Novanglus

Embrace the Wealth Gap

2007-05-08T00:59:00.001-04:00

Income inequality is one of those forces that makes capitalism superior to all other types of markets. It drives people to take risks and it drives them to innovate instead of sit on their laurels.

clipped from www.spectator.org

In a recent op-ed, economist Robert Samuelson said "there is something unsettling about extremes of wealth and poverty." He obviously meant it pejoratively, but in truth, extremes of wealth and poverty are the very source of the economic advances and creativity that we regularly witness around the world. As Canadian economist Reuven Brenner wrote in his 1983 book, History: The Human Gamble, "it is the perception of inequality that induces people to take risks."

Importantly, none of the people described here started out rich. Indeed, while the fortunes of many are presently the source of unease about wealth gaps, there was a time when all were on the outside looking in. If income equality were the norm in the world, it's arguable that some would not have taken the risks that are at the root of our economic vibrancy today. As such, fears of income inequality are misplaced. The latter is the driver of economic and human creativity, so rather then bemoan it, we should embrace it.

Iraqi Papers: Al-Qa'ida on the Run?

2007-05-07T23:35:00.001-04:00

Things are definitely changing in Iraq. It's getting harder and harder to ignore.

clipped from www.iraqslogger.com

After a period of covert confrontations, including assassinations and counter-assassinations, al-Hayat said that anti-al Qa'ida Sunni groups have finally announced their public opposition to al-Qa'ida and its “Islamic state,” and declared that they will unite their efforts within an organization called “the Front for Struggle and Reform.”

Clearly, one of the objectives of the new front is to further marginalize al-Qa'ida and its affiliate organizations (such as Ansar al-Sunna) and to present a “new face” for the resistance in Iraq, with the new front announcing, in its first statement, that it does not engage in attacks against Iraqi civilians.

The conflict is leading to further fragmentation within al-Qa'ida, al-Hayat said, with splits announced within the organization of Ansar al-Sunna, one of the main allies of al-Qa'ida in Iraq.

More details can be found at The Fourth Rail.

The Anbar tribes' turn against al-Qaeda has developed significantly since the end of the Anbar Campaign late last year, which swept al-Qaeda and the insurgency from the major towns and cities west of Ramadi. Over the past year, the majority of the tribes have denounced al-Qaeda and formed alliances with the Iraqi government and U.S. forces operating in the region. Numerous 'foreign fighters' have been killed or captured by the tribes. The tribes are working to restore order, and are providing recruits for the police and Army, despite horrific suicide attacks on recruiting centers. These attacks have not deterred the recruiting, but in fact have motivated the tribes to fight al-Qaeda.

Iraqi Blog: Don't bury your heads in the sand.

2007-05-07T23:27:00.001-04:00

An Iraqi blogger couldn't get it more right. I would rather surround myself with people like this guy than people like Harry Reid. Judge for yourself.

clipped from iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

We must keep fighting those criminals and tyrants until they realize that the freedom-loving peoples of the region are not alone. Freedom and living in dignity are the aspirations of all mankind and that's what unites us; not death and suicide. When freedom-lovers in other countries reach out for us they are working for the future of everyone tyrants and murderers like Ahmedinejad, Nesrallah, Assad and Qaddafi must realize that we are not their possessions to pass on to their sons or henchmen. We belong to the human civilization and that was the day we gave what we gave to our land and other civilizations. They can't take out our humanity with their ugly crimes and they can't force us to back off. The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so.

Some will keep on blaming America and her policies and they will consider anything America did and does wrong whether America stayed or left, fought or ran away, negotiated or boycotted.

An Army Ranger's Words About Staying in Iraq

2007-05-06T15:24:00.001-04:00

First thing, this is a must view. Second, have kleenex handy.

It's a YouTube video that has an Army Ranger calling into Neal Boortz's radio show pleading with Democrats to let him do his job.

Here's the link. Go now. Share with all you know.

Machiavelli on War

2007-05-05T17:12:00.001-04:00

Found this quote over on Hotair and felt it was good enough to repost here. Certainly a bit of wisdom that applies very easily to current events.

clipped from hotair.com

[I]f you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you. On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous. But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.

–Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses Book II, Chapter 14.

Lou Dobbs Blasts Media on Coverage of Illegal Immigration

2007-05-04T18:32:00.001-04:00

Lou Dobbs makes a very strong case for media bias with relation to illegal immigration. He also makes a very strong and well-articulated case for sealing the borders.

clipped from newsbusters.org

It is rare for a mainstream media journalist to openly criticize the media’s coverage of a particular issue. But that is exactly what CNN’s Lou Dobbs did on Tuesday’s "American Morning." In an interview with co-host Kiran Chetry, Dobbs blasted the media’s coverage of illegal immigration, saying "They're selling an agenda. And they're not applying critical judgment. And critical judgment and skepticism is our job as journalists. We're talking about comprehensive immigration legislation as reform. We're using the word 'reform' as if it were true. There's no skepticism."

We need immigrants in this country. That's why we bring in more than two million. Has anybody over the past hour on this broadcast or this network reported, or any other network, reported that we bring in more than two million immigrants into this country lawfully each and every year?

Video: How Modern Liberals Think

2007-05-03T23:52:00.000-04:00

Evan Sayet describes modern liberalism in a very plain and understandable way. This video has literally changed my view of liberalism. He is dead-on with this. I have never seen or heard of him before tonight, but boy is he right. Watch the video - it's a bit long at 45 minutes, but you'll be enthralled - trust me. He makes a lot of great points throughout.

Hat-tip to Pat Dollard for this one.

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn

2007-05-03T23:12:00.001-04:00

Apparently the folks at CNN agree with my potential consequences of early withdrawal detailed in the previous post.

clipped from www.cnn.com

(CNN) -- Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

Shepperd said Iraq's neighbors would be drawn into the all-out civil war likely if U.S. forces left too quickly. Iran could move in to further strengthen its influence in southern Iraq; Turkey likely would move against the Kurds in the north; and Saudi Arabia would be inclined to take action to protect Sunnis in western Iraq, he said.

Why are the Democrats doing this?

2007-05-03T21:22:00.000-04:00

An Iraqi blogger asked the question, "Why are the Democrats doing this?" The easy answer is one I can rattle off without batting an eyelash: politics. There is really nothing else to explain. The discussion in Congress should be one of assessing the situation in Iraq and addressing the best course of action there. Not surprisingly, there is zero discussion about any of this in Congress. There is whatever piece of legislation that the Democrats craft behind closed doors and then there are those who oppose it. No discussion about how to win or if we can win or what the real situation is there. Nothing. Just accept these terms, ignore anything you hear that is positive about Iraq, and if you don't agree then you don't agree with the American people. Apparently anything the Democrats do is exactly what America wants. Funny. They never asked me. Nor did they ask the folks I'm going to introduce you to in this blog.

Iraq The Model is a blog written by two Iraqi men named Omar and Mohammed. It's an excellent blog for those interested in hearing what a couple of Iraqis have to say about things over there. In a recent post titled, "Out of Iraq? Why Are They Doing This?", Omar says the following:

Instead coming up with ideas to help the US Democrats are trying to stop the effort to stabilize Iraq and rescue the Middle East from a catastrophe.

I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it.Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

For four years everybody made mistakes. The administration made mistakes and admitted them. My people and leaders made mistakes as well and we regret them.

But now, in the last two months, we have had a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics. These were reached after studying previous mistakes and were designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy, although its tools are not yet even fully deployed, is showing promising signs of progress.

General Petraeus said yesterday that things will get tougher before they get easier in Iraq. This is the sort of of fact-based, realistic assessment of the situation which politicians should listen to when they discuss the war thousands of miles away.

We must give this effort the chance it deserves. We should provide all the support necessary. We should heed constructive critique, not the empty rhetoric that the ‘war is lost.’

After Senator Harry Reid announced that the "war is lost," another Iraqi blogger responded to Sen. Reid with the following.

Do you have any idea how your words sounded to ordinary Iraqis? I'm sure you don't. It sounds like you haven't given the matter a moment's thought. It even sounds like you think the Iraqis and their fate are irrelevant, especially when weighed against your cheap political aims. Yet millions of Iraqis want only to live peacefully, and have embraced the early positive signs of the security crackdown as a reason for limited optimism. You've told them to abandon any hope. You've invited them to make whatever accommodation they can with the murderers around them. Didn't you have a single word to say to them? Did it not occur to you that they heard you, too?

Do you have any idea how your words sounded to the rest of the Middle East? To the region's press, for example, which as a result has been trumpeting American surrender? Or to the delighted mullahs of Iran? Or to the region's brutal, murderous jihadis? Not only the jihadis who are spilling so much blood in Iraq, but to the jihadi network in Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere that dreams of making the world cower? They already think that, with divine aid, they've caused the Soviet Union to cease to exist. Your thoughtless and ignorant words of defeat were like an answered prayer to them. Didn't you have a single word of warning or caution for them? Did it not occur to you that they heard you, too?

Or how about the soldiers. I think they have a stake in this whole situation as well. I mean, it's not the Senators laying their lives on the line every day. The Democrats seemingly refuse to acknowledge that there might be some good outcome from this war. That's because they can't. They literally can't. From a political perspective they can never admit anything positive about the war. That would lend vindication to President Bush. And apparently it's worth it to them to throw the entire country as well as Iraq and perhaps the entire Middle East under the bus than to give Bush any such ray of light.

General Patraeus just briefed Congress on the situation in Iraq. Democrats (all save a couple) didn't even bother to show up to the briefings. Rep. John Murtha claimed that Gen. Patraeus is a liar - apparently because he had some positive things to say about how things have been going over there in recent months. Murtha claims the good general was only doing the bidding of the White House. But things are going better in Iraq. Read the Iraqi blogs. They will tell you. Read the first-hand accounts of soldiers in theater. They will tell you.

One Marine in Ramadi writes:

well ramadi was once dubbed by everyone as the worst city in the world. but we have done such a great job here that all the families in the area have worked with us on driving out the insurgency and that we work directly with the IA and the IP’s. the city has been cleaned up so well that the IP’s do most of the patrols now and we go out with them to hand out candy and toys to the children. you can tell that the people want us here to protect them from the thugs and gangs (insurgents). granted they would rather have peace and quit but they know that if we arent here they will be thrown around by the insurgents. a good example is this one mission we did. long story short we got blown up in multiple buildings and had to run into a families house. i spent my christmas holidays covered in ash from the mortar fire and the IED’s, sleeping under a dirty rug i found in the house. everyone was sleeping way to close for comfort just to stay warm. anyways. a family was there and they obviously didnt want us there. atleast at first. the daughters were very sick so our corpsman treated them. they didnt have electricity so we got them a generator for power, they were cold so we got them gas heaters, we got them food and water and then we gave them $500. by the end of the week long visit with them we were drinking tea with them. when we left we cleaned their house better than it was when we got there. i even have pictures with the family. they told us that they liked marines and they would help us as much as they could and they gave us some information on the insurgents in the area. we ended up catching a HUGE target down the road from there house because of it.

Another Marine shares some particularly interesting facts about how things have been in Iraq and how they are going now.

The Kurds, who were already autonomous, had the security forces already organized and in place. They stayed the course which resulted in no American deaths since 2003, a notable feat. For most of the Shia, who controlled southern Iraq, things were relatively peaceful. Although we had our run-ins with the Madhi Militia, the Shia had so much to gain in this war that by in large the Shia community began to cooperate. The Shia took a willing role in the security effort, making up the large majority of a 250,000 security force a few years ago. They suffered ultra-violent retaliation from Sunni and Al Qeada insurgents. Yet they shouldered on, and in such a dismal state of affairs, it should be considered remarkable. Now the predominantly Shia army have graduated from clearing Falluja, to policing their own ranks by driving out the Shia death squads and Madhi militiamen. The only piece of the puzzle missing was the Sunni. Things have changed.

I left Ramadi, Iraq in 2005. The only Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in the city were Shia battalions and Shia Commando units. The Sunni were no where to be found. A fledgling police force was corrupt and continuously disbanding or being disbanded. Over the next year things would very slowly turn around. One could speculate the reason why Sunni men were joining the ranks of the ISF. Money would be the most obvious indicator, and one could claim that they had an honest interest in their prosperity, but I look in another direction. Even the Iraqis have television and internet, and they have witnessed the growing anti-war sentiment of Americans. Coupled with watching the success of the Kurds, and the rise to power of the Shia, the Sunni have much to lose. And it was time that they became part of the process or face being left behind.
The ISF has since grown to over 330,000 members. Most remarkably is that the Sunni of Al Anbar province, the heartland of the insurgency, has pitched in significantly. The over 5,000 man army unit, “the Sons of Anbar”, continues to grow and by actively operating against insurgents, they positively influence the once hopeless province. While this unit makes up only seven percent of the Army, hundreds of Sunni men volunteer for service weekly, so much that US training elements had to grow in order to compensate for the influx of recruits. This is more than encouraging, not just for the citizen of Anbar, but the US service members whose sole purpose is to build these forces (so we can leave). Their immediate success gained the attention of the insurgents. They have executed numerous Sunni ISF via suicide bombings, firing squads, and beheadings, and captured it all on video. But that has not deterred the brave Sons of Anbar. They continue to grow and the tribes who support these men have become victims of retribution as well. This unfortunate set of circumstances is not without benefit, for it has united the majority of the tribes in Al Anbar against the Al Qaeda terrorists. The once sworn enemies of America are now standing alongside side us and even with the Kurds and Shia – all of us united against Al Qeada. Unseen between news reports of bombings, beheadings, and political infighting, is the hope that Iraq is not lost.

These stories from Iraqis and American soldiers are a far-cry from what we hear from Democrats and the American press. And you'll notice something peculiar about that, the voices of Iraqis and for the most part the American soldiers are silent. We hear about how "bad" things are going in Iraq and how pulling out is the only thing to do. But we hear it from people who deliberately ignore what's really happening in Iraq and try to replace that reality with a made-up version of their own.

We hear very little about the repercussions of pulling out as well. As if we'll all be home having a jolly-good time watching football and enjoying Cokes and hamburgers once the boys come home in 6 months. The Democrats might be doing that - celebrating their little victory against President Bush and looking forward to winning the White House in 2008.

Meanwhile the Iraqis will be left in the struggle for their lives. The violence likely escalating into a real civil war with state-sponsored militias running amok and slaughtering innocents by the tens of thousands. It'll be like Darfur at least and potentially worse. The small Sunni population will likely be nonexistent before it's all said and done. Turkey will likely invade the north to deal with the PKK who has plagued them for so long. Saudi Arabia will attempt, in vain, to support the small Sunni population but will succumb to the Iranian backed Shias. They'll be lucky if the violence doesn't spill over into their borders or launch a Middle East-wide battle between Sunnis and Shiites.

I cannot say for sure what would happen in that scenario. But I can say with some certainty that it will be far worse than what's happening there now. And I challenge anyone with any knowledge of the Middle East to prove to me otherwise. And why is all this necessary? Why when it seems we finally are making some progress in Iraq is this a necessary course of action? Why risk spilling the blood of hundreds of thousands for political gain? Why risk sending oil to $150/barrel and gas prices over $10/gallon in the wake of a major uprising in the Middle East? WHY? Maybe it won't happen that way, but why risk it when things seem to be on the uptick with our current course of action?

It's all for the infinitesimally small reason of bruising the President and his party. Of all the years I've seen watching the small and puny things done by politicians in this country, I've never seen any stoop so low as this.

The Democrats' Investment in Defeat

2007-04-28T14:48:00.001-04:00

On Thursday of last week, Sen. Harry Reid said that the Iraq war is lost.

"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.

If that is so, who won? Reid's comments would have led him to be charged with treason in previous times in this country. He claims his reasoning for the war being lost is the recent violence at the hands of Al Qaeda in Iraq. So he's sending a message to Al Qaeda that their terrorism is working. He's sending a message to all terrorists basically that if they get really violent, we won't have the stomach to hold out against them. Senator Reid may as well go ahead and capitulate our government now to Sharia law and save everyone the trouble. Because under his pretenses we'll never be able to fight terrorists. They're too violent for us.

Contrast his message to sending a message that we are united against these terrorists and that their acts of terrorism are cowardly and that WE WILL DEFEAT them. Period. Instead of being emboldened to thinking that they can win, they would eventually succumb to the idea it is they, not us that cannot win this war.

Now we have the terrorists riding high thinking that they can do whatever they want to us and we won't have the stomach to stay in the fight. Al Qaeda just has to keep the bombs going off for a short while longer and they'll have their victory. This despite the many setbacks they've experienced recently. If they win and push us out of Iraq, there will literally be no stopping them. People will join their ranks with little to fear from U.S. and they'll be swimming in money from supporters throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. That'll be when the real fun starts. Where will Sen. Reid be then? If he doesn't succumb to some terrorist attack I'd suspect he'd be looking to make political capital out of the situation and maybe pick up a few more Congressional seats.

He already sees Iraq as a chance to pick up Congressional seats in 2008.

"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.
Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

Let's shift gears and talk about some of those recent setbacks to Al Qaeda for a moment; because they are not insignificant.

Al Qaeda's support in Iraq has been waning recently. They seem to be engulfed in a civil war with their Sunni brethren. Sunni tribal leaders have been working with Coalition and Iraqi forces to oust them from the region. These tribal leaders have also have formed a new anti-insurgent party aimed at opposing insurgent groups and promoting a better image of American forces to Iraqis. The Sunni insurgent group, Islamic Army of Iraq split ranks with Al Qaeda earlier this month. And most recently, a senior Al Qaeda operative in Iraq has been apprehended and is beginning a pleasant stay in Guantanamo Bay.

---------

In response to Sen. Reid's statements about losing the war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman released this statement:

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost:"

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.
The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

Sen. Lieberman was the only Democrat (he's an Independent but still caucuses with the Democrats) to vote against the appropriations bill that would have forced American troops from Iraq regardless of any progress made in the war. Sen. Lieberman went on to give an eloquent speech before the Senate prior to the vote on the appropriations bill. Here are some excerpts:

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them--no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."
Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

And here is the best:

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.
That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that matter--a new secretary of defense.
And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around--just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

Sen. Lieberman manages to address, quite well I might add, each and every point made by Sen. Harry Reid who is pushing for the "redeployment" of U.S. military forces from Iraq. Sen. Lieberman sees very well the marked flaws found in the Democratic Leadership's strategy for Iraq.

If Al Qaeda hired an official spokesperson here in the US to basically pitch propaganda to help them win the war, that spokesman would say exactly what Harry Reid and many Democrats have been saying. So who's side is Harry Reid really on? It seems that the Democrats (or at least the Democratic leadership) happen to find themselves in the same corner as Al Qaeda on this one.

Why are we not trying to discuss options on how to win the war instead of trying so fervently to lose it? Democrats just push and push and push for leaving Iraq regardless of any possible good news about the surge and regardless of other ideas that might bear fruit in Iraq.

I will answer my own question by saying that Reid and other Democrats don't want us to win. And yes I do believe that. Harry Reid has admitted openly that Iraq is going to yield Congressional seats. All the actions and rhetoric of the Democrats so far says that they see Iraq as a political tool to help them in 08 instead of a war that needs to be won, not lost. Losing the war will be that final nail in the coffin for George Bush and possibly the only tool they need to gain seats in Congress as well as gaining the White House in 2008. Apparently it's completely worth those precious seats to go ahead and throw in the towel on this all important war. Right now, they have really put themselves in a political corner such that a victory in Iraq would be a political disaster for Democrats. And it didn't have to be that way, but they have clearly positioned themselves 180 degrees from the President on this and now either he wins or they win, not we all win like it should be.

Harry Reid wouldn't even bother showing up at Gen. Patraeus's brief before the Senate the other day. Probably because he doesn't want to hear anything that might be good news regarding Iraq. He has to continue to sell Iraq's loss to the general public no matter what. And he has to continue to make Iraq the number one issue to make political capital out of. They (the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate) will keep playing games with legislation to get as much as they can out of the Iraq issue until 2008. And that my friends, is reducing war to pure politics. I hope history crucifies these people for that.

