Wednesday, March 31, 2004
The bodies of American contractors, killed in Fallujah, were dragged through the streets today and strung up from a bridge. What kind of savage monsters would cheer this disgusting display?
It's easy to look at these things and ask whether Iraqis were worth freeing, or to say that everyone would be better off if hostile towns like Fallujah were just flattened. It's hard to see how so much ill-will in a land whose culture we barely understand can be quelled anytime soon.
The road to democracy will be very difficult. With Japan and Germany, occupation was not as difficult because those countries HAD been flattened. Several years of total warfare had sapped the axis nations of the will to fight. But what about Iraq? After a month of limited blitzkrieg, where anything that didn't have obvious military value was generally spared, war was hardly enough to knock the wind out of the insurgents sails. The next few months, and the first few months after the transition to Iraqi rule, will be very trying as we blaze into a unique history that hasn't been written.
It's easy to look at these things and ask whether Iraqis were worth freeing, or to say that everyone would be better off if hostile towns like Fallujah were just flattened. It's hard to see how so much ill-will in a land whose culture we barely understand can be quelled anytime soon.
The road to democracy will be very difficult. With Japan and Germany, occupation was not as difficult because those countries HAD been flattened. Several years of total warfare had sapped the axis nations of the will to fight. But what about Iraq? After a month of limited blitzkrieg, where anything that didn't have obvious military value was generally spared, war was hardly enough to knock the wind out of the insurgents sails. The next few months, and the first few months after the transition to Iraqi rule, will be very trying as we blaze into a unique history that hasn't been written.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
There is a middle ground between supporting the president on Iraq and supporting the anti-warriors. I think I've found it. In September 2001, there was a better approach for dealing with Iraq, and I think I know what it is, and why it didn't happen.
Can you remember how you felt on September 11 and 12, 2001? It was utter chaos. America had awoken from The Matrix (our false sense of security) and opened our eyes to the world of tomorrow. And who did we blame for the attack on America? Obviously, Osama bin Laden was in the crosshairs. But a growing suspicion was that Saddam Hussein was also quietly lurking in the shadows, possibly as sole sponsor or possibly as a collaborator with bin Laden.
Our policy on Sept. 12 should have been simple: announce to the world that we would be going into Afghanistan, and unless Iraq fell into compliance with every article in the Persian Gulf War ceasefire agreement, we would finish the job we started in 1991.
Unfortunately, Colin Powell chose the week after 9/11 to have his "April Glaspie" moment to embolden Saddam. He reassured the world that Saddam would never work with bin Laden because they hated each other. Not like mutual hatred ever stopped a group of foes (FDR, Churchill, and Stalin) from collaborating against a common foe (Hitler, Hirohito.) Colin Powell gives us another reason to fire his ass.
We could have made the point that an Iraqi newspaper (Al-Nasiriya) predicted attacks against Washington on July 21, 2001 and noted that the US "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Would "New York, New York" be the song of choice? And who can forget Saddam's speech in praise of the attacks, saying that "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world." Was it wise of Saddam to give the US another reaon to take out his sorry ass? Saddam has never been known for his wise decisions.
We could have made other points to the UN, bulding a case that Iraq was guilty not only of WMD development, but of violating every clause for ceasefire in the first Persian Gulf War. Most pressing of those conditions was "Iraq must denounce terrorism and expel terrorists from its borders." Then why was Ansar al-Islam operating unfettered in northern Iraq? Why was Abu Nidal given a house and safe haven in 1999, only to "commit suicide" by four bullets to the back of the head in 2002? Were the Iraqis really training terrorists to hijack jets at the Salman Pak "counterterrorism" camp? Sept. 11 should have been a reason for Iraq to become serious about fighting terrorism within its borders; instead, Saddam returned to his standard practices of thumbing his nose at the United States.
