop them unless there is significant use of WMD on the side of the NKPA. At which time it is a very reasonable possibility that South Korea will become an island. However, that is part of the point. Again, this is the most vulnerable time for the American forces. If you're going to hit 'em, this is the time. That will greatly increase the potential that in response the use of our own WMD will have to be employed. Now if you were a host nation somewhere and saw that happen, you have to reevaluate whether you want that stuff going off in and around you. If you were in the position of the Japanese, you'd probably try to work something out with the 1,000 gorilla rather than have someone providing protection who fails to maintain the means to use the conventional stuff already on hand. I took note that while the DoD budget was increased the manpower was not significantly increased. The culture in the Pentagon is less of the support personnel, read strategic mobility, and more of the fighting type.

Strategic mobility has actually gotten somewhat better. One of the odder legacies of the 1991 Gulf War was the massive procurement program the US Navy had acquiring transports

Your arguments are correct as they go, but unless you are planning to build-up forces in Korea in advance, there is precious little way the scenario you describe can be avoided one way or the other. If you are the North Koreans, you are gambling that you will win before major US formations arrive, whether it is from Iraq or the US. The question is merely whether a matter of how much time you have. What is even curiouser is that a situation like Mr. Den Beste's would actually make things worse if things go wrong in Iraq.

The lift situation will be a problem, but a larger initial build-up in Iraq can avoid a lot of it (Most of the stuff you can only carry by ship will have arrive or are close to arriving in-theater.). Furthermore, a North Korean invasion would instantly see the South Korea merchant marine and air fleet being called in to help bring in American forces.

On the force side, the sort of ground forces that will help stop a North Korean invasion are not going to come from the 10th Mountain or 82nd Airborne. The sealift should actually be improved in a "large build-up" scenario, and moving the heavy forces needed will be just a bit easier. Not easy, but easier.

Who'd thought the bankrupt Argentine government would take on Great Britain?

That was mistake on the part of the Argentine government. They thought the British were not going to fight for the Falklands (Which is a pretty good guess if you looked at the position papers Her Majesty's government was publishing and also their actions. It was Margaret Thatcher who proved to be the wild card the Argentines did not expect.), and the Argentine junta had little choice, since it was either that or the mob would take them down shortly.

I do not think foreign leaders are going to make the same mistake of George W. Bush.

I have full confidence in the ROKA with the caveat for WMD. This is not the force of 1950. And Seoul is urban sprawl up to about half way to the DMZ. Not exactly a high speed avenue of approach. It's the political damage to arrangements, as 'allies' who've been expecting the US to be there in force finds 1) they're not and 2) can be expected to be unable to quickly return. Even with a success in such a scenario, the Koreans, for historical reasons, would be just as concerned about China enough to start thinking they needed WMD insurance because the American's are thus demonstratively not all that reliable. The point is that like Tet, there are political consequences.

Point. But I would dispute the claim against the US not having any forces (I have not argued that all the heavy divisions go to Iraq.), and I would point out unless you are going to argue for an advanced American build-up in South Korea, you are going to suffer much of the problems with a lack of force in Korea regardless. I would argue that issue of long-term political problems will depend on a lot more then whether the 1st Cavalry Division arrived in six weeks or eight.

As for Taiwan, it is not that the PRC has to win a quick battle. They just have to make a supportable beachhead while the Americans are away.

They can not. Unless Pearl Harbor happens and the ROC Navy and Air Force are all wiped out, along with much of the Army, Taiwan will not be invaded. The PLA simply does not have the lift capability to do so, and not even the PLA would gamble for no return. That situation is akin to what would have happened if the Allies decided to storm the Pas de Calais in 1942 with three divisions.

Then the American administration is faced with making some of the hardest decisions since W.W.II as to what they want to do. I don't see it as a quick and simple response. As they dither, the PRC forces can systematically expend resources for sufficient land to inhibit it from being expelled. You'll get a Cyprus scenario.

But then, the entire Greek military was not on Cyprus. Any attempt by the PLA to invade will attract a vigorous response. The situation bears more then a passing resemblance to the relative situation facing Britain and Germany in 1940, except that President Bush is more likely to intervene then President Roosevelt.

Again, my concern is Economy of Force. Not just the fact but the perception on the other side of any window of opportunity which would appear to give them their best chance they will ever have to teach the American a lesson. We're not playing with 'rational' players in all these cases.