Again, this is treason as far as I'm concerned but treason or no, Harry Reid will probably get reelected. There's a comforting thought.

School Shootings and Other Ills of 60s Dogmas

2007-04-27T01:59:00.001-04:00

Thomas Sowell recently wrote an article at National Review in which he points out that school shootings are an outcropping of the 60's. Prior to the 60's these types of things were virtually unheard of. So what changed in the 1960s that led to these kinds of tragedies?

Sowell places blame squarely on collective guilt and a subsequent lack of personal responsibility.

What was there in the 1960s vision of the world that could possibly lead anyone to consider it right to shoot at individuals who had done nothing to him?

Collective guilt is one of the legacies of the 1960s that is still with us. We are still seeing a guilt trip for slavery being laid on people who never owned a slave in their lives, and who would be repelled by the very idea of owning a slave.

Back in the 1960s, it was considered Deep Stuff among the intelligentsia to say that American society — all of us collectively — were somehow responsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.

During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else’s fault — society’s fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some third-world country, you were one of the “dispossessed” — even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.

Pretty Deep Stuff indeed. But it makes sense. A lot of sense. Cho, the VA Tech shooter, didn't personally know the people he was shooting, but it seems they represented an element of society he blamed for his problems. Sounds very familiar. While not many folks would go to the lengths Cho did, there are vast numbers of people who see the world precisely how he did. Their problems have nothing to do with anything of their own doing; society or some faction thereof is to blame. And there's danger in that kind of thinking - and potential for violence. People get angry - even hateful - when they believe that society or some collective is causing their problems.

If other people are somehow responsible for whatever is lacking in your life, lashing out at random against individuals who have done nothing to you personally can sound plausible to many people.

Sowell's article is a good read and I suggest you visit the link and read the rest. It's short but well worth the time.

Blaming others for your problems is quite convenient. But it takes away from your own personal responsibility of dealing with them. Now it becomes an issue of getting others to fix your problems for you instead of doing something to fix them yourself. It leads to frustration which leads to anger and in the right human being it becomes a recipe for violence. As we've seen several times over going back to the urban riots of the 60s.

Iran's Great Gamble

2007-04-07T02:57:00.001-04:00

On March 23rd, 15 British sailors were detained by Iranian forces in the Shatt Al Arab waterway. The sailors were from the HMS Cornwall, a British frigate that was inspecting an Iraqi merchant ship in Iraqi waters according to the Royal Navy. The incident is very similar to an incident in June 2004 where Iran seized eight British sailors for straying into Iranian territory on the same waterway. The Royal Navy admitted the sailors had accidentally strayed into Iranian waters during the 2004 incident.

The Shatt Al Arab waterway's exact borders have been in dispute for some time.

Control of the waterway and its use as a border have been a source of contention between the predecessors of the Iranian and Iraqi states since a peace treaty signed in 1639 between the Persian and the Ottoman Empires, which divided the territory according to tribal customs and loyalties, without attempting a rigorous land survey.

The Royal Navy has claimed the sailors were 1.7 nautical miles into Iraqi waters during the supposed encroachment into Iranian territory. Iran stands by it's claims that the sailors were indeed in Iranian waters and demanded an apology from Britain in order for the sailors to be released.

From the Washington Post:

Aandahl said the British crew members were intercepted by several larger patrol boats operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force that operates separately from the country's regular navy.
The seizure of the British vessels, a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs, took place in long-disputed waters just outside of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq from Iran, Aandahl said. A 1975 treaty divided the waters down the middle between Iraq and Iran, but the area remains disputed.
"It's been in dispute for some time," Aandahl said. "We've been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What's out of the ordinary is the Iranian response."
A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from the southern city of Basra fishing in Iraqi waters in the northern area of the Gulf said he saw the Iranian seizure. The fisherman, reached by telephone by an AP reporter in Basra, declined to be identified because of security concerns.
"Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters."

Hossein Abedini, a member of an Iranian opposition group, has claimed that the seizure of the British sailors was premeditated and ordered by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. These claims have not been verified by any substantial evidence however.

Abedini told a London press conference that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval garrison had been on alert from the night before the kidnapping, to prepare for the operation.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, who handles foreign affairs for the council, said in a statement that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the detention of the Britons in the hope of pressuring the British government over a threat to toughen U.N. sanctions.

"You can see that the clerical regime had in a premeditated act arrested British sailors in order to win concessions from the international community and divert attention from its nuclear project," Abedini said. "Claims that the sailors were arrested in Iranian territorial waters are baseless."

The sailors were released on April 5th, 13 days after being taken into custody by the Iranians. The following day, the sailors had these things to say about their captivity:

"Throughout our ordeal, we faced constant psychological pressure," they said in a joint statement
"We were interrogated most nights and given two options. If we admitted that we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison," they revealed.
...
The sailors' description of their captivity was in sharp contrast to the images of them smiling on Iranian television. Those images were an Iranian "media stunt", they said on Friday.
...
"I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters," Lieutenant Felix Carman told the news conference.

Possible reasons for the apprehension of the sailors

The obvious one - perhaps they were indeed inside Iranian waters during the time of their apprehension. Perhaps they "strayed" there as had happened in 2004.
As the member of the Iranian opposition group mentioned above, Iran may have done it "in order to win concessions from the international community and divert attention from its nuclear project".
In order to obtain the release of Iranian captives in Iraq or elsewhere.

On the release of the sailors

The British sailors were released in a great spectacle by Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad on Thursday, April 5th.

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter season.

British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that no deal was made with Iran in exchange for the release of the British sailors.

They were released "without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature", he said.

There is speculation as to what did prompt Ahmadinijad to release the sailors however. The Times of London and NewsMax believe there were some internal struggles within the Iranian leadership that led to the release of the captives.

Other sources point to a possible US deal to release an Iranian diplomat and perhaps members of the Quds Force, an element of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard supposedly operating in Iraq against coalition forces.

The release of the Irbil five has been a high priority for the Iranians since the men were captured. Indeed, at the plenary meeting for this month's foreign minister-level conference in Baghdad, the deputy Iranian foreign minister accused America of having hundreds of Iranian nationals in its custody.
American military and intelligence officials have confirmed this figure to the Sun, noting that the Iranians in American custody are partly a result of a change in the rules of engagement and a new Iraq strategy.
The Irbil five, however, are also of high value to the American military, whose commanders in Iraq have opposed efforts to hand over the men, who they say are high-ranking members of Iran's Quds Force, to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.
One concern about releasing the five Iranians or transferring them to Iraqi custody, according to one administration official, is that they are knowledgeable about American interrogation techniques. "They will share this knowledge with the next batch of Quds officers that come to Iraq," the official, who requested anonymity, said.
Another concern is that the five Iranians in American custody are particularly dangerous. The administration official described them as "paymasters" and "terrorism coaches."

It's hard to speculate as to what really did lead to the release of the captive sailors or even what the true cause was for their capture in the first place. It's also too early to tell what the fallout of this situation will be for Iran, Britain, and the US. For now, Britain has suspended further boarding operations in the northern Persian Gulf region.

UPDATE: a.k.a. zooomabooma points out that the location of this incident is actually outside the Shatt al-Arab waterway and is out in the Northern Persian Gulf.

Here is a link to the location in Google Maps. Click the link, then click on the "Satellite" link over on the upper right. Then zoom out and you should be able to see the location of the incident according to the British Royal Navy.

UPDATE: Here's a clip from an Iranian-born journalist about the area where the sailor's were when they were apprehended. The rest of his article is an interesting read as well.

We may never know what actually happened. The area where the sailors were captured is at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a border estuary that has caused two wars between Iran and Iraq since the 1970s. Iraq claims ownership of the entire estuary, while Iran wants it divided between the two neighbors. It is possible that the sailors thought they were in Iraqi waters while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Marines believed them to be on the Iranian side.

Technorati Tags: iran, iraq, quds, britain, sailors, Tony Blair, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, Shatt Al Arab, HMS Cornwall

At Some Point Dissent Becomes Treason

2007-03-24T18:02:00.000-04:00

Pat Dollard:

"Not all Dissent is Treason, but all Treason is Dissent. This proves, finally and unquestionably, that not all Dissent is good.

This also proves, finally and unquestionably, that Dissent can indeed rise to the level of Treason.

This proves, finally and unquestionably, that not all Dissent need be tolerated by Americans.

This proves, finally and unquestionably, that we have the right to protect ourselves against certain forms of Dissent. To the fullest limit."

I believe it's completely fair for us to question the level to which the dissent against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq has risen in the Democratic Party. As pointed out above, just because it's dissent doesn't mean it's good for the country. And at some point it does indeed become Treason. People treat dissent as if ALL dissent is justified, warranted, and should be defended as a right. Not if that right impairs the well-being of our government. Our Constitution offers no protection for such acts. Americans should be keen to defend themselves against such actions.

trea·son [tree-zuhn] –noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

"...Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government."

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The Democrats should consider this while they continually try to undermine the well-being of the Executive Branch of the government of this country. They should also consider how their actions serve to provide aid to our enemies and promote their goals.

Democrats Institute Treason As Official Party Policy

See the link above and draw your own conclusions.

John Stewart vs. John Bolton on Politics in Washington

2007-03-23T01:19:00.000-04:00

Jon Stewart vs. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, on the Daily Show. Quite a different exchange than we usually see on the Daily Show. But Bolton does a very good job of presenting his points on politics in Washington and refuting Stewart’s assertions. Bolton puts the US Attorney crisis in a much more lucid light.

UPI Reporter Describes What's Really Going on in Iraq

2007-03-18T22:32:00.000-04:00

Recently, UPI defense correspondant Pam Hess made a trip to Iraq. She spent time in Ramadi, Baghdad, Basra, Haditha, and Barwanah. C-SPAN recently held an hour-long interview with her on her experiences there. She is very candid about her experiences there. This is probably the most honest view of what’s going on in Iraq I’ve seen. Unfortunately, this will never make the news.

Below is a 10 minute excerpt from the interview from YouTube. You can find the entire interview on C-SPAN’s website by clicking here, and scrolling down to 3/9/2007. There will be a video titled: Pamela Hess, United Press International, Defense Correspondent. Optionally, you can also use the search feature at the C-SPAN link to search for “Pamela Hess”.

Video: Ted Koppel talks sense on Iraq

2007-03-14T03:36:00.000-04:00

Ted Koppel was on Meet the Press over the weekend and had some very lucid things to say about the War on Terror and Iraq. I agree with Mr. Koppel 100%. I don’t think he could be any more correct in his statements. And I think he’s telling a message that really needs to be heard in this country – particularly in Congress.

Koppel: If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didn’t connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This war’s already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.

Here’s the link to the video at Hotair.

Government vs. Business

2007-03-11T05:25:00.000-04:00

Recent bad experiences with the Post Office have sort of driven home the point of how business is better than government. After making a complaint that apparently my mail person was taking a couple of extra days off every week (or at least going past my house) - I got a response that just oozed nonchalance from their official dispute division. The problem was really pissing me off because - it created unnatural delays in my child support payments. That affects my kid and that REALLY pisses me off. Nothing like coming home to check the mail and seeing the envelope I placed in there the night before still sitting there with the flag still up and visible from 1/2 mile away. I could clearly see the flag sticking up on my mailbox as I turned onto my street. Now imagine coming home the next day TO IT STILL SITTING THERE. Once or twice - I would probably have just let this go. And if it wasn't child support payments sitting in there, I probably wouldn't have cared too much either. But when this started going on pretty regular and after 3 incidents of finding child support payments still sitting in my mailbox over a couple month period I'd finally had enough. Eventually I ended up just going out of my way to stick those payments in the slot at the post office to ensure they were properly mailed. After complaining a few more times - to the local post office directly and through their official channels - I eventually just gave up. I got excuses and even charges that perhaps *I* was in the wrong somehow. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have been the case if it were UPS or FedEx. It's not like I can call the Better Business Bureau or anything. What are they gonna do. It's the freaking Postal Service. I can call my Congressman. There's a reassuring thought.

Government is a necessary evil. But it is still that: an evil. There is nothing inherently good about it in my book. Government does not lead us down the path to roses and daisies. No government ever has or ever will in my book. Government is power. And power corrupts. There are checks and balances within the government itself. But the more power we give the government and the bigger they get, the less checks and balances they have with The People themselves. They are, for most purposes - unchecked in that regard anymore. It's government agencies being watched by... other government agencies. Each with their own agenda.

Anyone who's been in the military or knows people in the military will tell you about the military bureaucracy and all it's evils. There is the fun of medicare and medicaid - know anybody on those programs? Ever TRY to get on those programs? How about a pleasant trip to the DMV or your local tax office. The IRS is a fine example of power run amok. Then there's the CIA. Quite a list on those guys at this point. Know any farmers? Farmers will tell you hours worth of fun stories dealing with various government entities there. Talk about a publicly funded runaround. And the VA. We've seen those stories recently. And I'll save some suspense there: the problems won't go away on Bush's watch. Nor the next guy's (or gal's - whichever). In fact I'd be terribly surprised if the VA is ever "fixed." I truly would. Sure some changes will be made but after a while people will forget and it will be no better than it was last year or 10 years ago.

Ever call the city to get something done? How long does that take? Or does it even happen at all? Need some levies fixed? No but at least the governor gets a much needed office renovation, right? I really shouldn't have to mention public schools but I might as well. It's great when you have it out with school officials only for them to basically tell you they know far better than you how to raise your own kid. What are you going to do? Move? What if the next district is just as bad? Move again? It's a monopoly. But it's the good kind of monopoly (???). Sure there are private schools - that cost money. Which is great because the public schools get your money anyway - they just don't have to deal with your kid then.

I'm sure someone (or someones) will try and convince me that despite these things government is indeed good. Really? Good? Better than going to Staples or Home Depot? I dunno... I'm skeptical about the whole "government good, business bad" thing. Maybe Staples and Home Depot have been taking me out on golf outings or flying me on private planes to win me over or something.

Or maybe it's because free enterprise actually works. And government is well - the opposite of that. If you compare a service from business versus a similar service from government - I would bet that business yields you better performance and better service every time. Why? Because there is incentive for them to improve on those things to attract and retain customers. Competition in the marketplace drives innovation and efficiency. Government's objective is to simply provide a service. That's it. Congress creates the service, the people pay for it, and someone provides it. End of story. The incentive just isn't there. Government services are allowed to exist regardless of performance in nearly all cases. For businesses, service and efficiency are a matter of life or death. That is unless you take away competition. Remove competition for a business and stagnation and loss of quality are sure to follow. Sounds just like the government to me.

The Constitution, Jefferson, the ACLU, and the Danbury Baptist Assocation

2007-03-10T21:13:00.000-05:00

The ACLU is not a public service. They are an agenda driven private organization that does pick and choose its battles to set precedent and steer public policy.

In this recent article, you have this quote:

"Dixie County essentially thumbed its nose at the Constitution," said Glenn Katon, regional director for the ACLU's Central Florida office. "We were shaking the trees for a plaintiff."

The ACLU has a very sordid history in this country going all the way back to its founder, Roger Baldwin. Without going into a detailed account of all these things, I invite readers to perform their own research on the subject.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

-Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU

The ACLU will use their interpretation of the First Amendment to remove Christianity from as much of the public light as they can. This despite rampant references to God and Christianity by our Founding Fathers in the creation of this nation and indeed in the very running of this nation. The Founding Fathers never said to limit Christianity in public or by public officials. The Founding Fathers did indeed engage in the very activities the ACLU denounces as unconstitutional. They merely instructed Congress not to make any laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I also suggest reading the discourse that went on between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association where the infamous "wall of separation between church and state" reference comes from. The Library of Congress has a great section on religion in the early days of our nation and it has Jefferson's letter amongst other things listed there. The Danbury Baptist leter is here. Jefferson's letter directly is here.

In the letter sent to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptist Association stated their position:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals - That no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions. That the legitimate power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour.

Jefferson apparently labored over his response. As is made clear by his notes on his letter to the Danbury Baptists as originally drafted.

Of note here are these comments made at the Library of Congress's website:

The draft of the letter reveals that, far from dashing it off as a "short note of courtesy," as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. Jefferson consulted Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts while drafting the letter. That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.

A good article explaining the politics of the day that plagued Jefferson and the reason for his labor over his response to the Danbury Baptists is explained in an article at the Library of Congress.

Despite the contemporary political tone of his letter to the Danburys, his letter - or rather, the one phrase from that letter - is used as a herald to indicate the original meaning and intent of the Founding Fathers behind the First Amendment. I would suggest that this interpretation - and indeed the use of his particular letter to such ends - not only besmirches the Individual Rights which our Constitution provides, but it also takes out of context the discourse between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association and it does not take into account the political atmosphere of Jefferson's Presidency and his apparent use of this letter to address some of those politics.

As noted in the book, The ACLU Vs. America: exposing the agenda to redefine moral values, Craig Osten and Alan Sears spell out some of the ACLU's actions against Christian organizations and public Christianity. You can use Google Book Search to view part of the chapter on ACLU vs. Religion here. The following are some of the highlighted cases noted in the chapter:

The ACLU fought to force Catholic Charities to provide contraception coverage to women in any group health plan offered to its employees - regardless of the Catholic position on contraception and regardless that Catholic Charities is obviously a private organization.

The ACLU backed a lawsuit filed against the Salvation Army because of its employment requirement of divulging religious affiliation and accepting its Christian mission.

The ACLU fought Yeshiva University, and conservative Jewish university, for not allowing two lesbians to live in married student housing. Again, despite the religious position of the private university.

The ACLU seems to be more interested in eroding religious liberty than preserving it. They do this by taking to task those who have certain religious beliefs and forcing them to accept secular standards. They use the powers of the state to enforce these beliefs. By doing so, they are working to provide freedom from religion - not freedom of religion. Instead, I'd argue that these are steps toward a government sanctified religion of atheism - not religious freedom.

It's important for us to understand our religious heritage. Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of a foundation of government built on the notion that human beings have certain "inalienable rights" that do not come from the ideas of man, but that are "endowed by our Creator." Since these rights come from our Creator and not the opinions of a group of men, it is not for other men to alter or take those rights away. Our nation was built upon a foundation of Christian principles. And Christianity was a significant part of our government during the times of our Founding Fathers. We should not selectively choose the parts of the founding of this country as we see fit - but view it as a whole.

I would suggest here that some of the woes that plague our society now stem from the adoption of "secular wisdom" over religious principles.

It's interesting to note that a few days after penning the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives.

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof - Lev. XXV, v. x. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pensylvania [sic] for the State House in Philada." -Inscription on the Liberty Bell containing a quote from Leviticus 25:10

Here are some additional quotes from Jefferson as listed here.

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546

Note: This article was originally published on Newsvine.

The Contrast of Support: 1998-2005

2007-03-07T21:25:00.000-05:00

Joe Lieberman on the Choice on Iraq

2007-02-28T01:33:00.001-05:00

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CN) has written this piece on the situation in Congress over Iraq. It's a good read.

Additionally there is this article over at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about the Democrat's "slow bleed" strategy.

Bob Novak weighs in on the deauthorization measure proposed by Biden and Levin.

And this at Investor's Business Daily that covers both measures. Here's a good quote:

"Americans aren't stupid. Nor are they children. In life, there are no do-overs. Only responsibility."

Democrats: Chaos Ahead

2007-02-28T01:00:00.001-05:00

The Democrats who have been arguing against President Bush's "surge" plan for Iraq, are waging a new war against the President's ability to control the military in Iraq.

Democrats have promised to produce a relentless torrent of legislation on Iraq. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said -

"There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."

And Chuck appears to be correct so far.