The evidence suggests that Saddam did not think a ground invasion was coming. He believed this because he did not think the US would attack without UN support. But would he have acted differently should the UN have given its blessing to invasion? Exile for Saddam (the ideal solution, a peaceful means of regime change) might have been on the table. We never got that UN backing because we waited too long to act on Iraq. The incredible outrage felt by the entire world on Sept. 11 should have been channeled not only for action on Afghanistan, but for ending the Iraqi defiance that had persisted since the first war and continued to support terrorists in some capacity until its destruction.
The US waited until Sept. 12, 2002, to announce its Iraq policy to the UN. By this time it was too late. To paraphrase Darryl Worley, the world had forgotten, and there was no more momentum for a showdown with Iraq. France and Russia had retreated to their previous positions of weakening UN sanctions and siphoning off money and contracts from Oil-For-Food. If the Security Council had been united, the rest of the world might have seen Saddam for the menace he posed as a regional military threat, a human rights monster, and a supporter of global terrorism.
In this sense, I disagree with Kenneth Pollack (although there is a lot of truth to what he says.) If we had waited to build a concensus against Iraq, we would have lost even more support as the post-9/11 window of opportunity closed behind us. The time for diplomacy was during the fall of 2001 through spring 2002. After the last major fighting in Operation Anaconda ended in March 2002, the decision should have been made to either depose Saddam or to give him a permanent pass for his past, current, and future bad behavior. Only a truly UNITED United Nations could have convinced Saddam that his goose was cooked and he should take exile while he was still ahead.
Can you remember how you felt on September 11 and 12, 2001? It was utter chaos. America had awoken from The Matrix (our false sense of security) and opened our eyes to the world of tomorrow. And who did we blame for the attack on America? Obviously, Osama bin Laden was in the crosshairs. But a growing suspicion was that Saddam Hussein was also quietly lurking in the shadows, possibly as sole sponsor or possibly as a collaborator with bin Laden.
Our policy on Sept. 12 should have been simple: announce to the world that we would be going into Afghanistan, and unless Iraq fell into compliance with every article in the Persian Gulf War ceasefire agreement, we would finish the job we started in 1991.
Unfortunately, Colin Powell chose the week after 9/11 to have his "April Glaspie" moment to embolden Saddam. He reassured the world that Saddam would never work with bin Laden because they hated each other. Not like mutual hatred ever stopped a group of foes (FDR, Churchill, and Stalin) from collaborating against a common foe (Hitler, Hirohito.) Colin Powell gives us another reason to fire his ass.
We could have made the point that an Iraqi newspaper (Al-Nasiriya) predicted attacks against Washington on July 21, 2001 and noted that the US "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Would "New York, New York" be the song of choice? And who can forget Saddam's speech in praise of the attacks, saying that "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world." Was it wise of Saddam to give the US another reaon to take out his sorry ass? Saddam has never been known for his wise decisions.
We could have made other points to the UN, bulding a case that Iraq was guilty not only of WMD development, but of violating every clause for ceasefire in the first Persian Gulf War. Most pressing of those conditions was "Iraq must denounce terrorism and expel terrorists from its borders." Then why was Ansar al-Islam operating unfettered in northern Iraq? Why was Abu Nidal given a house and safe haven in 1999, only to "commit suicide" by four bullets to the back of the head in 2002? Were the Iraqis really training terrorists to hijack jets at the Salman Pak "counterterrorism" camp? Sept. 11 should have been a reason for Iraq to become serious about fighting terrorism within its borders; instead, Saddam returned to his standard practices of thumbing his nose at the United States.
The evidence suggests that Saddam did not think a ground invasion was coming. He believed this because he did not think the US would attack without UN support. But would he have acted differently should the UN have given its blessing to invasion? Exile for Saddam (the ideal solution, a peaceful means of regime change) might have been on the table. We never got that UN backing because we waited too long to act on Iraq. The incredible outrage felt by the entire world on Sept. 11 should have been channeled not only for action on Afghanistan, but for ending the Iraqi defiance that had persisted since the first war and continued to support terrorists in some capacity until its destruction.