I would argue a larger force in Iraq would help fulfill Economy of Force quite well. Keep in mind the psychological effects having the forces in Iraq calling for reinforcements because they run into a stalemate situation. That will not bode well for the US.

Likewise, if the rest of the world understand that messing with the US will get them a giant hammer coming down on them - one they can not hope to counter effectively - they will think real hard about the pointed virtues of peaceful relations.

2002-11-18T11:58:00.000-08:00

Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time...

The British newspaper Daily Telegraph has an article today that says the Bush Administration has turned down a request by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder for a personal meeting between the two heads of government at the NATO summit in Prague this week. This latest move probably is going to impress on even the most gullible members of the German Chancellor's own Social Democrat Party and the allied Green Party that things are not all fine and happy in the strained relations between Germany and the United States, a strain that supposedly was 'fixed' with the recent meeting between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and German Defense Minister Peter Struck. It also demonstrates that Washington is following the "ignore the kid" policy towards Germany to a 'T'.

This is something that the SPD/Green government should have been aware of the possibilities for when they started using anti-American rhetoric during Schröder's reelection campaign. Somebody within the confines of the parties' inner sanctums should have said,"You know, guys, that this kind of talk will probably get us reelected, since it is exactly what a lot of the voters we don't have right now will go for. But there is going to be a price to be paid with Washington and every other capital in Europe after - or should I say, if - we win. I mean, even the French are not happy with us! Can you believe that? The French don't think it is a good idea! The French! That should be telling us something."

Well, Schröder and his allies ignored it on their way to winning the German election (Maybe win might be a little strong.) and now they are paying the price of trashing German-US relations for the sake of electoral advantage. Being as cynical as the SPD/Greens must have been to go with the campaign angle that they did proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Germany is currently being run by a group of kids, young children who apparently have no idea or desire to be responsible. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with bringing up foreign relations in a political campaign, but it was the extremes the SPD/Greens (Which is par for course from the Greens.) went to that is problem...for Germany.

I think America has woken-up to the fact that a) Germany is as annoying, irritating, and ultimately impotent as a small child in terms of international relations; b) there is nothing you can really do to reason with them or to keep them from whining (Short of changing exactly into them.) or causing a temper tantrum; and c) there is no reason to placate them because they will not be placated and no reason to seek their assistance because they are unwilling and/or unable to give it to you regardless, so the best thing to do is to ignore them the same way an adult would ignore a spoiled little brat. After all, since you can not change their minds and they can not do anything, the best thing you can do is to save your effort for other things and ignore the kid as he wander around the house, crying and screaming and generally try to get your attention to do something he can not, while your only admission is to listen but not listen what he is saying and keep him from touching the business papers or fine china.

And that is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing. They are letting the Germans talk about 'feel this' or 'do that' and even having them over for tea, with people like Secretary Rumsfeld nodding respectfully at the points the Germans are making. Meanwhile, the administration are letting the German words flow into one ear and out the other as they think about what they are going to have for dinner or how many troops they should send against Iraq, making sure to give neutral comments and gestures at the appropriate time in the conversation. At the same time, Washington is making sure the Germans do not get a chance to really screw things up in the world by keeping them from wielding any real power. So Germany can pontificate all they want in the UN...But they are not going to become Permanent Members of the Security Council anytime soon (Japan probably has a better shot at that.) which is really the only place that matters in the UN. Chancellor Schröder can speak at the NATO meeting about what America and Europe should be doing, but he is not going get a chance to have a private meeting with President Bush where you are suppose to effect real changes. And Germany will continue to be treated that way until the country's leadership grow-up.

(Another reason why the Administration turned-down the request for a private meeting is because those sort of sessions generally are expected to achieve something between the leaders involved. Since George W. Bush is not interested in giving Schröder anything to take home and say he managed to get the Americans to do - And it would be bad form to have to publicly contradict another head of government, even if they are wrong - the Americans are refusing to give even an opportunity for the Germans to do that.)