After the House passed the recent non-binding resolution on the President's "surge" plan in Iraq, top House Democrats, led by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), went to work on a plan that would essentially put an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The plan works like this, Murtha will attach a provision to an upcoming appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that will restrict the release of funds for troops heading to Iraq unless a list of requirements are met. These requirements, as Murtha admits, can only be met by a few of the units to be used for the proposed "surge" plan by the President. In effect, this will restrict the President's ability to select and deploy troops, provide reinforcements, move troops, all the things that a Commander-in-Chief might need to do to win a war. Indeed, General Petraeus may find it difficult to execute his plan to suppress the insurgency in Iraq with these restrictions in place.

But the plan goes further than that. These restrictions on which troops would be available to redeploy to Iraq would make it hard for the Pentagon to find replacements for troops returning from the Iraq theater. So they come home, but no reinforcements can go back in their place. Essentially, it ends the US military presence in Iraq through a "slow bleed." And without directly cutting off funding. It's a sly plan that placates the anti-war left who want the troops out of Iraq yesterday while not seeming to turn their back on the troops already there.

Attaching this plan to an appropriations bill is a sly move. Because the President needs these funds to be passed by Congress in order to continue funding for military operations in Iraq. And appropriations bills cannot be filibustered.

Murtha explains that his plan is setup to look out for the troops' best welfare by making sure they are equipped, trained, rested, etc. But almost in the same breath admits that due to the requirements of his plan they won't have the training, they won't have the equipment, they won't be able to do the work. He even goes so far as to say, "We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can’t be done"

Link to entire video with accompanying analysis here.

In response to Murtha's rambling, Fox's Britt Hume and a few others had this to say about Murtha's plan...

Murtha's plan may see its way through the House but is likely to face a tough fight in the Senate. Even if it somehow passes through both chambers it's hard to say where this will go exactly. The Constitution seems clear on who commands the military - and it's not Congress. The President has made his side clear however, and he seems ready for a fight.

But it doesn't stop with Murtha's plan. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) also have a plan regarding Iraq. Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Their plan is to simply repeal the authorization given by Congress in 2002 to use military force in Iraq. They will replace this with new legislation that will restrict the U.S. military's role in Iraq. House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), supports this plan.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say about these plans at the Washington Post:

"Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so."

And it looks as if the Democrats might be overplaying their hand with all this as well. Two recent opinion polls show that Americans aren't necessarily behind the idea of a hasty retreat from Iraq. From the Washington Times:

"According to a poll released Feb. 20 by Public Opinion Strategies, by a margin of 53 to 46 percent, Americans agree that "The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq." By 57-41 percent margins, voters agree with both of the following statements: "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism," and "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security."

Now Murtha seems to be taking a trip back to the drawing board even before the plan is officially introduced to Congress.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats."

The Democrats have other problems to contend with: the ultra left. Besides demanding an immediate end to the war, ultra left wing elements are demanding impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And they seem to be growing increasingly impatient as time goes on and these two items are not addressed.

For proof of that, I need only to point you to Michelle Malkin who has this article concerning Sen. Patty Murray in Washington State - with story and links to video - Dear God, by all means watch the video. Further analysis here.

As one commenter noted, "hate it when you find yourself accountable to the idiots that elected you."

Video: Update on Military Operations in Iraq

2007-02-27T17:23:00.001-05:00

The Official 11 Point Plan for Victory in Iraq

2007-02-27T13:05:00.001-05:00

Here it is. The official 11 point plan for Victory in Iraq.

While this is really just a high level outline (obviously we wouldn't want the actual details out floating around for the enemy to see), it shows the level of thought that went into the plan and how comprehensive the strategy is. Worth looking at for sure.

The Other Side of Iraq

2007-02-27T00:52:00.000-05:00

Glenn Beck created a video last year to show the other side of Iraq. The one you don't see in the news. It's a short video but it provides at least a glimpse of something other than suicide bombings and dead soldiers.

Rep. Sam Johnson - Floor Speech before the House of Representatives 16-Feb-07

2007-02-26T22:15:00.000-05:00

There isn't really anything I can say except watch this video and share it. I thank Rep. Johnson for his continued lifetime of service to his country.

Observations on Iraq by Jabria Jassim

2007-02-22T18:28:00.001-05:00

Jabria Jassim is an Elgin Community College chemistry professor who moved to America from Iraq years ago. Recently she returned to Baghdad to visit relatives. While there, she made these observations.

Iraqi MP: America should be blessed

2007-02-16T00:57:00.000-05:00

Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din expounds on America's liberation of Iraq. This video has been featured here and here.

As a side note, one of the sites I listed at the top of this post is patdollard.com. Without taking the time to expound on Pat Dollard, who he is, or what his site is about, I'll simply *highly* encourage you to check it out for yourself. You can start by going to this video.

Rudy on Non-Binding Resolutions

2007-02-15T01:00:00.001-05:00

I had to pass this on because Rudy really articulates this well and it reflects my view about how Congress should see itself. Watch the video on the page. It's an interview of Rudy Giuliani by Larry King. In it, Rudy talks about the non-binding resolution being debated in Congress about the Iraq war. Good stuff.

A Portrait in Courage

2007-02-15T00:36:00.000-05:00

This is really a must see video.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has recently published a book called Infidel. The Washington Post has a story about it. Amazing stuff. And an amazing woman.

Hugo Chavez and North Korea

2007-02-04T23:06:00.001-05:00

In addition to having strong ties to Cuba and Iran, Hugo Chavez has also nourished diplomatic, economic, and ideological ties to North Korea.

North Korea, a dictatorship run by Kim Jong Il, has garnished plenty of media coverage in recent years due to its successful nuclear program and test firings of medium and long range missiles. North Korea's communist economy (or centrally planned economy) has long rumored to harbor extremely desperate conditions upon its population. Due to the secretive nature of the North Korean government exact economic information is not available. The satellite photo of the Korean peninsula at the Wikipedia page for the North Korean economy is quite telling however.

Despite the apparent troubled state of the North Korean economy, Chavez and some of those in his inner circle seem to admire the North Korean model. In a document co-authored by education minister Hector Navarro, former industry and commerce minister Jesue Montilla, and former central planning minister Jorge Giordini, the authors state:

"Socialism survives [...] in North Korea which, although isolated and alone, has achieved a strong economy."

SOURCE: "Ciencia y Tecnología para Venezuela: Una propuesta alternativa", (Science and Technology for Venezuela, an alternative suggestion), Editora Apucv, Caracas, 1994, pp. 7 and 26, authored by Jorge Giordani, Juan de Jesús Montilla, Víctor Morles, Hector Navarro.

Navarro has gone on to talk of "Chavez’s “Bolivarian principles” which are in solidarity with “Algeria, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.” He has also referred to North Korea as a "model" to follow in Venezuela.

Chavez himself proclaimed on October 12, 1999:

“I have been very Maoist all my life.”

This is a reference to Mao Zedong, Marxist leader that led to China's Communist revolution. A certain parallel in ideology to the communist run North Korea.

Indeed, a BBC article states that "Mr Chavez wants to turn Venezuela from a capitalist into a socialist society. The plan to socialize the nation is spelled out in, "The Simon Bolivar National Plan."

After his recent inauguration for his second term in office, Chavez "announced he would nationalise key businesses, declared himself a Trotskyist and cited the ideas of Marx and Lenin."

Venezuela and North Korea are expected to setup embassy's in each other's countries and are expected to craft an "oil for arms deal" in the near future.

Former Chavez loyalist, Brigadier General Nestor Gonzalez Gonzalez, has said:

" - It is too early to determine with certainty what the nuclear weapons plans of Hugo Chavez are - But Monday's re-affirmation of support for North Korea is a troubling sign," warns Gonzalez. "I personally know Chavez very well, and he is capable of anything."

Venezuela's ties to nations such as Iran and North Korea are certainly troubling. So is the thought of a communist, nuclear power in South America.

Chavez: Portrait of a Dictator in the Americas

2007-02-03T16:20:00.001-05:00

Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, officially has a new name: dictator. The Venezuelan National Assembly has unanimously granted approval to give the Venezuelan leader the power to rule by decree for eighteen months. These decrees would be enacted as laws directly, bypassing the Venezuelan congress.

Chavez has many stated goals while this power is enacted including:

Eliminating term limits for the president in Venezuela (which is Chavez)
Accelerating the process of converting to socialism
Nationalizing certain economic sectors such as:

Telecom
Power
Oil

The Venezuelan National Assembly has been comprised only of Chavez supporters since opposition boycotted elections in 2005 and now have no representation in the Assembly.

This move follows Chavez's announced plans to shutdown the largest opposition media outlet, Radio Caracas Television.

In addition to shutting down opposition, gaining reelection in a landslide, and control of state-run media, Chavez has been busy on the military front in the last few years as well.

Chavez purchased 100,000 AK-47 rifles, Mig 29 fighters, and attack helicopters from Russia back in 2005. The US expects shipments of AK-47 rifles to reach 300,000.

In addition to this, Chavez has amassed a "2 million-man" civilian defense force to stave off attacks that he claims will inevitably come from the United States.

From this BBC article:

"Over recent months, the populist president has warned that the US may invade Venezuela or try to assassinate him. He has called for Venezuelans to join a new civil reserve defense force, which, it is claimed, numbers two million members."

"During a recent commemoration of a revolutionary war battle, Mr Chavez called for preparation for an "asymmetric war" against the world's most powerful nation."

"If somebody meddles with Venezuela, they'll repent for 100 centuries," the President declared. "If we have to fight a war to defend this country, we'll make the blood flow."

If these developments weren't enough, Chavez, who already carries a strong relationship with Cuba's Fidel Castro, has become quite close with Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez has also come out in defense of Iran's nuclear program stating,

"Iran has every right, like many other countries have done, to develop its atomic energy and continue its research in this field"

Chavez has also warned against U.S. military action in Iran.

This closeness between Chavez and Iran is particularly troubling given the militaristic stance of Chavez's presidency, his harsh rhetoric aimed at the U.S. and its leaders, and the state-fueled propaganda in Venezuela. Should Iran actually develop nuclear weapons, the interaction between Venezuela and Iran would have to be closely monitored to ensure that technology didn't also appear in South America.

Unhappy? Why?

2007-02-01T18:59:00.001-05:00

I got an email today that really hit the heart of how greedy and selfish Americans are. I hunted down the original article the email quoted and traced it to a WorldNetDaily column from November 2006.

From the article:

"Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here."

Sounds like something I've said recently.

"I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy."

Amen.

Honored Messages That Fall on Deaf Ears

2007-02-01T18:36:00.000-05:00

Let's talk about Pork.

2007-02-01T02:03:00.001-05:00

Further comments regarding the appropriations bill currently blasting its way through Congress:

Despite the mammoth size of the appropriations bill ($463.5 billion), our new Congressional leaders have designated a whopping 1 hour for debate regarding it. Hmm.... seems like they might be hiding something... oh yes, earmarks. But didn't we just make some kind of commitment regarding those?

Surprisingly a sizable chunk of these earmarks are destined for the home state of Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).

This bill is so large that apparently it will increase the average American's portion of the national debt by $1539.53.

And this bit for my dad:

One amendment would have eliminated an earmark for a tropical rain forest project in Iowa and transfer the $44.5 million in funding for that project to fund veterans healthcare. The Democrats, determining that rain forests in Iowa are of greater value than veterans, killed the amendment.

Bush's Economy: The Greatest Story Never Told

2007-02-01T01:20:00.001-05:00

Earlier today (or yesterday as it were), President Bush delivered a "State of the Economy" speech in the same hall which George Washington took the oath of office in New York City. His speech has been long overdue in my book and the press has been irresponsibly silent about the truth of what's been happening with our economy.

Investor's Business Daily has a short yet astute look at what's happened with the economy in the last 7 years.

The media paints Bush's economy as something dismal and depressing; a reflection of his incompetency.

History however, will inevitably view the Bush economy as something quite the opposite.

Chairs of Iraq Study Group Back Bush Plan

2007-02-01T00:33:00.001-05:00

Yesterday James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, gave an endorsement to President Bush's plan to surge more troops into Iraq.

"The president's plan ought to be given a chance," Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Just give it a chance."

The other chair of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton seems to back the President's plan as well:

"If we can put this together there is a chance we can reasonably succeed. But we realize that is a very, very daunting challenge," Hamilton said. "There isn't any doubt that in the president's proposals and in ours that we are depending on, very heavily, an improvement in the performance of the Iraqi government. Will it happen? I don't know. It does make you uneasy, when you have to put your dependence on this government. What other alternative do you have? You can't go out on the street of Baghdad and pick 10 people and put your confidence in them."

These comments certainly put another wrinkle in support for the Senate's non-binding resolution against a troop buildup in Iraq. That resolution, which was supposed to be debated this week has already had to be pushed to next week due to splintered support amongst Senators. A new version of the bill is scheduled to hit the floor for debate on Monday.

Joe Biden: A Man On a Mission

2007-02-01T00:07:00.001-05:00

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) announced his candidacy for President on January 7. By January 30, his campaign had already turned negative. Amazing.

Here's Biden on Hillary:

“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

“Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?"

"Everyone in the world knows her,” he said. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They’ve looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?”

Biden on Obama:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

And Biden saved particular fondness for John Edwards:

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.

“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”

Free to Choose - Milton Friedman's Legacy

2007-01-31T01:40:00.001-05:00

For those of you who have missed airings of "Free to Choose" on PBS, here is a site where you can view it for free. PBS also recently aired a biography of Dr. Friedman called, "The Power of Choice"

In my opinion, this should be required viewing in all high school economics classes.

The Document Formerly Known as the Constitution

2007-01-31T01:01:00.001-05:00

Several key members of our Congress seem to be of the impression that Congress has the ability to remove the "Commander-in-Chief" role of the Executive branch and place it squarely upon the oversized heads in Congress - despite what the Constitution says. According to them, it is they that are able to command our military through committees and political posturing - not the President. Indeed, apparently the President has no power at all when it comes to the military save one thing: the sole power to accept responsibility for defeat. And that is exactly what the President will face responsibility for when the Middle East erupts into chaos as a result of the soon-to-be proposed resolution by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) to defund the military's presence in Iraq within 6 months. This to be done regardless of the resolution's strategic merit. It will not be Russ Feingold who faces the heat for the eventual defeat in Iraq as a result of his bill, it will be President Bush whose "failed policies" caused the defeat.

Spend, Spend, Spend

2007-01-31T00:29:00.001-05:00

Well the breath of fresh air in Congress is over and they're back to doing what they do best: spending our money.

Spending like this almost guarantees some tax hikes in our near future.

UPDATE: Redstate has put up a copy of the appropriations bill in PDF format.

Missile Defense System One Step Closer

2007-01-31T00:12:00.001-05:00

Reagan's idea of a missile defense shield came one step closer to a reality on Saturday with a successful test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD). This is good news for the U.S. and bad news for the likes of Iran and N. Korea who seem to be actively trying to develop ICBM's.

While this is good news, the system doesn't however, provide any protection against nukes that are simply walked across our naked southern border.

UPDATE: The Washington Times has an article that talks about the ICBM programs in Iran and North Korea and how there may be cooperation between the two nations to develop them.

Mahmoud's Great Obsession

2007-01-30T23:36:00.001-05:00

It probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most Americans - nor to most outside of the Middle East - what would prompt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conquest for nuclear weapons in Iran. That is at least until you read this.

From the article:

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

Collection of Iraq Updates

2007-01-29T23:21:00.001-05:00

IED Protection for Iraq

The Pentagon is looking to procure some 4100 vehicles designed to be resistant to mines and IED's which will be used to replace many unprotected vehicles already in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Baghdad is Key

National Security Advisor to the President, Stephen J. Hadley, writes in an informative article at the Washington Post that the key to securing Iraq is securing Baghdad. The article also discusses some of the details of the President's new strategy in Iraq.

Historic Iraqi Security Agreement Between Al Sadr and Sunnis

Gateway Pundit points to an article at the Aswat Al-Iraq ("Voices of Iraq"- VOI) news site that indicates that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are working together to increase security conditions in the country.

Bush warns Iran over Iraq 'interference'

President Bush says, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly."

Iran Shot An Arrow...

Investor's Business Daily reports that that Iran is seeking to convert it's longest range missile into a satellite launching device. The problem is, once Iran has this technology they would be able to build an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capable of placing warheads anywhere in the world.

Tehran's Declaration of War

In another article, Investor's Business Daily discusses how Iran is positioning itself to take over in Iraq should the U.S. leave.

Iran in an Apocalyptic Mood

Ynet is carrying an article saying that mutual assured destruction through nuclear war or otherwise is actually "an incentive, not a deterrent" to Iran.

Myths of the Iraq War

2007-01-29T09:45:00.001-05:00

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

A top ten list debunking many myths surrounding the Iraq war. A lot of this is stuff I've been touting myself for the last few years but this article lays out the details plainly and simply.

Recommended reading - particularly if you are under the impression that America had no business in Iraq.

Iraq: Premature Pullout is Not an Option

2007-01-29T00:19:00.001-05:00

Since roughly the summer of 2005 we in the U.S. have heard the constant call for pulling the troops out of Iraq. Supporters of this strategy point to the 3000+ dead US soldiers and countless more civilians that have died since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003. They also point to the many insurgent groups and militias that bring violence and murder to Iraqis and U.S. troops. They cite delays in getting the Iraqi government to take control of vital areas of the country - particularly in parts of Baghdad. Each of these criticisms is valid and the facts behind them are generally truthful. But one thing missing in this strategy of pulling out of Iraq is what the consequences would be. Politicians seem to dance around the issue when asked. Typically they skirt the question by redirecting the topic to President Bush's current "failed" strategies or turn the focus to the numbers of dead U.S. soldiers or other violence in Iraq. They support this pullout strategy by indicating reasons why they support it but they don't give any indication of what the consequences would be.

So the question still remains - What would be the consequences or ramifications be of a troop pullout in Iraq? If it is a strategy that is to be taken seriously obviously knowing the consequences of such an action would be a basic requirement. Yet in searching through news about this "strategy" and listening to and watching many interviews from those who tout this policy I find little mention or even acknowledgement of consequences.

Opponents to the idea of pulling out of Iraq do mention consequences but only in a vague sense. They commonly refer to the consequences of pulling out as "disastrous." In some cases they mention that it would lead to an all-out civil war there and that all of Iraq's neighbors would end up getting pulled in. Supporters of a pullout counter by saying Iraq is already in a full-blown civil war and that things wouldn't be any worse if U.S. troops were there or not.

Just to note, all six Joint Chiefs of Staff (heads of all the armed services in the United States) at the Pentagon oppose an Iraq pullout.

Although the consequences haven't been sufficiently spelled out by supporters of a pullout or those who oppose a pullout, anyone who really looks at the situation should be able to piece together a general idea of what would happen should the U.S. pullout of Iraq.

Turkey, Iraq's neighbor to the north, has urged the United States not to leave a "power vacuum" when leaving Iraq or allow it to be split up. Turkey's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, says that Turkey would be forced to get involved should the U.S. leave Iraq and allow it to plunge it into a "real civil war." He says that all of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia would get involved in Iraq if this were the case.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has faced criticism for not pulling Australia out of Iraq. He has resisted these calls for pulling out stating that pulling out of Iraq would unleash conflict not only in Iraq but particularly in Israel and Lebanon. He states "It would undermine Saudi Arabia, it would undermine Jordan, it would create a whole new crisis within the Middle East."

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has indicated it would support the Sunni population in Iraq if the U.S. were to leave. King Abdullah told Vice President Dick Cheney that the Saudis would back the Iraqi Sunnis against the Iraqi Shiites should the U.S. pullout. Considering Sunnis are a significant minority to the Shiites they would certainly need the support should violence escalate between the two factions.

Iran is already providing significant backing to Iraq's Shiites including Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army. Should stability falter to the point of all-out civil war, it can be expected that Iran will significantly increase its involvement - particularly so if the Saudis pour support to the Iraqi Sunnis.