The US waited until Sept. 12, 2002, to announce its Iraq policy to the UN. By this time it was too late. To paraphrase Darryl Worley, the world had forgotten, and there was no more momentum for a showdown with Iraq. France and Russia had retreated to their previous positions of weakening UN sanctions and siphoning off money and contracts from Oil-For-Food. If the Security Council had been united, the rest of the world might have seen Saddam for the menace he posed as a regional military threat, a human rights monster, and a supporter of global terrorism.
In this sense, I disagree with Kenneth Pollack (although there is a lot of truth to what he says.) If we had waited to build a concensus against Iraq, we would have lost even more support as the post-9/11 window of opportunity closed behind us. The time for diplomacy was during the fall of 2001 through spring 2002. After the last major fighting in Operation Anaconda ended in March 2002, the decision should have been made to either depose Saddam or to give him a permanent pass for his past, current, and future bad behavior. Only a truly UNITED United Nations could have convinced Saddam that his goose was cooked and he should take exile while he was still ahead.
Monday, March 29, 2004
I have two new additions to my axis of evil: the T.G. Lee milk company and online course registration.
First we have T.G. Lee, the milk distributor who sells their wares in distinctive yellow jugs. I used to enjoy their 1% milk, but then T.G. Lee had to screw things up. Their 1% milk is now fortified with Vitamin A. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, vitamin A milk is probably good for me, but it might be like vitamin D milk, so I'm too frightened to try it. And if vitamin A is so fricking good for you, then why not put it in every type of milk, from 1% to 2% to white water (skim milk)?
Next we have online course registration. Undoubtedly, this applet was written by the evil IT department. It is so evil, in fact, that when I registered at midnight I was blocked from entering THREE classes. The computer thinks it's protecting me from my own ignorance; if it can't tell that I have the prerequisites for a course, it won't let me in. I had to wait in line at records & registration, arriving late to my first class all because of the evil computer and evil IT.
First we have T.G. Lee, the milk distributor who sells their wares in distinctive yellow jugs. I used to enjoy their 1% milk, but then T.G. Lee had to screw things up. Their 1% milk is now fortified with Vitamin A. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, vitamin A milk is probably good for me, but it might be like vitamin D milk, so I'm too frightened to try it. And if vitamin A is so fricking good for you, then why not put it in every type of milk, from 1% to 2% to white water (skim milk)?
Next we have online course registration. Undoubtedly, this applet was written by the evil IT department. It is so evil, in fact, that when I registered at midnight I was blocked from entering THREE classes. The computer thinks it's protecting me from my own ignorance; if it can't tell that I have the prerequisites for a course, it won't let me in. I had to wait in line at records & registration, arriving late to my first class all because of the evil computer and evil IT.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Today I almost felt like the luckiest man in the world. That feeling, however, has to be balanced by the knowledge that all glory is fleeting. Whether the Lord decides to giveth or taketh away, though, I know that there are people in high places who believe in me and are looking out for me. I can only hope that I will not let them down.
If the war in Iraq was all about oil, then why is the national average gas price $2.16 per gallon? The "blood for oil" argument can work both ways. Either the EVIL Halliburton company floods the market with cheap oil, or they're restricting the flow of oil so they can drive up prices and profits. Again, Scott Ritter's observations were right: if you want Saddam's oil, you lift sanctions against him and cut deals to rebuild his dilapidated oil infrastructure. France, Russia, and Germany certainly got that memo. Does Ritter's logic make sense, Professor Noam Chomsky? Chomsky is proof that you can be really smart but still be an irrational nut.
If the war in Iraq was all about oil, then why is the national average gas price $2.16 per gallon? The "blood for oil" argument can work both ways. Either the EVIL Halliburton company floods the market with cheap oil, or they're restricting the flow of oil so they can drive up prices and profits. Again, Scott Ritter's observations were right: if you want Saddam's oil, you lift sanctions against him and cut deals to rebuild his dilapidated oil infrastructure. France, Russia, and Germany certainly got that memo. Does Ritter's logic make sense, Professor Noam Chomsky? Chomsky is proof that you can be really smart but still be an irrational nut.