Interestingly, the Germans was supposed to use the private meeting as a chance to offer some 'gifts' to the Americans, namely unrestricted access to US military bases in Germany and to US overflights of German airspace for the Iraqi operation. I - And probably the Bush Administration - probably find none of it worth the effort. If the US decided to pull forces out of Germany and redeploy them to Iraq, the Germans are not going to stop them, either from going or coming back...Unless they want V Corp to fight its way to the docks and/or see it rebased to a nation friendlier to the US like Poland after Iraqi war is finished. And there probably is not going to be any US overflights of Germany, unless Berlin wants to stop medical airlifts to and from the US Air Force bases. Even if they were worth the effort, you just know that the Greens and more radical members of the SPD would object to anything helping the Americans 'invade' Iraq. They will certainly make life interesting in the Bundestag over the issue of Germany taking co-command of the International Security Force in Afghanistan next year, since it 'helps' the American effort in Iraq. It is hard to see how the opposition willl allow Schröder to give the Americans anything concrete that is really meaningful.)

2002-11-18T00:26:00.000-08:00

All the water and not a drop to drink...

I just remembered something as I was working on my commentary about the oil industry. During the Gulf War, the Coalition forces had found themselves using jet fuel and aviation spirits at a frightening clip, so much so they had get more of them to avoid problems maintaining the air campaign. The solution they came up with was to bring in tankers of the refined petroleum products from Singapore, because oil refineries in Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf states lack the ability to produce aviation fuel, at least at the quality and quantity needed by the Coalition. The situation might have changed, but not too much since building new or even refitting old refineries is a tricky and lengthy business, while customers for OPEC oil usually prefer the crude variety no matter what OPEC might prefer.

So if the US goes into Iraq without any help from Saudi Arabia, aviation fuel will not be something the US will be missing from the lack of Saudi participation.

2002-11-17T22:26:00.000-08:00

Blowing My Own Trumpet - 11/17

Steven Den Beste has posted on his weblog, USS Clueless, his response to my response to a posting he had made earlier regarding the size of the force he believes the US should use in Iraq. While the points in his response are good ones, as far as they go, they do have some problems.

First, there is no reason why the force structure has to be fixed at either 250,000 or 70,000. An additional 80,000 troops would allow for the deployment of two additional heavy divisions, significantly increasing the American threat the Iraqis will face. It would certainly open up more opportunities and possibilities for Central Command. There is little doubt that CentCom is currently working up or have completed a whole set of contigency plans with dealing with different force levels and deployment schedules. Having a heavy force of armor and mechanized infantry units rolling up the highway toward Baghdad would certainly make life interesting for Iraqi forces. I think that CentCom knows this and has just kept quiet on it.

Second, possession of nukes by Saddam makes the deployment of larger forces harder, along with being able to deploy them only in Kuwait. However, there is no reason those problems along with a desire to prevent large troop concentrations from serving as attractive WMD bait should completely prevent the deployment of large forces in theater. The transports carrying the heavy equipment can get moving from Savannah or the north German ports as soon as possible and be in the Gulf or just outside it in preparation for docking in Kuwait by the time the war begins. This avoids waiting until the forces on the scene run into a stalemate and call for reinforcements to raise steam and weigh the transports' anchors, a process that will add about a week to the wait.

The personnel can then by flown in to be mated with the equipment as the brigades and divisions are gradually unloaded at the dock, each unit starting as soon as the unit before has cleared out of the loading area and is into the field. Once they are in the field, execution of dispersion can keep units from being too concentrated in any one place, and movement as well as air supremcy will add even more to security against missiles attacks carrying WMD warheads.

Third, the same arguments against maintaining a concentration of forces in Kuwait also militates against depending too much on the capture of Iraqi territory - and more specifically, the port and airfields - as an aid to any build-up of additional forces needed. Since Saddam will probably have no compunction against sacrificing Iraqis lives to kill Americans, there is little advantage to using those forward bases to bring in large number of reinforcements least they invite a WMD strike as oppose to sending them before and during the invasion to Kuwait or through Turkey. Further, it is also dependent on whether some Iraqi diehard is sitting near the end of the runway with a MANPADS (Man portable air defense system - Stingers, for example.) or that Iraq decides to scuttle the ships at the docks and along the Shatt al Arab leading to Basra. And it has to be assumed they have much information about the terrain to aid their targeting. The foreknowledge would certainly help artillery firing shells filled with chemical agents, by avoid the potential costly and time-consuming registering of the guns which would allow American forces to detect, determine, and destroy the Iraqi batteries.

What is worse with the scenario, it assumes that additional forces are needed to be deployed from out of theater during the operation because the forces have run into problems they can not handle. In that case, Saddam can already declare a propaganda victory because he has 'tricked' the Americans to underestimate him and now they have to bring in more forces, while at the same time potentially providing him with a bit of relief from the "full court press."