Syria has simultaneously actively contributed to the violence inside Iraq and called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq - certainly conflicting positions to take. Syria also has very heavy involvement in Lebanon including backing the militant Hizbollah terrorist organization and the assassination of Lebanese leaders. It would be unlikely to assume they wouldn't significantly increase their involvement inside Iraq if the U.S. weren't there to counter their resources.

Iraq is sort of in a central place, nestled between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Kuwait. With Shia holy sites, three very different populations of people, and a healthy supply of oil it isn't hard to imagine how quickly things could devolve into chaos following a U.S. troop pullout. This type of degeneration is very likely to cause a full-scale war in the region involving several nations and could spill into other areas of conflict including Palestine and Lebanon.

While it is fair to criticize certain aspects of the war in Iraq, I think it is important for people to understand the very fragile situation in the Middle East as a whole and how the war in Iraq figures into it all. It is simply not possible to treat Iraq as a separate entity. They are all connected. Victory in Iraq could mean a significant step towards a peaceful Middle East. Failure could be equivocally disastrous. Regardless of what strategy is adopted for U.S. involvement in Iraq, the consequences of that strategy must be taken into account. And pulling out early is certainly not an option.

In a recent interview, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger commented about the war and the importance of telling the American public the consequences of quitting the war in Iraq. He said, "`Who is for the war?' nobody can be for the war. But if you can put to the American public this proposition: that if we quit the war the following consequences are likely - I think they might have a different view." He went on to state that an exit strategy "has to be assessed in terms of the consequences of failure - not in terms of what excuse you will use for doing it. That's what, in the end, he [President Bush] will be judged by. But the Congress, too, has an obligation to understand that internal American fights cannot be the only occupation of the president. He cannot indefinitely fight against the Congress and the public."

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." -Leon Trotsky

The Quagmire at Home

2007-01-26T02:48:00.001-05:00

I saw a good but somewhat depressing editorial over at the Wall St. Journal's OpinionJournal website today and it caused me to pause for a moment and consider a lot of things. Where are we as a nation anymore? What is the nature of our character? What beliefs make up the foundation of our decisions? It used to be that we stood for something. What happened to that hard-working, moral backbone that used to characterize Americans?

We seem to be a nation on stilts. Hoisting our haughty selves above the rest of the world as if we weren't a part of it. We claim to be a compassionate people always willing to give comfort and aid to those in need and those who are suffering. And to some flimsy extent that's true. If it requires picking up the phone and dialing a hotline to donate a few pennies from our bank account then yes... I suppose we do aid others - as long as that's all the effort it takes. But when it comes to really sacrificing to help people who are suffering we really can't be bothered. At the end of the day, we're too selfish to pony up. Too comfortable with our two cars, two kids, home in the suburbs, smokes, beer with our buddies, hobbies, workouts at the gym, trips to the tanning salon, closets full of clothes, running hot and cold water, reliable power, appliances, babied pets, computers, and so on. We truly live the lives of kings here. Even if things are tight for us financially, nearly all of us live a life of opulence compared to most of the rest of the entire world. And despite it all, we're a bunch of spoiled crybabies when you boil it all down.

So turning on the news and seeing some politician do everything he can to discredit his political opponents instead of doing his job isn't exactly a breath of fresh air to me. There is not a single excuse someone can give me as to why after roughly 3 years of complaining we don't have a single politician in Washington who cares enough to step aside from party politics and really try and work to get the job done in Iraq. Nothing but complaints and calls for pulling out of Iraq after 3 years. Nothing. No one willing to try and work with others at all. Just offer criticism. I honestly can offer no defense for that. It really says a lot about the caliber of people we have elected in Washington and of Americans as a whole. And I'm sure it sends a wonderful message to the rest of the world. If you want to know why we are so looked down on in the rest of the world you can start your search in Washington DC. You know, the immature children you see bickering on TV all the time. Nothing like seeing a bunch of wealthy millionaires throwing criticisms and insults at each other on national television all claiming to represent us. No images of intelligent men sitting around a table working to come up with solutions for these problems. Instead we see sly insults and bickering. I would spank my child silly if I heard them saying some of those things to their peers. Respect is something long gone from Washington.

There is no consideration to the future in politics either. At least not what the rest of us might consider the future. The future to our politicians is tomorrow or the next election cycle at best. So they have no care to the long term effects of the decisions they make or the legislation they pass - say 30 or 40 years in the future. What they really care about is the effects on the next election and how they can look good and the other guy look bad. Everything that is said and done and every piece of legislation and every vote is weighed and calculated for political capital.

Far be it from any of these people to honestly sit down in a room and try and come up with ways to address these colossal issues that face our nation without degrading into "my party versus your party." Or trying harder to prove the other guy wrong than to actually work with him to find a solid solution for something.

Everything is about what can I say or do to make him look bad and make me look like the good guy. There isn't going to be any room for good solutions in that kind of environment. Let me do something against the other guy's will - almost just to spite him - and then pat myself on the back for it and toot my own horn because I'm the good guy and he lost out.

So reading that article today really drove home how far gone our politicians are. And how screwed we are as the general public. What exactly is the benefit of passing a resolution in our Congress that goes counter to our Commander-in-Chief's war plans? Why have a Constitution if we're just going to place all the power squarely on Congress? Why do we even need a President or an Executive Branch? And when did the people bestow this power upon Congress? Because the Constitution is pretty clear on the President's duty in a time of war. They didn't leave a lot of room for misinterpretation when they wrote that part. They didn't say the President has to run all his war plans through Congressional committees. No. The President is THE Commander-in-Chief. Not the chairman in chief of the war committee. The buck stops with him. Right or wrong.

But it's not even about that. I understand why they are pulling these political stunts. It's the same reasons the opponents of the President have continually postured against everything he's done. Doesn't matter what the subject is or what the President's position is, it's wrong. If he says less troops, there aren't enough. If he says more troops then it's an escalation. If he says he's keeping Rumsfeld then he's an idiot. If he replaces him then it's proof his policies were a failure. If he sticks to his strategy then he's too inflexible if he changes his strategy then it's the wrong strategy. It really doesn't matter what his strategy is/was/or will be - it's always a failed one. Man I've got this figured out. This game is easy. And the greatest part about this game is that because the President is responsible for the war - no one in Congress has to take the heat for anything that goes wrong; only the President does. So endless criticism is the perfect political weapon. Because there are no consequences for those in Congress if we fail in Iraq. It'll be time for mountains of "see I told ya so." There is truth in saying "it's the President's war" even though it's really ALL of our war. There will be consequences for us all if we fail - not just for the President. I don't see how it's possible to assume that we can just go ahead and leave Iraq without having any consequences to face as a result.

Bringing the troops home before the job is finished would be the single greatest gift a President has ever given his political enemies. Far and beyond even Watergate. The resulting chaos in Iraq and the rest of the region and the impact that would have on the world would be the stuff of legends. How can we assume that everything would be fine if we left? What kind of callousness do we have ingrained upon ourselves to be ok with that action? How can we assume we wouldn't pay a very heavy price in the long term for such folly? I think people far underestimate the determination of the people behind the violence and the bloodshed in Iraq.

And what does that say about us that so many of our politicians are pushing for a strategy of "get the troops out of Iraq"? What the hell kind of military strategy is that? And how do you just ignore the ramifications of that? This has nothing to do with my party is better than your party or who's going to win in 2008 and EVERYTHING to do with coming up with a solid plan to win this conflict in Iraq versus finding a way to lose everything we hold dear. It's amazing the nature of a human being that can actually assume that his life won't change significantly if things collapse in Iraq.

Are we the kind of insensitive people that are willing to sacrifice an entire nation for political gain? That we're willing to essentially negate the deaths of those soldiers who gave their very lives for a cause that we ultimately decided... eh.. nevermind? And how in the world does it not dawn on any of us that this bickering and slinging mud at everything the President says might be the catalyst to infuse more resolve and more support into our enemies?

If I was the commander of a small force with absolutely no chance of defeating my enemy in a toe-to-toe battlefield fight, I would certainly be encouraged in seeing those supporting my enemy engaged in such bickering. My outlook would turn from grim to perhaps hopeful. Anything I could to do continue the discord would work to my advantage. I could use the evidence of the discord in my enemy to encourage my supporters and get them to send more resources in hopes of victory. I could use it as propaganda to boost the morale of my fighters. It would become by greatest weapon and my greatest resource. Is it any surprise at all that we're still engaged in this conflict in Iraq considering the message we've been sending?

There are an incredibly large number of "compassionate Americans" who are just out to help the little guy and those in need but in whatever messed up kind of logic were just fine with leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. That is truly hypocrisy plain and simple. You are either compassionate towards those who are being oppressed or you aren't. You don't get to say "well I'm for people who are oppressed - but only in this country." That's completely absurd. No one has ever questioned Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people when he was ruler of that nation.

And what of the Iraqis? Don't they have some small stake in this too? Yet they are left silent in our news. It's all about Democrats and Republicans and dead soldiers and the President's failed policies and lies. Funny how the very people with the most to lose in all of this bickering have no voice at all in our media. More proof to me that we really don't care about them in the end. Regardless of what people might say about "supporting the Iraqis" or "supporting the troops", the proof is in our actions. And our actions seem bent on pulling out of Iraq regardless of consequences for the troops, the Iraqis, and even ourselves when all is said and done.

When these politicians speak about a quagmire, they're totally correct. But the quagmire is here in the United States - not in Iraq.

Why Heroes Volunteer to Join the Military

2007-01-25T13:18:00.001-05:00

Michelle Malkin posted a note about a soldier named Mark Daily who was recently killed in Iraq. Mark was a 2nd LT and was struck down by an IED in Mosul. There is a story about it at the OC Register. Mark had posted an entry in his MySpace blog back in October spelling out why he joined the army and volunteered to go to Iraq. It's a good read and I think it is something that should be shared. I'll repost it here but the original can also be found on his MySpace page. If you visit his MySpace page, please be sure to read the comments left on the main page and on his blog entry. The words of his friends and family about him speak to his character.

I don't dare try to summarize or plagiarize what he said so I'll just post his words here. May he rest in peace; a true American Hero.

WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic
Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).
I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.
In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
Mark Daily

The Return of the Fairness Doctrine

2007-01-25T01:30:00.001-05:00

The "Fairness Doctrine" was a policy adopted by the FCC in 1949 that forced broadcasters to give equal time to contrasting points of view for any controversial issues they might air. The policy was ended under the Reagan administration in 1987 and hasn't been reenacted since. For a brief history of the "Fairness Doctrine" and a good description of what it is visit this article at the Museum of Broadcast Communications.

The argument for implementing this "Fairness Doctrine" was that there were a relatively limited number of broadcast license slots available for a particular area. To ensure that in the public interest all points of view were represented, the FCC forced broadcasters to allow equal opportunity to air various points of view for issues that might be controversial.

Over time a sort of "chilling effect" happened as reporters simply steered away from controversial issues to avoid this requirement of finding various additional points of view when compiling their stories.

Eventually, with the advent of cable television and the many more channels it brought, the FCC determined that the "Fairness Doctrine" was no longer necessary.

This analysis done in 1997 by Thomas W. Hazlett, professor at UC Davis, and David W. Sosa, student at UC Davis, demonstrates the harsh effects this policy had on programming and the subsequent dramatic increase in available programming after the doctrine was lifted. The true effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" really lent to limiting available programming options for the public. This was certainly not the FCC's intended effect by enacting the policy. This "chilling effect" shows up every time freedom is hindered in anything but is blatantly apparent in economics. These types of limits on freedom impede our growth as a society as is obvious in the above analysis by Prof. Hazlett and David Sosa.

Despite the advent of satellite television, digital cable, satellite radio, and the Internet since 1987, there is still interest now in Congress to pursue legislation that would make this "Fairness Doctrine" law. This wouldn't be the first time Congress has attempted to pass such legislation. Congress passed a legislative version of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 (it was only FCC policy prior to that) - the same year the FCC ended its own "Fairness Doctrine" policy. President Reagan vetoed the legislation and it lacked support in Congress to override the veto. It was passed by Congress once again under the first Bush administration but George H.W. Bush too vetoed the bill and again there was insufficient support to override his veto.

A couple of weeks ago Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) appeared at the National Conference for Media Reform and stated that he would be heading up a House subcommittee focusing on bringing reform to the FCC and would bring back into consideration the "Fairness Doctrine." It can be assumed that once again President Bush will veto any such legislation.

This does bring into question the reason for bringing forward such legislation. The following points can taken into account:

The "chilling effects" of the previous policy
The availability of such a wide variety of sources for various viewpoints through regular television, cable television, satellite television, satellite radio, and the Internet via blogs, news sites and other resources
The possibility that this sort of policy or legislation limits free speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment (as was noted in the FCC's Fairness Report in 1985)

It would seem that given those points the "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't have a lot of support in Congress. There is one major source that is fueling this resurgence in this type of policy: conservative radio.

Rush Limbaugh's AM talk show was first syndicated nationally in 1988 - following the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk show host and leads the pack in ratings with 13.5 million listeners. The top 5 talk radio shows are dominated by other conservative talk radio hosts:

Rush Limbaugh (Conservative)
Sean Hannity (Conservative)
Michael Savage (Conservative)
Dr. Laura Schlessinger (Conservative)
Laura Ingraham (Conservative)

(source: Talkers Magazine Top Radio Audiences)

The rest of the top 40 contains many other conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Jerry Doyle, Michael Medved, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, and Hugh Hewitt.

This isn't to say that there are no liberal talk show hosts. The country is smattered with various liberal talk shows with a few reaching the top 40 like Al Franken and Alan Colmes. But the difference in listenership between conservative and liberal talk shows is very stark. It is this difference in audience size that has prompted certain members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich to look to legislation to try and forcefully balance the tables.

Certain markets enjoy sizable ratings for liberal talk shows and others do not. Seattle for instance has a sizable liberal talk show audience.

Recently Air America, a nationally syndicated collection of liberal talk radio programs (which includes shows like The Al Franken Show) filed for chapter 11 protection. In spite of the considerable effort and backing behind Air America, it failed to reach a sizable audience. This not because of any misdoings by conservative programs but due to simple economics. Air America's programs failed to gain popularity in the markets where it was present and subsequently were pulled from the air to be replaced by more profitable programming. This may have been due to improper market research prior to being rolled out in those markets or due to audiences not accepting the particular shows that were aired.

The effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" being reinstated in some form are bound to have a negative effect for all political talk shows. Audience members in Seattle are likely to be turned off by the inclusion of conservative viewpoints when listening to their favorite liberal programming. Perhaps turned off to the point that they choose to instead turn to a music station or other programming. Just as audience members in Dallas may be turned off by the idea of listening to liberal idealists on their conservative programing. This is not to mention regular TV programming which conservatives have long complained is biased towards liberal viewpoints. Imagine having CBS forcefully required to have a Rush Limbaugh style co-host delivering the latest conservative views during evening news programming or Sunday talk shows. The negative effects of this policy are certain to be profound and far-reaching. And in the end it's unclear that anyone would be a "winner" with this legislation.

Overall, our current system is based on freedom. Freedom for station owners to choose programming that works for audiences in their market; freedom for talk shows to feature whatever kind of content they wish; freedom for audiences to choose the programming that best suits them; and freedom for advertisers to have their products and services featured on programs that suit their interests or target demographics. The government involving itself in regulating (hindering) this freedom is bound to only have a negative effect for all involved parties. In fact, when is hindering freedom ever a positive thing for America? Again, look to the effects from the historical use of policies like the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" as a testament to this.

Tough Reform for Congress

2007-01-20T17:08:00.001-05:00

I'm fairly happy to report that some tough reform bills have been passed by both chambers of Congress. These are a couple of things that I've harped on for some time now and finally we have some action.

In the end this Senate reform bill (S.1) passed 96-2 with 2 not voting. But it was a bit of a rocky journey getting there.

One of the provisions of the bill is a definition of an "earmark". An earmark is an appropriation of money by the Congress to be used for a specific project. Earmarks are often used by Congress to give business to their constituents or certain businesses in their district. Earmarks can total a fairly sizable amount of money during the course of an entire session of Congress. They can be a considerable problem for balancing the budget and controlling the deficit.

The original version of the Senate reform bill, as proposed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), provided a very tight definition for earmarks that would have only included about 5% of earmarks in Congress. Sen. James DeMint (R-S.C.) sponsored an amendment to the bill that would broaden the definition of "earmarks" which would include closer to 95% of earmarks. DeMint's modification of this language brought the bill very close in line with a similar bill recently passed by the House. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) made a motion to table (kill) the amendment but that motion was struck down 46-51.

The section in this bill covering earmarks basically ensures that the names of the Senators proposing them is attached to the bill and that information will be made publicly available on the Internet 48 hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The bill however does not place limits on the number or costs of earmarks. So I believe there is still room for further reform but this is still a much needed step in the right direction.

The also bill includes many ethics and lobbying reforms. These reforms include requirements for disclosure of lobbying activities, travel restrictions, bans on gifts from lobbyists, and disclosure of travel. Certainly these are all positive things for the American public. I'd like to see further efforts made to reform the ways in which members of Congress interact with lobbyists and special interest groups. I'd also like to see more work done on ethics in Congress. But these steps are a welcome sight indeed.

At one point there was a measure that would have a negative effect on grassroots lobbying groups. The measure would have discouraged groups from organizing drives to contact Congress members about certain bills or issues. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) proposed an amendment that would strip this provision from the bill. His amendment was passed 55-43 and the measure was removed.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CN) proposed an amendment that would add an Office of Public Integrity. This new office would take some of the work of investigating Congress members and put it in the hands of members of the public instead of having Congress watch itself through the ethics committee. Recent scandals helped fuel the request for such an office. Ultimately the Senate rejected this measure for the second year in a row, 71-27.

Republicans tried to have a provision added that would grant the President a sort of virtual "line-item" veto power with regard to finance bills. The measure would provide the ability for the President to strike out specific items from large finance bills without having to veto the entire bill. Congress would then have the ability to approve or deny the President's changes. I have been a supporter of this type of legislation since I first heard of it in the mid 90's. I believe it would make Congress more accountable to their spending instead of being able to slip earmarks for their district into larger spending bills. The larger bills are normally destined to pass Congress and be signed by the President to appropriate money for normal government function. The addition of these other earmarks to the bill is a bit underhanded. Congress people aren't likely to vote down the bill due to a few earmarks within it as they would be accused of trying to undermine the bill as a whole. The same goes for the President. It's hard to veto an entire bill that is necessary to fund certain government programs for the sake of a few smaller earmarks. If the President were allowed to line-item veto the earmarks and sign the bill, that would give Congress the opportunity to debate the earmarks themselves and decide if they are necessary or not. They could either vote to accept the President's veto of those items or deny his vetoes and the bill would be enacted accordingly.

The bill stood at a stalemate due to Republican insistence on this veto measure until Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a compromise to the Republicans allowing them to bring the line-item veto measure to the minimum wage bill which would be debated next week. The Republicans accepted this compromise and the bill was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties.

Iraq: From the mouths of Iraqis

2007-01-20T01:17:00.001-05:00

Here is a link to a video about the situation in Iraq from some Iraqis themselves. It's a very compelling video and I encourage people to pass this link around. I doubt any of this will make it to the main stream media. The views of Iraqis are rarely shown on our media for some reason. The unfortunately side-effect of this is that people are then free to make assumptions about how Iraqis must feel about us being there and about the war and how things are going. I would assert that it's likely most of these opinions - good or bad - are wrong. The only way to know how Iraqis feel is to give them a voice. Not keep them silenced and leave people to make their own - probably bad - assumptions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/19/Iraqis-speak-to-America/

Social Programs - Or How to Keep the Poor Poor

2007-01-17T02:28:00.001-05:00

With the Democratic Party now in control of the House, the Senate, and vying for control of the White House in 2008 I think it's relevant to discuss a popular issue with Democrats: Social Programs.