Monday, March 22, 2004
My enemies continue to mock me and show me the utmost disrespect. I want to devise a plan for revenge, but my revenge plans generally turn out to be lame. Perhaps I don't have what it takes to be truly malicious. I want the revenge to be really cruel, but not sophomoric. Hopefully I will have my "Cartman" moment in the struggle with "Scott Tenorman."
I feel really bad for Skovholt. He tries to teach us about electrical engineering, but all people want to do is read dirty magazines in his class.
One guy I don't feel sorry for is Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Drudge had a picture of his crumpled carcass next to his flattened wheelchair. See you in Hell.
Mad props to the Glenn Dogg and his remarkable landing, even if some senile bonebag in a pickup truck got in his way. When he becomes the first man on Mars, people will look at this incident and say, "Yep, he was a natural-born stick and rudder man."
I feel really bad for Skovholt. He tries to teach us about electrical engineering, but all people want to do is read dirty magazines in his class.
One guy I don't feel sorry for is Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Drudge had a picture of his crumpled carcass next to his flattened wheelchair. See you in Hell.
Mad props to the Glenn Dogg and his remarkable landing, even if some senile bonebag in a pickup truck got in his way. When he becomes the first man on Mars, people will look at this incident and say, "Yep, he was a natural-born stick and rudder man."
Sunday, March 21, 2004
The Passion of the Christians
Beachside evangelism is alive and well in Daytona. It's impossible to go to the beach without seeing well-dressed people who begin their "sermon" by asking if you've seen "The Passion of the Christ." There's even a guy who carries his own cross (he happens to be a cheater, because he had a small wheel surrepititiously attached to the bottom of his cross.)
I feel bad for these folks in a way, because they just want to spread the word about Jesus, and 99.9% of them will just get blown off. But is the beach really the best place to try and win converts? With the excesses of wet t-shirt contests, riced-out auto displays, and merchants hawking hyper-expensive sound systems, perhaps it is the sinfulness of the beach that calls the evangelists to force us "sinners" to repent.
I feel bad for these folks in a way, because they just want to spread the word about Jesus, and 99.9% of them will just get blown off. But is the beach really the best place to try and win converts? With the excesses of wet t-shirt contests, riced-out auto displays, and merchants hawking hyper-expensive sound systems, perhaps it is the sinfulness of the beach that calls the evangelists to force us "sinners" to repent.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Euthanize Hubble
Let the Hubble telescope die already!
The Hubble people are refusing to do this, and the media (in addition to the Mars Society) is helping them. They're releasing new images all the time, and their talking-head allies at the major networks are giving these stories lots of air time.
Don't get me wrong; Hubble is the most productive chapter in the Space Shuttle story, and its science returns have been astounding, to say the least. But fixing the telescope with a Space Shuttle crew means you have to fly that infernal death-rocket one more time. And every time a Space Shuttle flies, seven brave and wonderful people have a 2% chance of death. Is a telescope worth dying for?
If some autonomous spacecraft can dock with Hubble and make it last longer, that's awesome. Build it and send it up. Otherwise, we need to look beyond Hubble to the next generation of telescopes. Using foldable optics, we can build them much smaller than Hubble. We could also stick them at the LaGrange points, where they would just sit around and take picures instead of circling the earth every 90 minutes.
How much sense does it make to spend over $500 million and risk seven lives for a 14-year old telescope? I hope it sounds just as asinine to you as it does to me.
The Hubble people are refusing to do this, and the media (in addition to the Mars Society) is helping them. They're releasing new images all the time, and their talking-head allies at the major networks are giving these stories lots of air time.
Don't get me wrong; Hubble is the most productive chapter in the Space Shuttle story, and its science returns have been astounding, to say the least. But fixing the telescope with a Space Shuttle crew means you have to fly that infernal death-rocket one more time. And every time a Space Shuttle flies, seven brave and wonderful people have a 2% chance of death. Is a telescope worth dying for?