Finally, while there are any number of factors which will help a small force to success, it must be pointed out that they are still possibilites, not definite occurences. The Iraqi Army may simply refuse to fight - but the Americans can not be entirely sure that they will not. Same thing for killing a majority of Iraqi leaders - who may or may not be a factor in any event if the communications system is hit hard enough. Likewise, it might be possible, even probably, that a coup will be attempted or the Iraqi General Staff decides book it - but it would be unwise for the Americans to fully depend on either of them happening. If any one or couple happen, then things will go well. But the idea of "planning for the worst, hoping for the best" still applies. We can hope that the 70,000 troops will be enough to handle Iraq, given a certain amount of luck and accurate predictions. But it also makes sense to send in a larger force so that even if none of the probabilities happen, it will not matter - we will still have enough power on hand to finish the job, rather then having to phone home and asking for reinforcements which will take time to arrive.

(Further, it can be argued that a larger American force is more likely to cause any of the possibilities to happen. More aircrafts - not all the additional forces need be Army formations - could be deployed to hammer the Iraqi command and control without detracting ability to accomplish other parts of the operational plan. And the sight of the 1st Cavalry and 3rd Infantry Divisions leading the advance up the main highway from Basra to Baghdad probably will provide more 'encouragement' for Iraqis - even members from Saddam's home town of Tikrit - to move against him. At the very least, it would provide a pointed lesson in the wisdom of not fighting the Americans through the "mighty hammer" show approach.)

2002-11-17T20:03:00.000-08:00

Start packing those bags immediately...

Just read on Foxnews.com the latest version of an article which talked about how some freelance reporter managed to hack into Saddam Hussein's web-based email account on the official Iraqi government run portal. Aside from the usual spam, hatemail, adulations, requests for autographed pictures (A good thing to do so now, since your chances of getting any later in the year might be low.) and business solicitations (Which for American companies - including some clowns in California - might soon result in a visit from agents of the Treasury Department.), there was some letter from a guy from Austria who must feel he was born fifty years too late to join the Waffen SS. To quote:

But the account also attracted admirers, including someone writing from Austria who called Americans arrogant and told Saddam that if the United States attacked Iraq, "you need only send a ticket and I will come to Iraq to fight Americans."

"I am a good shot, and I am serious about my offer," the Vienna resident wrote.

I almost hope this idiot gets his wish. In fact, I encourage all people of similar mind to this guy to get on the next plane, ship, train, bus, or camel bound for Baghdad so they can become members of Iraqi's foreign legion. Sort of like the 15th International Brigade which fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except this will be open to peaceniks, die-hard Iraqi sympathizers (One former member of the French government comes to mind.), assorted anti-globalization activists, communists, and anarchists, as well as fellow Islamo-fascists and anti-Semites. Then they will have an outlet to vent their support of Iraqi/hatred of the West/hatred of Jews or Israel/hatred of the U.S. in truly exemplary fashion. Then the US can have the opportunity to wipe the floor of the idiots and teach them, not only how much better it is to stay in the West and value the freedom to trash the societies who give you the right to trash them, but also the value of liberation for the Iraqi people as well as just how stupid you have to be for you to support the side on the wrong end of a JDAM. In fact, it might prove educational if aforementioned Austrian had a couple JDAMs land near him. That might prove the point quite nicely.

2002-11-16T01:05:00.000-08:00

PETA Math: Value of A Pig > Value of a Person

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are at it again. Not content with running ads on some of America's college campuses (Homes of some of the country's most alarming levels of alcoholic intoxication.) promoting the use of beer as a replacement for milk, some of the bozos out in Vancouver decided that it would be a good idea to run ads that horrifyingly compare the slaughter of pigs for food with the deliberate serial murders of women due to psychosis. Adding insult to injury is the defensive justifications the local PETA chapter has engaged in, promoting the idea that the life of pig is equal to the life of a woman.

Actually, it is much more offensive then that. PETA and its like-minded fellow travellers (Like the Animal Liberation Front/Earth Liberation Front, who is/are regarded as among America's most dangerous domestic terrorist groups.) firmly believe that the life of a human is worth less then the life of a worm or fly or deer or rabid dog. That may sound a bit harsh, but it is the only conclusion that can be drawn from PETA's demands that humans treat animals better then animals would be treated by other animals in the wild, not realizing or caring that such an elevated standard can often be impractical or even dangerous to humans (For example, the all too common prosecution of people who have shot and killed dangerous predators menacing their lives, the lives of other people, or even property like the family pet or cattle herd.). Such policies can backfire as well: outlawing the killing of animals regardless of cause can either cause over-population due to lack of a limit on population growth which causes its own problems.