Social programs provide some means of financial support or some other type of service to a group of people labeled as disadvantaged. Typical groups with the "disadvantaged" label are: the poor, the elderly, the young (students), or anyone who is disabled in some way. Funding comes from tax income into the government which of course comes ultimately from the people.

Now the idea of assisting those less fortunate folks who may be poor or elderly or disabled is a fairly universal desire. Regardless of ones political beliefs I think it can be said that nearly everybody wants to see all people live a healthy, comfortable life and not be lent to suffering or poverty or any other malady. The means by which any assistance is applied and funded is source for contention however.

The main school of thought involved in social programs is providing something which a particular demographic of people don't have or cannot afford. If you're poor, then you can have money (welfare), if you can't afford healthcare then it will be paid for you, if you can't afford a house then your housing can be paid for, if you cannot afford education then it will be provided, etc. So if you fall into one of the unfortunate categories of the disadvantaged, you can prove that you are part of the target demographic for a particular program and the government raises the necessary funds to provide you with required assistance. Depending on where you live and the type of service applied for there may be some additional strings but in general this is how it works.

Supporters of social programs claim this is the best way of addressing these ills in society. Take money from those who are able to provide for themselves and use it to provide for those who can't. After all, we're all in this together. And as previously mentioned, no one wants to see other people suffer.

With supporters of a thing always comes critics of that thing as well. And critics of social programs bring forward many points to consider.

Human beings don't respond well to getting something in return for little or no effort on their part. It's just an unfortunate aspect of human nature. People don't tend to appreciate things they didn't pay for themselves. This isn't a hard and fast rule of course but in general it is true. If you have worked very hard to obtain something you are more likely to appreciate it versus something that was gained through little or no effort at all. So there has to be a barter involved in providing someone something in order for it to be worthwhile. This not only increases the intrinsic value of whatever good or service is being given, but it provides something in return for the giver. This principle however, isn't the only piece sometimes missing from social programs. Some do include some form of give and take from the recipients.

Another problem is that people become slaves to handouts. Giving someone something one month means you're likely to have to give it to them again next month. And the next and the next and so on. It's the old "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" principle. So simply providing a benefit without some provision for helping the beneficiary provide it for themselves in the next month only ensures the likelihood that the beneficiary will return once again for the handout. Some social programs have attempted to address this problem with some varying levels of success.

Before going any further I feel compelled to bring one obvious point to the table : the money the government spends is not just free money. It comes directly off the shoulders of everyone who works in this country. Many of them with families of their own and their own sets of problems - who would likely benefit just as well from keeping that money than to give it to someone else. Think about how much more of the "American Dream" you could afford if you even were able to keep half of what the government takes from your pay.

When these social programs fail - or at least fail to produce any significant impact on the people they aim to help - the reaction is usually to throw more money at it (at all of our further expense of course) or develop more programs to address the deficiencies of the other programs (again at our expense). The logic behind sinking more money into something that isn't working or at the very least isn't producing any significant results is quite baffling but it's a surprisingly common strategy in politics for whatever reason.

The New Deal was a very broad sweeping set of social programs aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment and other social ailments during the Great Depression. Although many of those programs didn't survive past WWII, there are still significant elements that survive today from the New Deal such as Social Security and unemployment insurance. Despite this extensive effort, poverty was still a big enough problem in 1964 that Lyndon Johnson saw the need to push his Great Society set of social programs. The Great Society programs were very broad in scope just as the New Deal programs were. Addressing many areas such as education, healthcare, transportation, culture, urban development, poverty, housing, and the environment. With these programs it was Johnson's goal to "end poverty completely." One would have thought that within a period of time poverty would have been nearly eliminated through this massive effort. And that we'd live in some near utopia with vibrant inner cities, low unemployment, and high wages. It shouldn't be a stretch to think that many of society's ailments would have long been gone by now in 2007 as a result of all that the Great Society programs brought. Sadly, the results were dismal and by the 80's many of the Great Society's programs had been eliminated or suffered major cuts in funding due to lack of positive results.

So why is this the case? Looking at the details of the programs that were passed it appears that the lawmakers were really trying to address the ailments of society in a thoughtful way. Not simply giving things to people but trying to assist them in becoming productive members of society and giving them the tools to carve out their own piece of the American pie just like everyone else. The Great Society programs hit all the major areas you hear about from politicians. Healthcare, poverty, unemployment, everything. And yet, no drastic results were to be seen from them. We sit here today in much the same position as we were in 1964 with regard to poverty and other social woes. If you ask a politician... well a Democratic politician anyway, they'll probably say that we've never done enough for any of these programs to be effective. Or they'll spout some numbers claiming that they were effective somehow... in some way. The reality isn't that these weren't good "social programs" as social programs go, it's the mindset that was created as a result of these social programs. And therein lies the fundamental problem as well as a bit of a paradox.

The truth can be found in the numbers. Without regurgitating what is already quite well stated by Thomas Brewton in this article (please read this entire article - it contains the all important numbers!!), I can sum it up by saying that social programs have taught people that they are entitled to things - not that they have to work to achieve them. Sadly this entitlement syndrome still prevails today. So the end result of all the social programs passed from the 30's to the 60's is the creation of an entitlement class of society. Effectively creating a mentality that serves to keep impoverished people impoverished. And paradoxically the very programs aimed at aiding them keep them just comfortable enough to keep them from striving for something more.

The side benefit of all this is that it creates political opportunity. Someone needs to come to their rescue. Someone needs to be their champion. Nevermind that all previous attempts at helping them through government aid have failed. More government aid is bound to work. If nothing else more programs will serve to keep the idea of entitlement alive and well and send the message that "something" is being done to assist them - even if 20 years from now nothing is different except higher taxes as a result. And as they become slaves to the programs that keep them in their condition, they become loyal followers of those that keep them that way. It's a golden deal for somebody. And that somebody so far has been the Democratic party.

Politicians spew blame in all directions except where it is truly applicable. This blame game permeates into the hearts and minds of the disadvantaged subjects of these social programs and gets regurgitated and indoctrinated into their kids - ensuring a new generation of this entitlement society and a new generation of votes; a new generation of targets for more social programs. It's a vicious cycle that is incredibly hard for these people to break out of. The entitlement syndrome creates kids that don't even try in school almost ensuring they'll end up on social programs. As the rest of the country continues to prosper and sees more and more people moving into the upper middle class, this element of society is left behind. Left there by their own sense of entitlement and by the politicians who keep them thinking that way.

Democrats don't care about poor people. They care about votes. The proof is in the pudding.

Tax Revenues Surging - Economy Still Strong - Minimum Wage Going Up

2007-01-15T11:30:00.001-05:00

The Washington Post is reporting that tax revenues are up 8.2 percent over last year - far outpacing inflation which was up only 2% for the 12 months ending in November. These high tax revenues over the first three months of the budget year have caused the federal deficit to fall to it's lowest rate for that period since 2002.

The government says that sales for December were up a strong 0.9% which beat out the expected gain of 0.7%. Average wages are up 4.2% over last year - again far outpacing inflation. The government is also reporting that 167,000 new jobs were added in December which keeps the unemployment numbers at a low 4.5%. The new jobs in December bring the total new jobs added in 2006 to 1.8 million.

All in all the economy is doing pretty well with the stock market near an all time high, low inflation, low unemployment, and rising wages.

Despite all these good numbers all is not perfect. The new job total for 2006 was 200,000 shy of jobs created in 2005. While still good, it's a trend in the wrong direction. Also, even with tax revenues on the increase the Bush Administration is still predicting a deficit of over $300 Billion for fiscal 2007. It should be noted however that this number is likely to be revised down once the administration posts it's 2007 budget numbers.

Government spending is up only 0.7% over the same quarter last year but it should be noted this number is affected by $15 billion in government airwave auctions. The House of Representatives has passed bill that has some harsh earmark reform that should curb Congressional spending to some extent. It remains to be seen if the Senate will follow suit or will pass a much tamer version of the bill. Controlling earmarks is a big step towards controlling spending and reducing the deficit. Another factor is the cost of the war in Iraq. Increased troop levels will undoubtedly cost more in the short term but if it can in effect cause reductions in troop levels by this time next year we might be able to see further cuts into the deficit for fiscal 2008.

The obvious hope is to continue to nourish the strong economy while reducing government spending in hopes of achieving a balanced budget. Democrats have hinted at increasing taxes via one form or another - perhaps by reimplementing some of the things cut during the Bush tax cuts. The impact on the economy will largely depend on how taxes are increased. Regardless of which, a negative impact can be expected which will in effect reduce tax receipts into the Treasury although that is simply speculation at this point.

An increase in the minimum wage has passed the House and can also be expected to pass in the Senate and be signed by President Bush. The expected increase will go from $5.15 currently to $7.25 under the new legislation. The impact on the economy is hotly contended. Critics claim the increase would have a profound effect on small business owners, restaurant owners, etc. and may cause an increase in the cost of goods and services to reflect the increased costs of employees. They also claim it may lead to employers hiring fewer employees to curb the additional costs. Supporters claim that these are just scare tactics and that business owners will easily be able to foot the additional wages without having to increase prices. They also say that the increased wages will help America's poorest families.

The US Dept of Labor reports that minimum wage earners tend to be young - with about 1/2 of them being under the age of 25. Also, married workers are less likely to earn minimum wage or less. And workers earning minimum wage or less are more likely to be part-time employees than full-time employees. So the assertion by the Democrats that an increase in the minimum wage will "help America's poorest families" is likely a bit off target. It might help some of America's poorest families is maybe a more accurate statement. Mostly it appears it will help America's part-time youth. The impact that will have on business owners and the economy as a whole remains to be seen.

It would appear that this increase in minimum wage is more a victory of political appearance than a victory for the economy regardless of how you cut the details. This will be a moral victory for Democrats with those who assume that increasing the minimum wage is good for the little guy. Even if it ends up increasing costs to the poor in the end.

The Reality of Freedom: Because We Shouldn't Forget

2006-11-10T23:29:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago I posted a story about the price of freedom in America. Now on the eve of Veteran's Day, I believe it's prudent to post it again. Please take a moment and remember our veterans on Veteran's Day.

I think it is generally understood by Americans that the freedom they enjoy was bought with a very high price. At least they understand it logically. I often wonder how many Americans truly understand the brutal reality of this price.

On December 8th, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt stood before the Congress of this country and spoke those famous words about the horrific attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. He ended that speech with the following:

"Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

To those living at the time the President's words were not shocking or surprising. They were simply the echoes of their own thoughts and feelings. From the back woods of Maine to the suburbs of Los Angeles the people of this Nation rose up against those forces that threatened the lives of our citizens, our freedom, and indeed our very way of life. The objectives were clear. The consequences understood by all. And the cost would be very high. For more than 400,000 Americans the cost was the highest that any human could give.

The price was enormous but the price was paid. And America survives today as a testament to their bravery and sacrifice.

Men left their homes and their families by the thousands and ventured to foreign lands and endured hardships that can scarcely be comprehended. Young boys left their parents, friends and sweethearts and never came home. Imagine those young men not even old enough to drink alcohol today crouching in foxholes listening to constant explosions around them pondering the reality that the next explosion could very well rip their young bodies to shreds. Or the men on an island in the Pacific that had seen almost every person in their platoon die trying to take the same small stretch of soil but they continued to fight as if that soil was a part of their very own backyard. Or the men in the bombers over Germany flying through clouds of flak explosions knowing that the very next second could be their last. So many men never returned from those missions - or those battles. Those who returned would never be the same. Forever changed by the reality of war. For those of us who weren't there we cannot know or fully understand what it was like - to see and hear and smell and feel what they did. Fortunately for us we don't have to. Because they already did.

Four hundred thousand is a big number. It's a lot of men who would never again enjoy the comforts we so easily take for granted in this country. For most, their stories are all but lost in time. Their acts of courage and bravery never to be told. Their children never to be born. But their lives did make a difference. And the legacy of that difference endures as long as we never forget.

Tomorrow is November 11th. Many Americans won't even know that it's Veteran's Day unless they see it in mentioned in the news or read it in the paper. November 11th was set aside originally in 1938 to remember those who served in the Great War (WWI). November 11, 1918 was the day that the Armistice was signed that ended WWI. In 1954 it was expanded to include those Americans who served in any war.

This country was founded on the idea that every person is given certain undeniable rights from the moment they are born. And it's worth giving our very lives to protect those rights for our posterity. I, along with my family, stand in most humble respect and reverence towards those Americans who have fought and those who have died and those who are fighting today for the ideals of freedom and liberty that define this country.

What would the world have been like if those 400,000 Americans wouldn't have died? What would the world be like if we spoke German instead of English?

Woodward's, State of Denial not exactly a pillar of truth

2006-10-12T10:52:00.000-04:00

Back in 1987, Bob Woodward wrote a book called Veil:The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987. The book focused on the "illegal wars of Reagan" and more particularly the role of then CIA Director, William Casey. There were several fairly amazing revelations in the book. One of the primary points of his book rested on an apparent deathbed confession that William Casey made to Mr. Woodward. He supposedly confessed to his involvement with the Iran Contra arms dealings. Shortly after the book's release however, a good number of inconsistencies and vagueries within the book were brought into question. One particular item seemed to garnish quite a bit of attention because it was one of the main points of the book. The details about Casey's supposed "confession" to Mr. Woodward did not hold up to scrutiny.

While William Casey was on his deathbed, he was not able to speak. He wasn't just there because he was dying of old age or of some congenital ailment, he had suffered a stroke and was incapable of speech
Casey's room was protected by armed guards 24/7

Casey was very unfond of Bob Woodward, and most certainly his family would not have allowed Mr. Woodward entrance to his room

Even if he was going to "confess" about something, Bob Woodward would have been the LAST person he would actually entrust his confession to

When confronted with questions like "what did his room look like?" and "where there flowers?" and "what color pajamas was he wearing?", Mr. Woodward balked and claimed that he couldn't reveal that information as it would reveal his sources (??? wasn't his source obviously William Casey?)

This, along with the other inconsistencies in the book did a lot to damage the value of any of the details within the book and damage to Mr. Woodward's credibility in general. All of his books have been laden with these kinds of inconsistencies and vagueness. This coupled with Woodward's obvious partisanism doesn't go a long way to develop a sense of honesty in his journalism.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that there are already a good number of questions being raised about the details in Woodward's current book. It takes only a few minutes on the Internet to figure out that he isn't exactly being "truthful" about the facts he's presenting. It says a lot of CBS and other news outlets who seem to be blindly applying an assumption of truth to Woodward's claims without any question as to their accuracy.

Mr. Woodward makes a good number of claims in his new book, State of Denial. I'll try to focus in on the main items that seem to be circulating in the news.

In his book, Woodward makes the case that the Bush administration is misleading the public on the situation in Iraq. He indicates that the biggest secret in the government is that the number of attacks in Iraq is increasing significantly but this information is being kept amongst the elite in Bush's administration.

The number of insurgent attacks in Iraq is going up. I know this not because Bob Woodward says so but because the Department of Defense says so. And I can obtain this information readily as can anyone else with Internet access. The information is provided online not only by the Brookings Institute but also is available through the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO has presented testimony before Congress on March 14, 2005; Oct. 18, 2005; Feb. 8, 2006; April 25, 2006; July 11, 2006; and Sept. 11, 2006 that details the upward trend in attacks in Iraq that matches the "secret" trend chart in Woodward's book. This information has been available online throughout the period that Woodward claims that the administration was hiding it.

Delving into this information provides more details than Woodward provides however and paints a different picture from what he is trying to portray. What is true is that the number of attacks in Iraq has indeed climbed significantly. What Woodward fails to share with his readers is that while the numbers of attacks have increased, the effectiveness of the attacks has waned significantly as well. One other interesting point is that the main targets of the attacks have shifted from US and coalition forces to Iraqi forces and civilians. This isn't necessarily a good statistic, but it is one that Woodward also fails to make note of. Instead he allows the reader to draw their own, probably bad, conclusions.

Woodward also claims that the Bush administration was made aware of an impending Al Queda attack months prior to 9/11/2001 but failed to act on the information. And more condemningly, tried to cover up that the meeting ever took place. Specifically he mentions a meeting between Condoleeza Rice and then Director of the CIA, George Tenet on July 10, 2001 in which Tenet informs Rice that there is evidence that Al Queda is planning an attack in the US. Woodward claims that the Bush administration stated that the meeting never took place. He also claims that Tenet was "brushed off" by the administration.

The truth was that after her meeting with Tenet, Rice recommended that he present his information to John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, and Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Three people present at the meeting between Tenet and Rice have all indicated that Rice responded very seriously to the gravity of the information being presented by Tenet.

One significant point that Woodward fails to highlight is that this information being presented by Tenet, while credible, was not detailed enough to apply effective action to. There were no details as to who would be performing the attacks, what the targets were, when the attacks would occur, or how they would be performed. Woodward seems to imply that the Bush administration had all the knowledge necessary but failed to act - which was not the case. This is probably why this was not made into a major issue by the 9/11 Commission.

So in summary, Bob Woodward is most likely trying to sensationalize things that are not sensational for the sake of trying to influence the current election cycle. I wouldn't lend a lot of credence to the points made in his book.

Stop 'medicalizing' bad behavior

2006-06-08T01:24:00.000-04:00

If only I could believe that one day, people would take responsibility for their own actions.

Of course, finding more maladies leads to more patients which leads to a bigger market for treatments which of course leads to more drugs and hence more profits and more doctor visits. So enjoy your maladies and drugs. I'll be teaching my kids to own up for their own actions and not blame them on some physiological or psychiatric 'illness."

read more | digg story

Sigh... More NSA "spying" Accusations

2006-05-12T22:02:00.000-04:00

Posted this in a discussion on Digg

Thought I would share it here.

Funny how even though they were actually capturing voice conversations and full email contents under Clinton, it was totally fine. In fact, the NY Times lauded it as a necessary measure during this day and age. But now that Bush is simply watching the numbers we dial and receive phone calls from it's an impeachable offense. Check THIS out: http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm It's a transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Project Echelon from 2000 - which was obviously before Bush took office in January of 2001. Somehow I imagine that people are going to draw the amazing conclusion that Bush is responsible for Echelon as well as Carnivore during the 90's even though he wasn't President...

So with Clinton it's ok... with Bush it's impeachment and all the while people are allowed to show blatant disregard for the law leaking our national secrets with no fear of imprisonment. Apparently it's our wonderful members of Congress who are above the law (yes I'm talking to you Jay Rockefeller) - not the President. In fact I'd be impressed for someone to prove to me that the powers given to the Executive branch don't allow for the President to approve warrantless wiretaps as a matter of national security. And remember - this is not the first time that the President of our country has chosen to impede on individual privacy for the sake of national security. Ask the Japanese Americans thrown into concentration camps during WWII under Roosevelt. Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt, even Washington and others have taken these kinds of steps.

Don't get your panties all in wad... I've read 1984 too. And believe me, I'm not interested in a police state either. I understand the whole "frog boiling in water" premise in that over time things can be eroded to the point that they are totally gone. But let's not take the slightest movement in that direction as doom and gloom. The President is responsible for protecting the security of this country. Not you. He is the one who we will point to if and when terrorists attack us again. From what I've heard of these programs in the NSA, I think they are the best balance we can hope for between finding terrorists in his country *before* they commit another attack and our individual rights as citizens. It's been almost five years since 9/11. I don't think that the terrorists just gave up. I think they would love to continue to terrorize us and our way of life. And I think these NSA programs and whatever else Bush has been doing have obviously led to these discussions over privacy vs security instead of discussions about the latest terrorist attack and when the next one will come.

For those of you who are so scared about the government listening to whatever you're saying on the phone, I suggest the following: http://www.gizmoproject.com/ coupled with http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html

If you really really have a problem with the government doing anything to impede on your privacy you can always move somewhere else. Unlike other countries, you are free to leave this one at any time.