If some autonomous spacecraft can dock with Hubble and make it last longer, that's awesome. Build it and send it up. Otherwise, we need to look beyond Hubble to the next generation of telescopes. Using foldable optics, we can build them much smaller than Hubble. We could also stick them at the LaGrange points, where they would just sit around and take picures instead of circling the earth every 90 minutes.
How much sense does it make to spend over $500 million and risk seven lives for a 14-year old telescope? I hope it sounds just as asinine to you as it does to me.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
All good thigs come to an end. Tonight, I went to my first Riddle baseball game. Turns out we lost 3-2, ending a Bill Goldberg-like 31-0 winning streak. The team played their hearts out, and so did "Da Bears" of West Virginia Tech. It was a really good game of baseball.
I can't believe the things people are telling me! I guess people think I'm trustworthy enough for their secrets. I should hope I am. But what if I were in the Hanoi Hilton with Manchurian Candidate John McCain? Would I sing like a jaybird? It's something I'd rather not think about.
Still mad as hell at Winston, because he intruded into our room at 3 AM Wednesday morning (with the help of resident dumbass Li Shen,) waking me up so he could use one of our computers to watch Ravin's homemade porno. I'm plotting my revenge right now... Winston walks in the door, I hit him in the face with a claw hammer. It's brilliant!
I can't believe the things people are telling me! I guess people think I'm trustworthy enough for their secrets. I should hope I am. But what if I were in the Hanoi Hilton with Manchurian Candidate John McCain? Would I sing like a jaybird? It's something I'd rather not think about.
Still mad as hell at Winston, because he intruded into our room at 3 AM Wednesday morning (with the help of resident dumbass Li Shen,) waking me up so he could use one of our computers to watch Ravin's homemade porno. I'm plotting my revenge right now... Winston walks in the door, I hit him in the face with a claw hammer. It's brilliant!
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Jack Ryan--hero of the Tom Clancy novels, and next U.S. Senator?
Let's hope so. He recently won the Illinois Republican primary to replace the great Peter Fitzgerald. He's got a name that screams success, but it also carries baggage. After the corruption wrought by the evil George Ryan, it seems like any Republican with the last name "Ryan" is doomed by associaton in Illinois.
I used to be a Steve Rauschenberger backer, but Mr. Rauschenberger lost points in my book by going after the records from Jack's divorce and custody battle with actress Jeri Ryan. I'm sorry, Steve, but hands off the custody records.
In the aftermath of the election, I have to also sing the praises of Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria, an Indian immigrant of the Sikh faith who ran as a conservative Republican. It was a tough personal choice between Jack Ryan and Dr. Kathuria, and I think electability was what put me into the Ryan camp. However, I hope Dr. Kathuria continues to seek public office, and hopefully a spot in government will open up for him.
I think Dr. Kathuria is living proof that limited government is in the best interests of all people, and it's a message we need to spread. Not only should we destroy the image of Republicans as the "fat rich white man party," but the party should be re-focused on the idea that limited regulation and less taxation is the formula for prosperity for everyone.
Next step is November, when Jack takes on civil rights attorney Barack Obama for the senate seat. Will the voters choose the millionaire who left it all to teach inner-city children, or will they support the Kenyan immigrant who made it big in the U.S. and aligned himself with civil-rights demogogue Jesse Jackson? The pessimist in me is saying "Obama by a landslide."
Let's hope so. He recently won the Illinois Republican primary to replace the great Peter Fitzgerald. He's got a name that screams success, but it also carries baggage. After the corruption wrought by the evil George Ryan, it seems like any Republican with the last name "Ryan" is doomed by associaton in Illinois.
I used to be a Steve Rauschenberger backer, but Mr. Rauschenberger lost points in my book by going after the records from Jack's divorce and custody battle with actress Jeri Ryan. I'm sorry, Steve, but hands off the custody records.
In the aftermath of the election, I have to also sing the praises of Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria, an Indian immigrant of the Sikh faith who ran as a conservative Republican. It was a tough personal choice between Jack Ryan and Dr. Kathuria, and I think electability was what put me into the Ryan camp. However, I hope Dr. Kathuria continues to seek public office, and hopefully a spot in government will open up for him.