Given their world view, maybe it is time to ask PETA and their ilk that, since they apparently believe in no other value system except that we should treat animals better then the animals treat each other in the wild, can the rest of us turn treat members of PETA the same way animals treat each other? Or perhaps that is just too inhumane for them? There are plenty of reasons on why people should treat animals decently, but trying to turn around and argue that we should therefore treat animals the way we treat other people misses an important point - They are NOT people. Trying to argue so only diminishes the value of humanity, which is in precious supply in this world not to be reduced by silly ideas and emotional projections of 'us' unto the family pet.

2002-11-15T14:55:00.000-08:00

"Velcome to East Berlin, Amerikan."

One of the siller things Pennsylvania does is to force all retailers in the state selling cigarettes and tobacco to card anybody under the bizarre age of 26 who tries to buy said products, under the creative idea that you can spot the magical difference between a person one (1) day over his or her 26th birthday and a person who has not quite reach that point in his or her life. It is all pretty inane and illogical stuff, but then such things usually are when we are talking about smoking in America.

Well, it was not exactly a shock when a visit to the check-out for the local Walgreen's drug store also meant a chance to see a sign saying "We card people under the age of 40." Yes, you heard it right. Walgreen's will now card people buying cigarettes if they are under the age of 40. Apparently, the states no longer have to mandate an age; like Pavlov's dogs, the chain stores have been conditioned into doing it themselves. What is next? Upping the age until we hit "We card people under the age of dead"? Have some blonde-haired, blue-eyed wannabe SS trooper holding a SG-44 (The German automatic rifle that served as the inspiration, if not the pattern for the Kalashnikov and all automatic rifles that followed.) and saying, "Papers please" and "If you are a minor trying to buy cigarettes then you vill be schott." And how are we going to determine an age? At this rate, we are going to have to move from a base 10 numbering system for determining age soon.

And the scary thing is, those ideas make about as much sense as the crap we have now. At the pace things are going, it is not going to take long before a person has difficulty deciding if he lived in Eastern Pennsylvania, or East Berlin.

2002-11-14T22:12:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's World View, Part 2

Lest anyone think Congressman Ron Paul covered all the silly arguments from the extreme right against going to war with Iraq...

We should not attack Iraq because it is a violation of the sovereignty of a nation that has not attack the US. This may be news to a lot of people, but this justification for opposition went away a long time ago. Around eight years ago, as a matter of fact. The sovereignty issue went away the moment Hussein's intelligence service begun an operation to kill George H.W. Bush during the former president's visit to Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War. Fortunately, the operation was discovered and foiled, and President Bill Clinton actually ordered a series of air strikes on Iraqi targets in response for the attempt on President Bush's life. Since state-sponsored or state-conducted assassinations are considered acts of war, the Iraqi operation against President Bush's life was an Iraqi act of war against the US, which also serves as a declaration of war against the US in substance if not in name. That means that the war against Iraq has already started...By the Iraqis. The only thing missing has been an American willingness for a proper response.

Of course, we know that the changed on September 11th, 2001. Now, it is only a matter of time before we honor the Iraqi action and finish the job at hand.

And it could not come sooner.

2002-11-14T20:32:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's World View, Part 1

I am normally rather indifferent towards Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican representing Texas who switched parties after he realized a single Libertarian in Congress was not likely to have much effect on what went on there. Often times, I share the same concerns Mr. Paul has towards the issues of the day. But he strikes me as a decent enough individual, and that is well enough in an elected official for me.

Unfortunately for Congressman Paul, his strict constitutionalist world view has put major visors on the necessity of dealing with foreign threats to the US. The man was on the O'Reilly Factor radio show on Thursday and advanced a case that just bleeds with problems.