So apparently we're losing the war in Iraq

2006-04-04T22:45:00.000-04:00

Apparently we're losing the war in Iraq. Because we're still there after what...3 years now. And because we've lost over 2300 soldiers during that time.

We're still in Bosnia. We're still in Germany, Afghanistan... why are we only allowed a couple years for Iraq? It can't be because of casualties - from a military perspective that'd be a ridiculous notion. We've only lost 2300 soldiers. And considering the accomplishments - even despite the many hardships involved there - that's a very small price to liberate a nation and eliminate a very real threat to the American people in what was the Hussein administration. 2300 is far less than single battles from WWII. Far less than deaths in Vietnam. We lost 2317 soldiers in May 1968 in Vietnam. That's just for one month. 2300 deaths is a *supremely* small number in military terms. And probably less or roughly equal to a single additional terrorist attack. Who's to say that taking the fight to Saddam didn't stave off another terrorist attack here in America? Or at least another war in the gulf as the result of some stupidity Saddam pulled while in power?

So what were our other options instead of going into Iraq. Pretty much all the other proposals for Iraq besides military invasion include leaving Saddam in power. And I'll never subscribe to a point-of-view that THAT would have been better for this country or for the world at large. Especially considering the ties to terrorists and Iraq, the games he played with the UN weapons inspectors, and the very real potential for Saddam to have had or at least had rapid access to - weapons of mass destruction. Then there's the trillions of dollars in illegal funds from Oil-For-Food from the UN that would have continued to propagate. And it cannot truthfully be said that Saddam did not have access to weapons of mass destruction with any kind of certainty.

The idea that we're "losing" this war is 100 percent political in nature. I do not see a reason to believe that we're just getting our asses kicked and are buried in some kind of quagmire over there. The American deaths would be in the many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands if that were true. Not a single one of the probably 30-some odd personal friends I've spoken with who have been stationed over there carry a negative point-of-view about the situation over there. They tell me a very VERY different story about Iraq than the press paints over here. They are very proud of their involvement and are very aware of the daily changes in that country and in the people of Iraq they are directly helping to facilitate. So instead of getting out when their military obligation is up a great many of them are re-upping and even volunteering for additional tours in Iraq. If things were so bad over there - I doubt you'd see any of them doing that - who would want to? If things were so bad over there, the elections would have been a failure and the country would be solidly embroiled in a civil war. Neither of which is the case. The Iraqis have resisted efforts by terrorist groups and insurgents to try and incite hatred between the different groups in Iraq and create a civil war. I think it says a lot about the general populous in Iraq that they aren't in a civil war even with all the efforts from insurgents to create one. And it says a lot about the truth of the situation there despite how the American press tries to portray it. How long were we in Germany after the end of WWII? Or hell, we were supposed to be out of Bosnia while Clinton was still in office. Remember when Clinton promised the troops would be "home by Christmas?" We're still there Mr. Clinton.

I'm sure that we'll have far smaller numbers of US troops in Iraq a year from now. And probably even less by the end of Bush's term as President. But I have no reason to believe that like Bosnia and Germany and Japan - that 20 years from now we won't still have troops stationed in Iraq. Hopefully by then though - as an ally.

http://www.completethemission.org

It is convenient for the Anti-Bush press to use any kind of negativity possible from the war in Iraq as a weapon to beat Bush over the head with. It's a war. There will always be plenty of negative. But I hardly doubt there is no positive at all as they would have us believe. Downplay the positive - or ignore it completely - and highlight the negative. Any ex-general or any person that has even the most remote connection to the military that comes out against the war is praised and thrust into the evening news. But the great vast majority of those ex-military or current military that support the war are left in silence. The Anti-Bush folks out there eat this stuff up. Iraq is their mantra to prove that Bush is a worshipper of Satan and will go down in history as the worst leader this country has ever seen. "Down with Bush!" "Impeach Bush!' "He's an idiot!" "He's just like Hitler!" That one's my favorite - the Hitler thing. Saddam was a student of Hitler - not George W. Bush. That's a prime example of ignorance in action. Truthfully - Saddam's mentor, Michel Aflaq, the man who started the Ba'ath party - was a student of Hitler and Nazism and he used the Nazi party and Hitler's leadership of it as a template for the Ba'ath party. There are no such ties to Bush.

As far as Bush's remembrance, I happen to believe history will prove the contrary to these extraordinarily negative beliefs. Not that he is to be glorified - but that he handled probably the most turbulent set of years any American President has seen (save Lincoln of course) the best way he could and that he was, in the end, the best man for the job. I have met the man prior to his entry into politics. He's a kind man and a genuine man and quite intelligent. I firmly believe that. And I will not stand and let others demonize and vilify our President without just cause. So far I have seen no facts that justify any of the vilification of him - Iraq or otherwise. All I see is hatred. Hatred that is unfounded in fact. The anti-Bush people grasp at literally anything that might portray him in a negative light and discount anything that might be portrayed as a positive or go through great lengths to turn the positive into some kind of negative. Facts really don't mean anything to them because in the end, he's still George W. Bush and therefore a liar and a scoundrel even though they really can't produce anything to justify such claims. As long as that is all the mentality the people of this country can muster - it can be certain that our days as a superpower are numbered. It's fine to be critical of our leaders - something that has been the rich heritage of politics in this country. But there is a difference in people being critical vs the utter disdain that is seen today regarding President Bush. Mark my words, it is a trend that will continue from here - if the Democrats win the Presidency in 08 you can expect significant backlash from conservatives due to the way Bush was treated. If the Republicans win - it will simply be a continuation of what you see today except people will have a new target. And so it will continue to spiral down and escalate and ultimately will wind up in the utter destruction of this country as we know it. We can't even muster any respect for the office of our President anymore - how can we expect to fix any of our problems? We will bog our leadership down in politics and negativity to the point where they are completely ineffective. And I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see this growing divide between the right and left lead to yet another civil war in this country at some point in the future - perhaps even by the end of this century.

Do you think George S. Patton, one of our greatest military generals, would think it was inadvisable to eliminate an evil regime over an entire country with only 2300 American deaths? He would no doubt have handled the situation differently - but I find it VERY hard to believe he would advise against going in there at all. Just something to think about.

Moving away from Blogger...

2006-03-18T20:50:00.000-05:00

Ok so after hearing about several folks losing their blogs on Blogger last week and one guy losing his email at Gmail I've decided to move my blog to a separate service. It will give me some more flexibility to do some neat things as well.

My new blog is: Novanglus.

I use quite a bit of AJAX so it's actually a very pleasant experience. I'll be making adjustments and enhancements to it along the way.

-Travis

The EFF, NSA and Wiretapping Revisited

2006-02-21T00:22:00.000-05:00

I received some very intelligent responses to my post about the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T and the domestic spying issue that has been all over the news of late. I encourage people to view the responses there by Tom Kent and my friend Shawn. The discussion is good enough that I'm creating this new blog entry with Shawn's post and my reponse.

Shawn's post:

At Monday, February 20, 2006 8:03:42 PM, shards said...
Hey Trav,

Well I think you know my stance on the government as a whole. I think it the guy's name was Acton who said "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Taking away 'checks and balances' that are there for this exact reason, is absolute power. In some ways I wasn't worried about this anyway because it's, to me, more of a legal positioning. The gov't is going to tap and snoop on it's citizens regardless of whether they have permission or not. They are the government, they don't answer to anyone. If we think they are 'elected' by the people then we are just as brainwashed as the millions that vote for these yahoos. I have yet to read the EFF case and will now, but just wanted to throw in my very generalised 2c on the theory that the government is wholesome and good and is only looking for our best interests. Abuse of this privilege will happen, no doubt. The checks and balances placed upon the gov't previously were there for a reason, and still should be. If anything, the gov't should be held ten fold more responsible for such activities against it's own citizens, and not try to shirk this responsibility.

My response:

At Monday, February 20, 2006 10:47:14 PM, Travis said...

Hey bro,

Thanks for the comment. I can't say that I totally disagree with you or Tom regarding this issue. I'm a big fan of government being small and basically only a "necessary evil." To me, this issue isn't a cut-and-dry issue of government power vs. individual rights. Because there is a third issue at stake here. And that third issue is a pretty big one - because without it, government power and individual rights are kind of pointless.

It's easy for us as we sit here - with jobs and relative comfort, safety and well-being - to say that privacy is a huge priority to us. But suppose all the sudden there was no air. Where would your priorities be then? Probably breathing would be more important I'm guessing. Do you see my point in that? I think Tom kinda missed my point earlier when I revisited the damage that a single attack did to our economy, our feeling of safety, and a major industry in our society. Suppose we had several such attacks in the span of a few months and suppose they touched many different areas of our society. Imagine the massive damage that would do to our economy and the feeling of safety - not to mention the possibility that the lives of those we love or even our own lives might be lost during that time or in the resulting chaos. Imagine people afraid to go shopping for fear of random bombs or chemical attacks at stores across the country. Imagine bombs showing up on airplanes despite all the "safety" measures taken at our airports. You probably didn't hear about that bomb they found on a plane in Detroit a few weeks ago. The press did a pretty good job of overlooking that one. Or imagine some chemical or biological attacks on water supplies in several cities causing people to not even trust the water they drink. There are so many ways that our open society makes us vulnerable to any number of attacks. Masses of people would stop doing a lot of things for fear of their own safety and the subsequent effect on our economy could possibly bring about a major collapse. Layoffs, huge unemployment numbers, riots, looting, all these things are entirely possible in that scenario. And how easy would it be to bring all that about? Think to yourself as you drive the short distance to work all the things you could do to disrupt our society with little or no effort. Anything to bring about fear would be the name of the game. It's not even about how many people you kill. It's all about playing to people's fear and over a period of time you could bring down the greatest nation in the world.

So what's more important? Listening in on a few thousand phone calls of people are communicating with known terrorists or people connected with terrorists? Or running blind with the hopes that they will simply leave us alone so people's privacy won't be sacrificed.

They aren't going to leave us alone. We are going to lose something - either freedoms via one way or freedoms via another. I don't think there's any way you can rationally dispute that. We either lose freedoms to the terrorists or we lose them to ourselves as a result of the terrorists.

You know me - you know that I'm a big fan of privacy - PGP and Tor and Privoxy and the like. But I'm also a bit of a pragmatist and I understand that we're in a lose-lose situation. We can't have it both ways. I'm not a fan of the government watching what I do - not in the least. But let's call and apple and apple here. The government watching phone calls to terrorists does not equal 1984. I do realize that this is a step in that direction. But I also realize that we haven't had a terrorist attack in the last four and a half years and I imagine that it has been programs like this NSA spying program that have helped us stay safe. I don't think it's just some quirky coincidence that oh we have this crappy spying program and oh yeah we haven't been attacked either. I'm sure there are lots of other programs we don't know about that have been going on for a while too to help bring this about. I mean, it's not like the terrorists just gave up and decided to quit attacks on us since that last one was such a failure and all.

So to me - it's a trade-off. I get to have a job and relative comfort for myself and my family. And I have the understanding that if I call a terrorist I'm probably going to be listened to by my government. Could the government go further? Oh sure. I've often wondered if the government isn't already watching my e-mails or listening to my conversations looking for special phrases like "kill the President" or something like that since the Clinton administration was in power. I was actually surprised that those conversations with terrorists were the *only* ones they were listening to. And who knows, maybe they aren't the only ones. Government is not wholesome and good and it never will be - despite what folks on the left tend to believe.

There have been many previous Presidents that have used this type of power in the past - why now then do we only attack *this* administration for using it when at least this time there is some level of necessity for it?

And to get to the EFF's lawsuit - I'd like to know exactly how this lawsuit is going to help the situation. Like most frivolous lawsuits I'm sure that the public will bear the burden of it in the end and the world will be no better than before. Dear Lord the DMCA is still out there can't they do something about that instead? Talk about loss of rights and privacy... Let's take all the power to spy on us away from government and give it to corporations instead. I believe *that* is where the larger threat looms - not in government. Corporations will eventually have unfettered access to everything about us and we stand by and point fingers at the government like they are the largest evil for listening to some phone conversations. What insanity that is...

But to bring this back around Shawn, I do totally understand what you are saying and I would be in support of allowing this program (and the others that are probably out there too) to exist but maybe put some more controls in place than what already exist. I think it's best to work with the situation - let the government do what it can to "promote the general welfare" but also maybe put some controls in place so that 1984 doesn't become a reality.

Letter to the EFF regarding NSA Wiretapping

2006-02-01T00:51:00.000-05:00

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to the EFF regarding their lawsuit against AT&T for their involvement in the NSA wiretapping program.

I just visited the EFF website and saw a large banner on the front page denouncing AT&T's involvement in the NSA wiretapping discussed in the press over the last couple of months. I am a big fan of privacy and an avid user of privacy tools such as TOR and PGP (and/or GPG). I am also a supporter of the EFF; I recently donated as part of the blogger's rights campaign - something I feel very strongly about.

I am concerned about the EFF's involvement in this for a couple of reasons. While I do see an issue of privacy in a government that is allowed to listen to the phone conversations of it's citizens without checks and balances, I do not believe that statement encompasses the situation at hand. Given that our country is at constant danger from a threat of major loss of life due to a terrorist act, it makes sense that we might have to give up some of our liberties in order to preserve our society. The idea that we can stop terrorists while keeping ALL of the many freedoms we enjoy in our society demonstrates quite a bit of naivety. Besides this, it is not a cut-and-dry issue that the executive branch does not have the power to exercise such methods during times such as this. Other presidents have utilized similar reaches of power - even in times of peace. Back in the nineties the Internet was rife with buzz about projects such as Echelon and Carnivore and talk of how the government was eavesdropping on ALL of our phone conversations and electronic transmissions not just the ones to or from terrorists - all this prior to 9/11. Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans during WWII. He didn't spy on them, he IMPRISONED them. And this was accepted by the American people because they understood the danger of Japanese spies. I think this demonstrates the problem of dealing with threats from small pockets of enemies on our own soil due to the nature of our open society. Our freedom is truly a double-edged sword in this regard. And that was really what made Sept 11 such an easy feat to accomplish by such a small number of hateful people. This NSA program targets people who are specifically communicating with known terrorists for the purpose of gathering intelligence to prevent atrocities like what happened on September 11, 2001. If ANY citizen in the United States is carrying on conversations with known terrorists overseas I not only support the government's unfettered eavesdropping of those conversations, I expect it to do so. I see nothing in the EFF's stance on this issue that addresses the potential danger removing this power would present to the American people. Hindering the administration with hundreds or thousands of wiretap warrants presents a serious question of necessity and is not really the kind of answer the American people expect nor deserve given the threat at hand. If and when the next attack comes there will be a wave of questioning of that administration as to how something like that could happen again and how we didn't know ahead of time. If this NSA program is killed or altered in such a way as to bog it down with bureaucracy and they miss advanced notice of an attack that is successful that would have otherwise likely been caught ahead of time, then the blood of those Americans killed in such an attack can be placed SQUARELY on groups like the EFF that supported the program's demise. This issue began as - and continues to be - an issue more of partisan politics than a serious threat to the individual liberties of average citizens. In no way do I think the government of the United States is going to spy on MY conversations as a result of this program. I find it particularly disturbing that the EFF apparently jumps to this conclusion. I have never thought, until now, that the EFF was a partisan organization but the stance the EFF has taken on this issue raises my suspicions that they are not as unbiased with regards to party politics as I previously thought. Now I still support the EFF's efforts in many other areas so I will not as of yet remove the links to the EFF from my blog. My view of the EFF as a whole is certainly tarnished after discovering their stance on this NSA program and their very presence in such a highly partisan issue. Especially when the threat to our individual liberties really isn't at question at the heart of this issue.

I suppose it is unlikely that the EFF will alter their stance on this issue regardless of what is said against it. Despite this, I find it necessary for me to voice my harsh disapproval of this lawsuit against AT&T and any other efforts by the EFF to undermine the actions taken by the United States Government to responsibly handle the current threat to our society. Further actions by the EFF in this direction will only serve to cause me to remove my financial support of the EFF and instead of speaking out FOR it, I will speak out against it.

If I send you my money I do so under the expectations that my money will be handled in an effective and responsible way and used for causes I believe in - not used to erode what little safety we have in our open society. Now not only is the EFF going to be burning resources over this case, but AT&T will have to spend thousands to defend itself in court and perhaps pay out a large settlement - a settlement that will inevitably be shouldered by its customers in the end. What is the EFF trying to accomplish by this? This is not responsible use of the money I have sent. Not over this issue. I would much rather see efforts applied to copyright reform or the protection of the openness of the Internet than used in such a recklessly political manner.

-Travis

Windows Live Messenger beta - Invites available

2006-01-09T09:27:00.000-05:00

Microsoft has been beta testing a new version of it's instant messenger software called Windows Live Messenger for a little while now. I have been testing this new version and have some invites available to anyone who'd like to check it out. If you're interested, just drop a comment with contact info (ie - your MSN Messenger ID or an email address) and I'll send one to you. You can find information about this new version of Messenger here.

EDIT 1/15/2006: Still have invites left. I'll post again here when I run out.

American Holidays: A Vietnamese Perspective

2005-12-19T20:23:00.000-05:00

In response to my post about Christmas, a friend of mine from Vietnam sent me a paper she wrote about her first Thanksgiving after coming to this country. It's interesting to read how people from other countries view our holidays. And it's a perspective that is completely lost on people that have been here all their lives. It's a nice story. And I thank her for sharing with me and allowing me to share it with you. Enjoy.

My First Thanksgiving

In Vietnam, we don't celebrate Thanksgiving. I never heard of Thanksgiving until I arrived in the United States! Then I didn't know what it was all about. What exactly is a "Turkey Day?" Why would these strange people have a holiday for an even stranger bird? And why would they eat the bird they are celebrating?

When I came to live with my brother in Texas, I learned what I thought was something new about the holiday- it is a day to celebrate football! The biggest event of the day was the football game that he and all his friends gathered to watch. Of course there was the traditional Thanksgiving food. Turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, cranberry sauce, and of course fried rice, spring rolls, soup, and egg rolls. Of course I know that most American families don't have egg rolls and fried rice and those sorts of things, but we wanted to have some of our traditional food as well. We would all sit around the television and eat, and watch the football game.

Football was another thing that didn't make sense to me. Why were all those players fighting over one funny shaped ball? Why do they call it football when they don't usually kick it, only sometimes? They should call it handball, since they usually hold it in their hand. I told my friends that they should give each player a ball so they wouldn't have to fight over it, and of course they laughed at me. I didn't understand the rules at all. They kept stopping the action and starting again, instead of playing all the time like soccer. Why did they run with the ball sometimes, and throw it sometimes, and kick it sometimes? It seemed really silly to me.

I didn't really like this game of football. It was more fun to watch the parades on television, with the big balloons and all the bands and people and decorated vehicles. It is too bad that I couldn't go to see that in person! I wondered why they didn't have fireworks in the parade. When we have parades we always have fireworks in Vietnam! The balloons were nice, but they didn?t have the dragons and lions, and I missed that.

After the football game, everyone would go home, and we would eat more turkey. We had so much turkey that we couldn't eat it all before it spoiled. I felt really bad. Buddha teaches us not to waste food, so we shouldn't make more than we can eat, and we shouldn?t throw any away. One family had enough to feed the whole neighborhood, and it seemed very wasteful and greedy to me. Who would think that one family should have a whole bird as big as a small child for one meal? They couldn't possibly eat it all.

Now I have been here for several years. I have learned a little more about the culture and history of the United States, and I understand more about what Thanksgiving is about. It started as a celebration of the fall harvest, and having enough food after a long winter without enough to eat. It was a celebration of friendship between the Pilgrims and the Indians. It was a celebration of family. It was a celebration to give thanks to God for providing enough food, and for their lives.

I now know that football isn't part of Thanksgiving, or at least it wasn't. It seems to be a big part of the celebration for everyone I know, so I guess traditions change over time. My brother and all of his friends certainly seem to think it is the most important part of the holiday!