I think Dr. Kathuria is living proof that limited government is in the best interests of all people, and it's a message we need to spread. Not only should we destroy the image of Republicans as the "fat rich white man party," but the party should be re-focused on the idea that limited regulation and less taxation is the formula for prosperity for everyone.
Next step is November, when Jack takes on civil rights attorney Barack Obama for the senate seat. Will the voters choose the millionaire who left it all to teach inner-city children, or will they support the Kenyan immigrant who made it big in the U.S. and aligned himself with civil-rights demogogue Jesse Jackson? The pessimist in me is saying "Obama by a landslide."
Monday, March 15, 2004
Alan Keyes for president!
Just had to give him another shout out, because Dr. Keyes is still 'making sense,' despite the cancellation of his TV show in 2002. If I could choose anybody in America to be MY president, it would defintely be Alan Keyes. Frankly, President Bush has made quite a few blunders (letting Congress hemorrage federal funds, choosing WMD as the basis for war with Iraq, and the poorly-executed occupation that continues to fill the news with grim stores about soldiers getting killed by bombs hidden in dead dogs.)
However, I would jump off a bridge before I'd vote for the loathsome Hanoi John Kerry. For all his faults, at least President Bush will keep our nation strong in the face of terroism and propose a new vision for space exploration. Hanoi John seems to think that terrorism is an exaggerated law enforcement problem that ranks behind protectionism and socialist health care on our nation's agenda. And I don't trust him to stay the course in Iraq, either, probably because of his anti-defense voting record.
America really needs Alan Keyes more than ever. Only Dr. Keyes has the "scholarly conservative" outlook that I endorse, combining a keen sense of history with traditional values and libertarian business policies. I'm not alone in endorsing Alan Keyes. Apparently John Leboutillier came out swinging for Keyes in early 2000. Again, Rep. Leboutillier is another real conservative who has been forced to begrudgingly accept Bush as the lesser of two evils, and he's also one of the few guys left who gives a rat's rear end about prisoners of war who were abandoned in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Just had to give him another shout out, because Dr. Keyes is still 'making sense,' despite the cancellation of his TV show in 2002. If I could choose anybody in America to be MY president, it would defintely be Alan Keyes. Frankly, President Bush has made quite a few blunders (letting Congress hemorrage federal funds, choosing WMD as the basis for war with Iraq, and the poorly-executed occupation that continues to fill the news with grim stores about soldiers getting killed by bombs hidden in dead dogs.)
However, I would jump off a bridge before I'd vote for the loathsome Hanoi John Kerry. For all his faults, at least President Bush will keep our nation strong in the face of terroism and propose a new vision for space exploration. Hanoi John seems to think that terrorism is an exaggerated law enforcement problem that ranks behind protectionism and socialist health care on our nation's agenda. And I don't trust him to stay the course in Iraq, either, probably because of his anti-defense voting record.
America really needs Alan Keyes more than ever. Only Dr. Keyes has the "scholarly conservative" outlook that I endorse, combining a keen sense of history with traditional values and libertarian business policies. I'm not alone in endorsing Alan Keyes. Apparently John Leboutillier came out swinging for Keyes in early 2000. Again, Rep. Leboutillier is another real conservative who has been forced to begrudgingly accept Bush as the lesser of two evils, and he's also one of the few guys left who gives a rat's rear end about prisoners of war who were abandoned in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Terrorists win, terrorists win.
That's what the pundits SHOULD be saying in Spain, now that recent terorrist attacks have dealt a blow to the Aznar government. I can't help but think that the Socialists will withdraw all Spanish support for Iraqi reconstruction. It's also a probability that this attack will encourage al Qaeda to hit the U.S. just before our elections in an attempt to get Hanoi John Kerry (who refers to the threat of terrorism as "exaggerated" and views it as a law enforcement problem) elected.