1) Saddam Hussein/Iraq is not an enemy/threat to America. Oh yes, he/it is. Just his remarks alone would indicate a desire to hurt America has much as possible. Leaving aside the action he tried to wage war against the US (See above.), being seen on TV signing checks to the families of Palestinian homocide-bombers who have killed Israelis is chilling enough, given the closer ties anti-Israeli only terrorist groups like Hamas has been forging with international terrorist movements like Hezbollah. There have been satellite photos of camps that are probably being used to train terrorists, and Hussein is just crazy enough to move a couple of his (No matter what Scott Ritter say.) chemical agents (VX nerve gas, anyone?), biological agents, or (When he gets them.) nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack the US if they could cover the tracks sufficiently. Imagine the devastation inflicted on New York if either of those aircrafts that flew into the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, had carried a 50kT nuclear device...And you would not know that Iraq had given the terrorists the weapons until the WMD in question was actually used. And he has been trying to obtain ballastic missile technology, and has shown a willingness to use them on targets regardless of whether it was a civilian center or not. Not just in the Gulf War, when SCUDs were hitting Dhahran and Riyadh with the aim of killing Americans, but during the Iran-Iraq War (Maybe we should call it the "First Gulf War.") when Hussein was smacking Iranian cities with much larger missiles like the SS-12.

2) The US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1990. Oh no, we did not, unless you are willing to take the Saddam Hussein Point of View, which means you trust the word of a known liar and backstabber. While Baghdad advanced the idea that then US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie gave a 'go-ahead/encouragement' for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in a conversation with Hussein in July of 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration denied the account and the ambassador herself has stated she had never forwarded any such idea. More likely, it seemed that Hussein took from the conversation what he wanted to (He was already preparing for the invasion long before that.) regardless of what was actually said. It certainly would not be the first time a world leader did that.

3) The oil market would compensate for any actions Iraq takes that would damage the oil supply. Remember, Iraq is not under any compulsion to sell the oil it controls. Having any single player control so much of the world's oil reserve will definitely have an effect on the price of oil. And while the world's production/supply of oil has mainly regional effects, the effect on the world's market/price of oil is global. More on that later.

4) The US did not take any action against Iraq when they invaded Iran. Not only was the invasion of Iran not a threat to American security, since Iran was actively hostile toward the US (Invading and occupying any embassy, like Iran did to the US Embassy in Teharan, is almost always regarded as an act of war.) and waging a terrorist war against America, it would have been very dumb move for the US move against Iraq simply for attacking Iran.

And that is just for starters. I imagine I could come up with at least another four problems with Congressman Paul if I read the transcript or listen to the segment again.

Update: Radio talk show host Rollye James has pointed out that Ambassador Glaspie actually did make remarks that sounded very much like approval for an Iraqi attack on Kuwait (Or, at least, American indifference to the idea.). I do doubt that the Bush Administration or Ambassador Glaspie would have been quite as approving or ambiguous in her remarks to Hussein if they knew that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, as opposed to bully it for more cash. And Hussein was definitely trying to construe anything Ambassador Glaspie said as encouragement for his plans. However, Congressman Paul did not bother making any qualifications to his statement. So the point is still a strike against him.

2002-11-13T18:25:00.000-08:00
Remembering What It is All About

With all the news accounts of Iraq's latest "acceptance" of the UN Security Council resolution (Which is worth the paper it is written on.) and the most recent taped message associated with Usama bin Laden, I decided that it was time to truly understand exactly what it is all about, and the stakes facing us.

http://www.rick.com/audio/soundbytes/flt-93.ra

Rick Dees is a DJ/radio host out in Los Angeles with a nationally syndicated show on the weekends going through the Top 40 hit songs of the week. Normally, it is a bunch of laughs on that and his weekday morning show with the usual assortments of gags, laughs, and celebrity interviews. Everyonce in a while, it does get serious. This is one of them.

The excerpt above (For RealPlayer.) is the last communications the air traffic controllers got from United Flight 93 on September 11th, 2001. It last about one and a half minutes. It shows exactly what we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

2002-11-13T05:37:00.000-08:00
Things Men Should Not Have to Do

...Having to buy gifts for members of the opposite sex, unless she tells you what she wants or she is very forgiving. I have to purchase a gift for my little niece, and there is really no good way to go about buying gifts for a little girl in a store (If you are her uncle.) without feeling like you should appear in the next edition of sex offender's catalog. Women, please understand that men are simple creatures, and one thing you should not do - if you are kind and considerate - is to ask us to buy something for you with the words, "Oh, anything's fine." It will all end in tears.

2002-11-12T22:29:00.000-08:00
Well, this may be the start of a wonderful experiment...or the ultimate example of egomanical stupidity. And the lack of a safety net is...a minor consideration. Ah, well, that is what makes life fun. At least it makes life interesting. So let us see. And maybe, just maybe, I will come up with something interesting to rant about by tomorrow evening.