I still think that having so much food is wasteful, and it still bothers me if we cannot eat all of it and have to throw some away. It doesn?t seem right to do that. Throwing away food doesn?t seem like a very good way to celebrate having enough food after being hungry for a whole winter. The original holiday was full of meaning and feeling, but today it seems to be just another holiday.

No wonder I was confused. Nobody seems to follow the real meaning of Thanksgiving any longer. It is just another day that the stores can name a sale for, with no more meaning than any other day to most people. It seems that even most Americans don't really know what Thanksgiving is about, and that seems sad to me.

The Holiday Formerly Known as Christmas

2005-12-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of buzz in the news lately about the word "Christmas" and its use in our society. Everything from store ads, to trees, and songs are being targeted to adopt a more politically correct title or content.

Honestly, the Christmas holiday really has very little to do with its namesake anymore. At best it maybe retains a quasi-religious meaning. Instead it is mostly a secular holiday that revolves more around shopping and eating than anything religious. Although there still are those who do indeed celebrate it as a commemoration of Christ's birth. But it's really no insult to me personally whether or not people choose to celebrate it or how they celebrate it or if they even recognize it or not. No one is stopping me from celebrating it however I choose to see fit with my family. If I choose to celebrate it as Christ's Mass or as Santa's visit or some perpetuation of both then I am free to do so. And the same with everyone else. So what difference does it make to me what people call it?

But something really bothers me about this issue. The people behind the changes to using "holiday" instead of "Christmas" point to not offending those people who practice other religions besides Christianity. This sounds like a fine idea on the surface... but who is this that is really offended by the use of the word "Christmas?" Seriously who really associates Christmas with Christianity anymore? Santa Claus and presents and candy and Christmas lights, secular songs, Christmas trees, and time away from school or work, etc. Where exactly is this horrid Christianity they refer to? It's pretty much just the name anymore. Sure there are Christmas carols that are laden with references to Christianity but most radio stations choose not to play the more traditional carols but instead play more contemporary, politically correct songs. That is if they even choose to play Christmas music at all. But despite how secular Christmas truly has become there are people that want the name Christmas removed from stores and products and schools and businesses and so on in the name of being politically correct.

If you were to point to a picture of a Christmas tree (ie. an evergreen laden with ornaments and having a star or something similar on top) to a person in pretty much any country in the world, what will they say it is? I'll bet you that 99.9999 percent of the time they'll say it's a Christmas tree - nothing else.

You see, Christmas is part of our culture. Whether you view it as a religious holiday or a secular holiday is beside the point. People all remember stories of Christmas's from our past: family, lights, carols, cookies, nativity scenes, school plays about the birth of Jesus, etc. Why now, do we want to water down our own heritage and the Christmas's of the future for our kids? Why take away from them the very things that made Christmas special to us growing up? Some people don't see it this way though. And I recognize that. They feel that their kids will not miss anything by not doing a school play about the birth of Jesus, or sing religious Christmas carols, or call the tree a "Holiday tree," or call the presents "Holiday presents." To them these changes are merely signs of the times. Signs of our society growing up into one that is more tolerant of people from other backgrounds. And they are happy to teach their kids that we call it a "Holiday party" instead of a "Christmas party" so kids from other religions can participate too.

But what message is this really sending? That we do not embrace culture that is brought to this country but instead use an eraser to erase the parts of it we don't like? Seriously, what is wrong with calling it Christmas? Where is the crime in that? Are we going to change Ramadan and Kwanzaa and Hanukkah and every other religious holiday to just "Holiday" so that people from the other religions won't be offended? Are Jews in America doomed to lighting "Holiday candles" instead of a menorah every year? By far, the largest danger is the precedent this "graying out" of the Christmas holiday presents.

I will teach my children the opposite of this. I will teach them that Christmas is a religious holiday. One that has been celebrated in this country since the first pilgrims came and, God willing, will continue to be celebrated into eternity. I will teach them that people from other religions have holidays too and teach them to embrace the culture that brings to this country. It's good that Jews can celebrate Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah; that Muslims can celebrate Ramadan, and even that Atheists can choose to abstain from celebrating these holidays or celebrate them in a different, more secular way if they choose. Our country benefits greatly from the culture brought to it by not only the many religions that exist here but also the many races and the country-specific culture brought here by immigrants. It's important that this culture is not erased, not grayed-out, but allowed to exist in the purist form it can. It is that which makes us more tolerant. And it is that which makes this the greatest country on Earth.

Personally, I find nothing offensive about Hanukkah or Ramadan or Kwanzaa or any other religious holiday and I try to be respectful of those religions and their holidays. For whatever reason, people really have a problem bestowing this type of attitude towards Christianity. Either religion is accepted in this country, or it isn't. If you are intolerant of one then you may as well be intolerant of them all. Anti-Christianity should be looked at with the same disdain as anti-semitism. And this singling-out of Christmas does send the message to Christians that their religion is not to be openly tolerated in this country. Would you expect anything different from Jews if people suggested changing the menorah to "Holiday candles?" Or Muslims if someone suggested changing Ramadan to "Religious Holiday #12."

We do have a Christian heritage in this country. And I think it's important to understand and embrace that - as well as the rest of our heritage regardless where it came from. We do ourselves a huge disservice if we try to erase our Christian heritage from our history (or erase or "gray-out" anything from our history for that matter) and indeed to erase it from our very culture. Imagine a Jerusalem devoid of the rich culture of its past. Suppose the inhabitants of that city decided to take on the same politically correct attitude we do about their own culture and heritage. By taking steps to erase our own heritage we simultaneously erode the very foundation that holds up the principles to which our Constitution rests. It was not upon the principles of ourselves with which we laid the foundations of this country, it was those liberties endowed to us by our Creator with which we derived the framework for our government. The attitude behind those attacking the use of the word "Christmas," if allowed to proliferate, would indeed have us living in a land devoid of religion completely. And without the religious principles which served as the basis for the foundation of this country then we must rely instead on the principles of man. And I don't think it's hard to imagine where that would lead us.

Besides all these things, there is one more point I would like to make. Atheism is a religion too. And by siding with atheistic attitudes we set Atheism as the prevailing religion with which we enforce in our schools, businesses, and government. Are there not those who are offended by Atheism? So who are we trying to protect by eliminating religious references from our daily repertoire? Who do we choose to offend?

Congrats to the 2005 Chippewa Middle School Cheerleaders!

2005-12-04T18:03:00.000-05:00

Congratulations girls! 2nd place at the CCC competition! Great job!

Welcome to Cleveland, OH...

2005-12-03T22:13:00.000-05:00

Went to work... parked my car. Came out later in the day to this. Welcome to Cleveland, Ohio.

Character

2005-06-13T03:17:00.000-04:00

"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved." -Helen Keller

I have learned that life is a series of decisions and a collection of consequences. Whether the decision is a small one like hitting the snooze button another time or whether it is a large one like deciding to accept a new job in another state there are consequences for those decisions. Each day I am faced with new decisions to make while I live out the consequences of the decisions I have already made.

If I make good decisions, the consequences should always be positive; hopefully not only for me but for those around me. If I make bad decisions then I can expect to struggle through some unpleasant consequences. And I may not be the only one involved.

The struggles I now face are a result of decisions I have made at some point in time - some of them very recent and some of them from many years ago. It is how I choose to react to and reason through the decisions now before me that will dictate the consequences I have yet to face. It is my experience of living through a lifetime of consequences that I have grown and matured into who I am.

It is now, in my darkest moments that my character is made - and exhibited.

It is decisions like those I've made this evening that will decide the consequences I will face in the months and years to come. It is my character that tells me those decisions were the right ones even before the consequences come.

-Travis

"A man's character is his fate." -Heraclitus

The Ten Commandments

2005-05-20T21:24:00.000-04:00

Growing up, I was taught certain things by my parents and by my Sunday School teachers. Things that we've all heard before... don't hit, don't steal, don't lie, etc. There wasn't really a reason given except that it was just something you weren't supposed to do. So I grew up learning to not do these things and the major reason I learned not to do them was so I wouldn't get in trouble.

Of course as I got older and I had to deal with people doing these things to me... lying, cheating, stealing, hitting, etc, I began to have a different appreciation for why not to do those things. But even then - I was still mostly scared of getting caught. I wouldn't always have the same apprehension if I thought I could get away with it. I think that's the way most people view things. It's all about risk vs reward.

And let's face it... people are selfish. We all look out for number one on some level - even to the point of lying or cheating or stealing, etc. Everyone does it to some extent. Like how many honest, church-going people decide it's ok to cheat on their taxes every year?

So you combine people - who are pretty selfish beings when you boil things down - with temptation based on some potential reward and you have lies, cheating, stealing, even killing.

The problem with all this is that all these things cause pain to someone - at least one someone. Think about it. It's easy to consider that things like cheating on someone or killing someone would cause pain to one or more individuals. But consider that any of these things can cause pain to someone - or someones.

Let's shift gears for a moment. Think about the stuff that's in the Bible. Specifically think about the Ten Commandments. People often view the Ten Commandments as hindrances to things that are "fun" in life or rules for people who are religious or rules that would be nice to live by but are simply too much to ask to be completely obeyed. But think about the God of the Christian and Judaic world. A singular God whose common theme is love. The last six commandments are designed, if we obey them, to keep us from hurting others. Think about what an awesome place this would be if we simply obeyed the last six commandments. How much less pain would there be? How much less would you have hurt in your life if people simply obeyed those last six commandments? How much less would you have hurt in your life if you didn't have the guilt of knowing that you hurt someone because you broke one or more of those commandments?

Hurting sucks. Hurting others sucks. We all know this. And we all know the difference between right and wrong. But selfishness tends to overrule right from wrong unfortunately. And until we teach ourselves to keep our selfishness in check, we will continue to do things that hurt other people and they will continue to hurt us.

Jesus sums it up nicely when he said for us to "Love your neighbor as yourself." People who honestly live by these words are wise indeed.

Relationships and Happiness

2005-03-09T18:53:00.000-05:00

I'm currently in the middle of ending a long-term relationship and it has caused me to do a lot of reflection on things. Reflection on myself and my history of relationships mostly. Here is whatever wisdom I can share based on my own experience. Take it for what it's worth.

The goal of any relationship should be happiness. Shouldn't it? I mean that's why we get into relationships with people in the first place - because that person makes us happy. Whether we stay in that relationship or not depends a lot on ourselves. People have a natural tendency to become complacent as time goes on. This is true of just about anything. But relationships in particular.

Relationships can be like a fine wine. With the right ingredients they can get better and better with age. Once you get past the "puppy love" at the start and really get to know each other you can develop a comfort with each other that can be really fulfilling. It's an awesome thing to wake up next to someone and feel totally comfortable with them. To be crazy about them and know that they are crazy about you as well. To completely trust them and for them to completely trust you. So many times relationships are over before ever even experiencing these things. They start out hot and heavy and then fade once the initial newness wears off until eventually someone (or both parties) moves on.

It takes some effort to get to that point and it takes some amount continual effort to maintain it. But the rewards are worth many times the effort it takes. Think about it. How awesome is it to not be single. To be with someone. To be truly happy with them. To know they are happy with you. Think of how the confidence that comes with that can pour into other areas of your life.

I can look back on my past and see the mistakes I made on my part... and the mistakes made by those I was with that ultimately led to the demise of the relationships in my past.

There are so many things that go into relationships I can't claim to know everything about them or what makes them tick. But I can say a few things that I know to be true.

A common problem with relationships anymore is one or even both parties becoming involved with someone else while in the relationship. Sometimes we go looking for it. Sometimes it kinda finds us. If you are of the mindset that you think you can do better than what you have. Good luck. I can tell you that 99 percent of the time you will be wrong about this. But sometimes people need to learn for themselves. I find that some people are addicts to the chase - addicted to that feeling of "getting" someone. They find and pursue someone until they get them - then when the newness wears off and they start to learn the "quirks" of the person they are with they realize they aren't so perfect and they begin looking for "something better." Maybe not blatantly looking - but their eyes are open. And of course, eventually they come across someone that seems so much better than what they have. So they pursue and eventually capture someone else and the cycle starts again. The grass is always greener - or so it seems. But it never is. Ever. That "perfectness" we see in that new person never lasts. It wasn't until my relationship with my wife that I really learned this to be true. That I could be happier by staying with someone instead of moving on. I was happier than I had ever been for some period of time. Granted things didn't work out with us in the end - mostly due to other issues that I won't spend time divulging here.... but that's really what led me to thinking about this stuff in the first place. The true reward is not in finding someone new - it's in keeping things new with the one you have. It honestly is. And often... after you've left someone for someone else only to find out a few months later that this new person - as awesome as they seemed - is actually worse off for you than what you had before. It may be too late to try and run back to the other person - you may have lost your one shot with them. And if you do get back with them on some off chance - what do you think things will be like after you left them for someone else?

Sometimes you aren't out looking for something new. Maybe you're happy with who you are with. But that doesn't mean you are immune to hooking up with someone who seems better than what you have. A lot of times this happens because we allow ourselves to become emotionally involved with someone of the opposite sex. Almost always this comes from spending lots of time talking or chatting with someone. People seem to be really clueless about how intimacy works and about how fast we can fall for someone simply by spending time talking to them on a regular basis. Sometimes it's someone we talk or hang out with at work, or maybe online, or maybe just a friend we chat with on the phone. If you get to a point where you are talking to a person of the opposite sex on a daily basis or even close to a daily basis you need to be aware that you are in a dangerous situation. Feelings can erupt and can erupt quite quickly. Maybe you're used to talking with them everyday and you really enjoy it and look forward to it. Maybe for whatever reason they are unavailable for a day or two and you really start to miss them and those feelings begin to come out. Maybe the person you are with at the time does something that pisses you off and maybe you haven't really been talking to them much lately to feel close to them. Suddenly that person you've been talking to sounds like a better option. This is how it goes. And good luck if that's how you start a relationship with someone.

Or... perhaps you come into contact with someone who is very attractive to you. It's natural to want to associate with people like that. But suppose that person shows interest - and suppose they happen to seem pretty cool as well. Well you can guess how things would probably turn out. You drop whoever you're with - cuz this person seems like the perfect match for you. The next thing you know they are leaving you for someone else and you're stuck with nothing. Either that or you figure out real quick that they aren't anything much of a good match for you. Either that or maybe down the road at some point you find an even more attractive person who seems even more awesome than this current person. Either way - it's almost always a bad situation. At least in my experience. You don't really ever want that to be how you start a relationship.

Here's my advice. If you're in a relationship, love who you are with. Decide for yourself if you want things to last with your relationship. If so, be smart about things. Understand how human emotions work. Understand how situations can turn out ahead of time and do your best to avoid them. Part of becoming really comfortable with your relationship is helping them to be trusting of you and be comfortable with you. Be aware of things you do that might not portray a sense of trust in who you are with. Remember - keeping the other person happy ultimately helps you. If they are happy they are more likely to want to make you happy. And that's the ultimate goal here isn't it?

So that's all I have to say at this point... I've made a lot of mistakes with relationships over the years. I've done EVERY one of things listed above - some of them several times. Through them all I learned a lot. But I learned the most from my relationship with my wife. Remember that all this is only what I've learned on my own. Take it or leave it. But there it is.

Innovation or lack thereof

2005-03-08T23:13:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine recently sent me a quote from an article at Technology Review. The article has since been pulled for whatever reason so I can't link to it. But the quote is as follows:

"People have a little more money but there's nothing they want to buy. There's nothing that makes you say, 'Wow." Ten years ago I was seeing something interesting every month, but now we're touting bloated software and cute case designs as innovation."

So what has happened to the pace of innovation to make that statement true? My friend that sent the article to me asked a very poignant question, "Is that truly because, as people like Fionrna say, the industry has matured, or is it because we're just not trying anymore?"

I think it's some of both. Technology grew at a very rapid pace in the 90's. I think this did contribute to achieving a kind of maturity in technology. But a lot of other things are at work right now as well.

There isn't as much investment capital available nowadays to fund new ventures in technology. So people are taking less risks in this area. And the really cool stuff is often somewhat of a stretch from the norm and can be considered a risky venture.

I believe also that a lot of the larger companies that were really pushing the envelope of technology several years ago have downsized and outsourced to the point where real innovation is nigh an impossibilty now. They're merely maintaining the status quo with nothing really to be said of innovation. Like the quote says - nothing new but cute case designs. Mediocrity seems to be the name of the day.

A lot of reports are showing that people have more money than in previous years. This is probably true. So why then are they not spending that money on new technology? Well the reasons I listed so far probably contribute to that. But I think also that although they have more money, they are more frugal with it than in the past. Maybe they were laid off for a while and learned to pinch pennies. Suppose they currently have a decent paying job but uncertainty about whether or not their job will remain or be outsourced or whatever keeps them from spending money on things like technology that aren't considered necessities. That and the Internet provides many tools to help find the absolute best deals on technology. Perhaps also contributing to this is the fact that the general populous has become more technology saavy. They can read about things they want online and buy the exact thing they need at the best price possible instead of driving to Best Buy and blindly buying whatever the sales guy suggests (along with whatever other things they find once inside the store). This "deal-finding" leads to more competition and lower profit margins for companies. Surely this has an effect on how these manufacturers invest their money and develop their products. Large investments in capital for little profit return aren't usually a good plan for business.

I think it's going to take some really exciting changes in the market to turn things around. Some really big innovations to revitalize the market. To bring people back into the stores. To make them decide they need to have some new tech gadget. To bring some profits back into the market and ultimately lead to newer innovations.

The Story of Boeing Test Pilot

2005-02-18T22:38:00.000-05:00

I don't know the accuracy of this story that I recieved in Email today but the points made are relavent nonetheless. See my comments below the story. So here it is in its entirety:

January 4, 2005

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro colleagues tossed this out to no one in particular:"See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, there's a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro colleagues laughed out loud and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster. I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -

"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want? Something with its own inexhaustible power supply? Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water? Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it? Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies? Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier? Well "Franz", we peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier." We have 12 of them. How many do you have? Oh that's right, NONE. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, we are the kind of people who share. Even with people we don't like. In fact, if memory serves, once upon a time we peasants spent a ton of money and lives rescuing people who we had once tried to kill and who tried to kill us. Do you know who those people were? That's right Franz, Europeans. There is a French Aircraft carrier? Where is it? Right where
it belongs! In France of course! Oh why should the French Navy dirty their uniforms helping people on the other side of the globe. How Simplesse... The day an American has to move a European out of the way to help in some part of the world it will be a great day in the world ..." The room fell silent.

My Hindi friend then said quietly to the Euros: "Can you let your hatred of George Bush end for just one minute? There are people dying! And what are your countries doing? Amazon.com has helped more than France has. You all have a role to play in the world, why can't you see that? Thank God for the US Navy, they don't have to come and help, but they are. They helped you once and you should all thank God they did. They didn't have to, and no one but them would have done so. I'm ashamed of you all..."

He left the room, shaking and in tears. The frustration of being on the other side of the globe, unable to do anything to assist and faced with people who could not set aside their asininity long enough to reach out and help was too much for him to bear.

I just shook my head and left. The Euros stood speechless. Later in the breakroom, one of the laughing Euros caught me and extended his hand in an apology. I asked him where he was from, he said "a town outside of Berlin." He is a young man, in his early 20's. I asked him if he knew of a man named Gail Halvorsen. He said no. I said "that's a shame" and walked away to find my Hindi friend.

For those of you who may not remember, Gail Halvorsen was the transport pilot responsible for the "candy drop" during the Berlin airlift. They called him the "Candy Bomber" as he dropped goodies for all the Berlin children.

Matt Archer
BOEING
Flight Operations
Transport Test Pilot

I'm not so sure this actually happened or if it's just a story someone wrote. But the point is there.