Along the same vein, the re-emphasized hunt for bin Laden, al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and the rest of those ass-clowns appears to be the Bush re-election campaign. Does bin Laden have military significance? It's a tough question. He's probably not in control of anything, but he is almost a messianic figure to his fellow ass-clowns. Why haven't we found him earlier? My guess is that the Pentagon doesn't want to see our guys get killed searching for a needle in a haystack that isn't militarily relevant.
The difficulty with al Qaeda is that the orgnization is so de-centralized that the regional groups and cells can operate even after the head of the organization has been cut off. The hope here is that bin Laden's capture, conviction by military tribunal, and execution by firing squad will demoralize the tentacles of the terrorist network.
Prediction for 2004: If bin Laden is caught before the election, it will be a Bush landslide in November, and Michael Moore will have been discredited for the last time, fading into obscurity. If bin Laden escapes, then say hello to Hanoi John and the "big ketchup" industry taking the place of "big oil."
That's what the pundits SHOULD be saying in Spain, now that recent terorrist attacks have dealt a blow to the Aznar government. I can't help but think that the Socialists will withdraw all Spanish support for Iraqi reconstruction. It's also a probability that this attack will encourage al Qaeda to hit the U.S. just before our elections in an attempt to get Hanoi John Kerry (who refers to the threat of terrorism as "exaggerated" and views it as a law enforcement problem) elected.
Along the same vein, the re-emphasized hunt for bin Laden, al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and the rest of those ass-clowns appears to be the Bush re-election campaign. Does bin Laden have military significance? It's a tough question. He's probably not in control of anything, but he is almost a messianic figure to his fellow ass-clowns. Why haven't we found him earlier? My guess is that the Pentagon doesn't want to see our guys get killed searching for a needle in a haystack that isn't militarily relevant.
The difficulty with al Qaeda is that the orgnization is so de-centralized that the regional groups and cells can operate even after the head of the organization has been cut off. The hope here is that bin Laden's capture, conviction by military tribunal, and execution by firing squad will demoralize the tentacles of the terrorist network.
Prediction for 2004: If bin Laden is caught before the election, it will be a Bush landslide in November, and Michael Moore will have been discredited for the last time, fading into obscurity. If bin Laden escapes, then say hello to Hanoi John and the "big ketchup" industry taking the place of "big oil."
Saturday, March 13, 2004
My faith in Gupta has been reaffirmed. In his mercy, a low "B" becomes a medium-range "A." Fairness is not lost from this normally cruel world.
I have a horrible habit of killing conversations when the person I'm conversing with is really getting into the subject of our discussion. I hope the lessons of Capt. Trzop's "Howdy Projects" are not for naught. I wish that I didn't have an irrational fright of people.
People will do incredibly stupid things for money. Such as the "He Wear, She Wear" contest, where three couples ran out to the ocean, swapped clothes, and ran back to win fifty bucks. Albert Camus would be impressed by the absurdity of the event.
I have a horrible habit of killing conversations when the person I'm conversing with is really getting into the subject of our discussion. I hope the lessons of Capt. Trzop's "Howdy Projects" are not for naught. I wish that I didn't have an irrational fright of people.
People will do incredibly stupid things for money. Such as the "He Wear, She Wear" contest, where three couples ran out to the ocean, swapped clothes, and ran back to win fifty bucks. Albert Camus would be impressed by the absurdity of the event.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
No sooner do I take down the warning sign for my stalker when he finally drags his New Yorker ass back to my place, uninvited, asking for my notes. I told him "no dice" and made sure he left. This morning during the test he was almost totally clueless, as he hasn't attended class since the last test. Buda congratulated me for standing up to my stalker and making sure he got his academic "just desserts."
Friday, March 05, 2004
Today I finally succeeded in touching a live squirrel. It's something that I've always wanted to do but never succeeded at because normal squirrels want to run away. The Riddle squirrels are different, though. They're incredibly tame. So today I saw a squirrel digging in the wood chips behind Spruance Hall with his head completely buried. I have to say that in the brief instant I petted him, he felt soft, with very fine fur. I did not want to linger for too long so he wouldn't bite me or so I wouldn't contract his parasites.