Back when Clinton was in office I saw how he was demonized by the conservatives over pretty much everything he did. Some people REALLY disliked him - not necessarily all conservatives mind you but they were often the most vocal. I believe it was this demonization more than the Whitewater case that actually led to his eventual impeachment by Congress. So why is there any question then that now when a conservative is in office he is likewise being demonized by liberals? It's simply what our society has degraded itself to it seems. I see no turning back from this. Mark my words, regardless of which party wins the next Presidential election the other side will carry on the demonization of that President as well. It almost turns my stomach to see such a proud office ridiculed in such a way.

Neither Clinton nor Bush have done ANYTHING to deserve the demonization they have received. Continued hatred of Presidents will only bring - more hatred.

UPDATE: They are researching the validity of this story on Snopes. Their research is incomplete at this point but you can check the status of their investigation by watching this page.

Gmail invites

2005-02-11T17:00:00.000-05:00

Ok so I see that people are still visiting this site from search engines looking for Gmail invites. Well I happen to have craploads of them. So just shoot me a mail if you're lookin for one and I'll get you an invite.

Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice - echoes in America

2005-02-09T02:02:00.000-05:00

The 20 November, 2004 issue of Die Welt, a German periodical, contained an editorial written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of German publishing firm Axel Springer. The article can be found here, however it is in German.

Here is a translation of that article in English:

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe ? your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake ? literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Thanks to Snopes.com for the information on this article including the translation.

In the article, Mr. Döpfner mentions that Europeans have taken a mentality of "appeasement." A point backed by mentioning the slaughter of Jews in WWII under Hitler, the slaughter in Kosovo under Milosevic, the slaughter of Iraqis under Hussein and the brutalities committed under Communism and how Europe as a whole allowed these things to happen. And time and again it was the United States who would finally come from halfway around the world to deal with the problem. Sadly, this is not a mentality that is confined only to Europe. There are a great many Americans who subscribe to the same point-of-view. To them it was better to leave the Iraqis to themselves under Hussein's oppression and concentrate instead on our own selfish domestic issues. But that's what we've become here. We've concentrated on our own "greatness" for so long that we have filled ourselves with the notion that we deserve everything we have here and then some. It's sickening.

How is it that so many Americans believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq? How is it ok for us to stand aside and allow a regime like Saddam's continue to murder so many hundreds of thousands? Are we so selfish in our greed that we should turn a blind eye to people suffering half a world away? Are we so arrogant to believe that his regime would never support terrorist acts against the United States or its interests? That he would never obtain and use weapons of mass destruction? That he wouldn't erase the US from the face of the Earth if given the chance? Or at least do his best to accomplish such a feat?

George W. Bush has taken the unpopular stance of sending America to war to remove Saddam's regime from power and allow the Iraqis to have their country back and prevent Saddam from carrying out whatever atrocities he may have carried out if left in power. Bush has had the courage to do so in the face of extreme criticism from his own people and at a great cost to this nation because he understands what's at stake. And instead of rallying behind Bush's liberation of the Iraqi people, Americans stage massive protests and compare Bush to Hitler. Bush to Hitler? Isn't Saddam a much better comparison to Hitler? I can only assume they do this out of ignorance. Because if they really had an idea of who Hitler was - of what it was like to be a Jew in Europe when he was in power - they would be very careful who they would compare to him.

We in America are so quick to jump to the aid of others when all it takes is to pick up the phone and send some money and our good deed is done. But when the stakes are higher and the cost much greater our choice is to sit by and do nothing. When people are suffering due to an act of nature we are so quick to show our "great kindness" by sending food and supplies. For most this amounts to nothing more than writing a check or clicking a button on a website. But when people are suffering due to another human being we choose to do nothing. Cowards. Like somehow telling them to stop will be sufficient. Yes Mr. Terrorist, please stop blowing things up. Please stop killing people. Thank you.

Thank God George W. Bush doesn't take such an attitude.

Five hundred thousand people die to an act of nature and they are worthy of our aid. But five hundred thousand die to a dictator and they are not. We're ok with things like tsunami relief. But when it comes to things like Milosevic or Hussein we'd rather not bother. We don't want to do anything about such things - someone might die.

People are already dying. You're just glad it's not you.

So the Iraqis would have been better off if President Bush had never sent troops to Iraq. Under what version of reality could that possibly be true? Sounds like echoes of 1940 America to me. We know all too well now how correct that sort of attitude was then. It's no more correct now. How much better would things have been - how many fewer people would have died if we had joined World War II in 1939 or even 1940? Consider that before taking the same attitude that allowed Hitler to grow so powerful while we stood by and watched.

Mr. Döpfner calls Europeans cowards for their position on Iraq. I say that they only learned from the best just across the Atlantic.

Late One Night

2004-11-21T03:01:00.000-05:00

I wrote this a few years ago. My daughter is now almost 6. I wanted to post it here to share with others. I go back and read it from time to time as a reminder of where my priorities need to be. To this day tears well up in my eyes every time I read it.

It was getting late and I knew I should be going to bed soon. It was going to be a long day tomorrow as usual and I still wasn't quite feeling well. I just kept thinking about all the things that were going on in my life and how, for whatever reason, none of them were sources of joy or happiness. Instead they all seemed to be sources of stress and varying levels of discomfort. I could pick any aspect of my life and consider an assortment of calamities or failures associated with each.

My eyes studied the glowing screen on my laptop, darting back and forth until I felt I had adsorbed whatever informational nuggets that nook on the Web may have to offer. My fingers tapped lightly on the keys as I flitted from website to website taking in whatever contents my mind saw fit to consume. It was a daily ritual that caused me to obliviously slunch over into a Neanderthal-like posture in front of the keyboard. Although I could hardly imagine life without the Web, in reality it had only been about five years since I was first introduced its vast trove of treasures and other not-so-precious goods.

The kids were all asleep and my wife had been in bed for some time. This was my time. Sometimes I would wait for everyone to go to bed and watch a little TV, read a book or magazine, or perhaps play some computer games. But mostly I used this time to surf the web. It's not like I didn't already spend a decent part of every day surfing the web. Not to say the least. But this was time that I could surf in peace. I could surf without interruption from the phone or one of the kids or my wife or the door or anything else. I could just let my mind fly and let the information flow like a gentle spring-fed stream. It got me away from the worries of life or at the very least made my worries seem small in comparison to how things could be.

It was then that I heard the sound. It was a familiar sound. About ten months old by this time to be exact. And I knew that it was better to pry myself away from the screen and go to its source than to wait for my wife to do so. I could imagine the look she would give after dragging herself out of bed to tend the little one only to find my Neanderthal-like figure still slunched in front of the laptop totally oblivious to anything around me. There was always that glint of believability in her face when I told her I didn't hear the baby as she sees me in front of the computer. But I couldn't bear seeing that look on her face one more time today. It would be better for all parties involved for me to simply take a break from my surfing and go see what the baby needed. I knew that in all probability whatever it was wouldn't take long and I could be back to my surfing bliss.

I opened the door to her room to find her in her usual fussing position standing up against the railing aiming her complaints toward the door. She immediately stopped and watched intently to see what my next move was. Any sign of hesitation and the complaints would continue. I quickly moved around to the side of her crib and gently picked her up. Silence would likely keep my wife in bed, which again was best for all parties involved. No further complaining would do anyone any good so I needed to take great care to ensure that no complaining would be necessary from this point forward. Usually once I picked her up she would begin looking around trying to spy some mischief to get into or some interesting object to examine. But this time she didn't. This time she simply laid herself against my chest as I carried her to the couch in the living room. When we got to the couch, I sat down carefully keeping her against my chest. She lifted her head and looked up at me. For a few moments as she stared into my eyes she and I were the only two people in the entire universe. She closed her eyes and laid her head against my chest, completely unaware of what she had just done to me. The effects of her gaze were still evident on my face as I continued to look down at her tiny form. Her gaze was not one of helplessness or necessity or even simple recognition. It was one of total adoration. It was one of those looks that only a parent and a child can share.

It was then that I realized that all my troubles weren't as big as all I had made them up to be. I could bind them all up and still not fill the space on the head of a needle. Right there in my arms was the source of my strength and rejuvenation. It wasn't on that laptop or anywhere on the Net at all. A few tears began to well up in my eyes as she looked up at me one more time before drifting off to sleep. I could feel the weight of her little body growing heavy against my chest as it rose and fell with every breath I took. I began to feel ashamed of wasting so much time away from her trying to find the very thing that she had to give.

She didn't need to be fed or have her diaper changed or have some playtime: She just needed her Daddy. But was it really her who needed me, or was it me who needed her?

The Reality of Freedom

2004-11-10T21:33:00.000-05:00

"Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

The price was enormous but the price was paid. And America survives today as a testament to their bravery and sacrifice.

What would the world have been like if those 400,000 Americans wouldn't have died? What would the world be like if we spoke German instead of English?

How not to choose a President

2004-10-28T16:41:00.000-04:00

John Kerry's platform seems to be centered almost solely on criticizing Bush's Presidency. Which when you think about it, isn't a bad move from a political standpoint. Those that have the opinion that President Bush is a detriment to the Presidency love that platform because to them, Kerry is someone who shares the same beliefs they do (or belief I suppose that should be). It's not about what John Kerry stands for that brings people to support for him, it's what he stands against: George W. Bush. So really, the best thing going for Kerry in his campaign isn't who he is per se; it's who he isn't. He's not George W. Bush. That's a perfectly good reason to vote for a President right?

Honestly, what does Kerry stand for? His speeches are laden with criticisms of the President and follow ups to his criticisms with comments about how he can do things better or do them right. Ok well do it better how? Do it right in what way? What the hell are you talking about John? Come on man, give me something to work with here.

I spoke with a liberal friend of mine about Kerry's platform. He couldn't really tell me a lot about what Kerry stood for. A few things about Iraq and the economy but mostly just generalisms and again - he couldn't tell me anything without comparing Kerry to Bush. After I pointed out that he really didn't tell me anything he simply told me, "Well, he's got to be better than Bush." as if somehow that should spell everything out for me. So what are you saying? If you vote for Kerry that you really don't know what you're getting for the next 4 years except that it's not Bush? So I guess it's a crapshoot really. You vote for Kerry and you're pretty much just throwin the dice. Again, that's a great reason to choose the most powerful man on Earth.

So who is Kerry without Bush? It seems that Bush defines who Kerry is more than Kerry defines himself. And let's face it, Kerry's voting record in Congress doesn't really tell us a lot. He votes for something, he votes against it. Or he doesn't even vote on it at all. He votes for it then later he says he's against it. He votes against military spending time and time again. I guess that much we can pretty much assume. He was a veteran he was an anti-veteran then a veteran again. So where exactly does that put John Kerry? I have no clue. And I can't even really trust what he says he says now. Some of his earlier criticisms have been retracted for one reason or another. So if he's against something now who knows, maybe in a few months he'll be for it. Is that really what we want in a President?

Remove George W. Bush from the equation and where does that leave Kerry? You better think good and hard about that because if Kerry is elected, come January 2005 whatever is left is exactly what you'll have for 4 years.

A few words on politics and Iraq

2004-10-20T23:53:00.000-04:00

It's extremely easy for us to look back at Vietnam now and see the clear mistakes made by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Those administrations did not have the advantage of viewing everything as we can now in hindsight. History will judge this administration as well as the next - whether the next is 2005 or 2009 - in the same clarity of vision. I don't think either man, Kerry or Bush, can stand here and say they *will* do the job right. And truthfully, Vietnam is a very different situation than what we have now. It's probably not right for me to use that as an example but I think the point is still there.

My personal opinion is that I think it was right for us to go into Iraq. I don't care now nor did I ever care if there actually were weapons of mass destruction. The very idea of Saddam Hussein still being in power in Iraq today is very foreign to me - but very disturbing as well. All of us knew what he was capable of - and what he was doing to his own people while he was in power and what he would do given the chance. No one seems to question that. And there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he would continue to pursue them as long as he had power there. I'm not for waiting until he ignites a world war by using them on Israel, his own Arab neighbors, his own people, or even - by a stretch - the United States. He spent considerable resources evading the weapons inspectors before and he would have continued to do so ad infinitum. Here is a link to the fun and games that were the Iraq weapons inspections 1997-2000: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000

Had we not gone into Iraq, I believe that Saddam Hussein would still be playing these games and might even be poised to utilize weapons of mass destruction had he not already done so. If not by now, certainly in the near future. It was only a matter of time. At some point some President was going to have to bite the political bullet and send troops to Iraq either in the wake of disaster or as a preemptive measure. I think it's naïve to assume otherwise.

I don't think it could have been legitimately expected for anyone besides the US to bear the brunt of the cost, both in dollars and in lives, of actually going into Iraq. The only difference would have been perhaps in the wake of Iraq actually using weapons of mass destruction due to world outcry against such things. And again - I don't think it's worth getting 'approval' from the global community by waiting to go into Iraq only after some major disaster like 9/11 or even much worse. I honestly believe that ONLY in that situation would there have been any kind of major support globally for actually going into Iraq to remove Saddam from power. So President Bush could have waited for UN this or that - but the outcome would have likely been pretty much the same.

Seriously, what would the UN bring to the table anyway? France still wouldn't have joined. Russia still wouldn't have joined. In fact - I imagine France and Russia would have continued to balk at *any* sort of action against Iraq unless Saddam did use weapons of mass destruction. I mean, what could they say then? So there *never* would have been a unilateral resolution handed down by the UN to carry out any kind of military action. So does that mean that we have no choice but to wait for Saddam to actually do something horrible enough that the UN had no choice to but to agree to an invasion? Besides, what would the UN have to offer that it wasn't already doing and how would things be different today if they did hand out approval to the US to invade? The answer is simple: either the US never goes into Iraq and continues to play games with the Hussein administration until he finally uses weapons of mass destruction; or the UN gives their approval and the US still goes in there paying for nearly everything and losing many, many lives.

So what about the actual job of removing Saddam from power? He's gone now. That part is done. But that was barely a challenge. The hard part is putting the country back on its feet - on its own feet. And there's no way around it - in order to be done right - it's going to cost a lot. And if the US doesn't bear most of that cost, then it doesn't get done. No other country is going to step up and take that risk - and let's be honest, the list of countries that even have the capability to do so is an extremely short one. Troops are going to have to be there for quite a while in order for things to be right. Bringing them home too soon could spell disaster for the fledgling Iraqi democracy. And it would be a huge dishonor those soldiers who've already fallen there for the end result to be another dictatorship because the new government crumbled in our wake. It's a disgrace to this entire country and indeed everything we stand for as a nation to allow politics to dictate what future the Iraqi people have. Regardless of whether or not you agree for the reasoning or not, we are there. And we need to be there to see this thing through to its completion. It needs to be done right.

It's been said that we need more boots on the ground in Iraq. Great. That would be cool but where are they going to come from? Russia? France? The UN? In pretty much any scenario that burden falls on the US. And we already have ourselves stretched pretty thin as it is. The military was not in a war stance at the end of the Clinton administration and would have taken many years to build back up to its Gulf War size. So do we implement the draft to build up the military quickly enough to get more boots on the ground? I really don't think Kerry or anyone else is willing to do that. Not to mention the cost. There are already complaints about how much this is costing us. How can you reduce cost and have more boots on the ground to do things right?

There are complaints against the Bush administration that I share with some of my left-wing friends but Iraq is definitely not one of them. His decision to invade Iraq may turn him into a one-term President. But thank God popularity doesn't make foreign policy.

Gmail Invites

2004-09-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

I now have several Gmail invites of my own available. Post a comment here if interested. First come, first serve.

-Travis

Gmail Invite

2004-09-03T02:12:00.000-04:00

UPDATE 02/19/2005 - YES, I have plenty of Gmail invites. Just post a message below with your email address and I'll send you one no questions asked

I opened my hotmail tonight and stumbled upon a little surprise. A Gmail invite from Paul Grave. Author of the Translate extension for Mozilla's Firefox browser. I had posted a couple of comments on his site the other day about the band A Perfect Circle and about the fact that I was interested in a Gmail invite as he mentioned he had a few. Well it turned out that he gave away the few that he had prior to my post. No biggie. I have enough email accounts anyway. I was just curious about Gmail because of all the hype surrounding it. Well that coupled with the fact that you can't just go sign up for it while it's in Beta. You have to get an invite from somewhere.

So, Paul was generous enough to share an invite with me after receiving yet more Gmail invites. I'm very grateful for his kindness in keeping me in mind. I signed up and to my astonishment my usual nickname was already taken. I have the name "Linuxevangelist" at every major site you can think of... Hotmail, Yahoo!, Netscape, AOL, Slashdot, etc. I even had the domain name, linuxevangelist.com for a few years. But for the first time I tried to sign up for something and that name was already taken. So I grabbed my backup name... Erufailo. Fair enough. Cheers to linuxevangelist@gmail.com whoever you are.

Of course the Gmail system is down tonight for whatever reason so I can't tell you if I like it or not. I'm not sure I can spill actual details about the service given the lengthy agreement I accepted when signing up - but I'm fairly certain I can offer an opinion on whether or not I like the service or not. I'll have to check the agreement to be sure of course, maybe they own my opinions as well :p

If I should come into any Gmail invites myself now that I've signed up I'll be sure to share with my friends who are interested. Send me a mail if you'd like one and I'll keep you in mind.

-Travis

2004-09-01T02:13:00.000-04:00

Me.

Republican National Convention

2004-09-01T01:08:00.000-04:00

Well I watched a fair portion of the Republican National Convention tonight. It was kinda by accident. I was flipping channels and ran into it on my local PBS station. I had forgot that it started tonight. I didn't catch any of the Democratic National Convention so I'm a little unprepared to compare the two. I will say that overall I was a little impressed. I'm not big on the "my party is better than your party" rah-rah that always happens at the conventions but I was happy to pay attention to the parts in-between where the speakers actually talked about issues and not just pie-in-the-sky ideals and other useless drivel. The commentary by PBS was excellent I must say. It really seemed to be devoid of bias - at least to me. And that's very impressive. I get so tired of watching the major news networks anymore because they seem to just seeth with bias - be it for or against a particular candidate or party.

I really do hope that the candidates this year are able to actually address some issues and offer real-world solutions or at least ideas for solutions to solve them. I don't expect one man to fix all the problems of our country but I'd like to know what kinds of things they are thinking about and what kinds of ideas they're able to come up with. I'm probably more interested in how they think rather than where they stand on the issues. Because let's be honest, knowing where they stand on abortion is nice but I seriously doubt many abortion issues will affect the Presidency in the next few years. Instead I'd like to hear of any ideas they may have regarding healthcare, or economic issues, or foreign policy, or terrorists, etc. It gives me an idea of what to expect from them when they are confronted with things during their Presidency.

In the case of President Bush, I already have 4 years of experience with him so I already have some idea as how he reacts in certain situations and what kinds of decisions to expect from him in certain cases and at the very least a glimpse at the man's character. And to me, character is one of the most important things to know about a President.

I will have to pay close attention to Senator Kerry in the next couple of months before election day to get some kind of idea of his character and what kind of President he would be if elected. I feel I'm a little behind in that regard as the Presidential Race has been going on for some time now. But honestly the early stages of a race don't interest me so much. I really have little patience for all the partisanism that drenches elections nowadays. I just wanna cut through all that and see the person behind the image as much as I am able. THAT is what will lead my pencil on election day.

I don't rightly know if I'll see any more of the convention this week but now that the Olympics is over I suppose I'm probably likely to catch a couple more hours of it before it's over. I don't usually watch a whole lot of TV but I kinda got used to it this last two weeks watching the Olympics. I really enjoy watching the Olympics. I don't care what other people say about them. I love watching the triumph of the human spirit and hear the stories behind the athletes. It really takes you away from all the conflict and turmoil in the world for just a couple of weeks as these men and women from so many countries come to compete - without biggotry and without violence and for the most part, with great sportsmanship and character.

And so it's back to work for a bit before bed. And here's to hoping that whatever happens on election day, that we have the best man in place to lead this country through whatever befalls this nation in the next four years.

-Travis