Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Bush 2005 vs. Bush 2000
During his 2000 presidential run, George W. Bush promised us that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be used only during an emergency, instead of being a cheap political ploy (reference Bill Clinton's decision to open the reserves in early 2000 as Al Gore was seeking election.) Now that the president will be ordering the opening of the reserve, it looks like he's gone back on his promise.
The George W. Bush of 2005 apparently has lower standards for what constitutes an emergency. The damage caused by Hurricane Katrina along the gulf coast is perhaps the single greatest tragedy in the US during my lifetime. Yet Americans still have access to gasoline and heating oil.
I view the president's decision as a political gesture to appear compassionate. It's compassion for the gulf coast region (where the nation's offshore oil platforms are located) and compassion for all Americans, who increasingly blame the president for high gas prices.
I used to think that George W. Bush was a man who followed his conscience instead of the unwashed masses, and I respected him for that. His decision today makes me think twice about that judgement. The Bush I respected would have ignored the people who complained about "big oil," and would have rode out the storm until prices inevitably dipped.
If the president wants to really alleviate the high gas prices, he should order an investigation of the speculators who keep on driving up the price of raw crude oil. Opening the reserves now will scarcely make a dent in fuel costs, while depleting our nation's most vital asset in an era when our enemies control the source of power that fuels our way of life.
The George W. Bush of 2005 apparently has lower standards for what constitutes an emergency. The damage caused by Hurricane Katrina along the gulf coast is perhaps the single greatest tragedy in the US during my lifetime. Yet Americans still have access to gasoline and heating oil.
I view the president's decision as a political gesture to appear compassionate. It's compassion for the gulf coast region (where the nation's offshore oil platforms are located) and compassion for all Americans, who increasingly blame the president for high gas prices.
I used to think that George W. Bush was a man who followed his conscience instead of the unwashed masses, and I respected him for that. His decision today makes me think twice about that judgement. The Bush I respected would have ignored the people who complained about "big oil," and would have rode out the storm until prices inevitably dipped.
If the president wants to really alleviate the high gas prices, he should order an investigation of the speculators who keep on driving up the price of raw crude oil. Opening the reserves now will scarcely make a dent in fuel costs, while depleting our nation's most vital asset in an era when our enemies control the source of power that fuels our way of life.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Weapon of Mass Destruction
The endgame in Iraq is already in motion. Iraq's constitutional referendum is set for October 15. If the political process thus far is an indication of the future, full blown civil war will begin on October 16.
An Iraqi civil war would probably last for years, but its general direction is fairly predictable. On one side would be the Sunni Arabs, radical Shiites under Moqtada al Sadr, and foreign Islamists. On the other side would be the fierce Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and mainstream Shiite militias like the Badr Brigades. In the end, a Sunni strongman will again occupy the throne in Baghdad, only this time he will have radical Shiites as allies, and he will allow Islamic militants to control the vast western desert near Syria.
The political development of Iraq has collapsed because the Shiites and Kurds are too willing to punish the Sunnis for supporting Saddam, and the Sunnis are too willing to flex the muscle that comes from being the wild card and the backbone of the armed insurgency.
If Iraq does degenerate into widespread sectarian warfare, "staying the course" will no longer be a valid option for the United States of America. We need to recognize this grim possibility and short-circuit it in the most brutal fashion possible. We should threaten the Iraqis that, if they can't co-exist with each other, the United States will REINSTATE SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Hopefully the threat of reinstating the dictator will force Iraqis to tolerate each other. If not, then Saddam Hussein is exactly the leader they deserve. If people can't behave as a civilized society, they deserve a leader who is just as savage as they are. As the days pass by, the Iraqis continually demonstrate that they are not mature enough to live in a libertarian society. Only a miraculous compromise on the proposed constitution can restore my faith in the Iraqi people. Otherwise, it will be obvious that Saddam Hussein was not the problem, but a symptom of the greater problems inherent in the culture of Iraq.
John Stuart Mill taught us that war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. It must also be said that dictatorship is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest future for Iraq is an anarchy that breeds terrorism, as Afghanistan and Sudan were during the 1990's. The US will never be able to trust Saddam Hussein, but we have to face the grim reality that perhaps Saddam was the only person brutish enough to hold together a brutal country.
An Iraqi civil war would probably last for years, but its general direction is fairly predictable. On one side would be the Sunni Arabs, radical Shiites under Moqtada al Sadr, and foreign Islamists. On the other side would be the fierce Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and mainstream Shiite militias like the Badr Brigades. In the end, a Sunni strongman will again occupy the throne in Baghdad, only this time he will have radical Shiites as allies, and he will allow Islamic militants to control the vast western desert near Syria.
The political development of Iraq has collapsed because the Shiites and Kurds are too willing to punish the Sunnis for supporting Saddam, and the Sunnis are too willing to flex the muscle that comes from being the wild card and the backbone of the armed insurgency.
If Iraq does degenerate into widespread sectarian warfare, "staying the course" will no longer be a valid option for the United States of America. We need to recognize this grim possibility and short-circuit it in the most brutal fashion possible. We should threaten the Iraqis that, if they can't co-exist with each other, the United States will REINSTATE SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Hopefully the threat of reinstating the dictator will force Iraqis to tolerate each other. If not, then Saddam Hussein is exactly the leader they deserve. If people can't behave as a civilized society, they deserve a leader who is just as savage as they are. As the days pass by, the Iraqis continually demonstrate that they are not mature enough to live in a libertarian society. Only a miraculous compromise on the proposed constitution can restore my faith in the Iraqi people. Otherwise, it will be obvious that Saddam Hussein was not the problem, but a symptom of the greater problems inherent in the culture of Iraq.
John Stuart Mill taught us that war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. It must also be said that dictatorship is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest future for Iraq is an anarchy that breeds terrorism, as Afghanistan and Sudan were during the 1990's. The US will never be able to trust Saddam Hussein, but we have to face the grim reality that perhaps Saddam was the only person brutish enough to hold together a brutal country.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Absolutely Disgusting
The sanctity of military funerals is being disrupted again. This time, it's extreme right-wingers (not Michael Moore) who are to blame.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Richardson's Cannon
The BRAC commission's decision on the two major Air Force bases was almost exactly opposite of what I urged yesterday. Ellsworth was spared in its entirety (the commission believes that it will not result in cost savings,) but Cannon lost it's F-16's, and may be closed by 2010.
I'm still not certain what will happen to Cannon. At this stage it seems like there will be a minimal presence at Cannon just to maintain the base and keep jobs in Clovis, NM. The plan may make Governor Bill Richardson happy, but it's squandering military funds that could be used for the Air Force's primary mission: kill people and break their toys.
At the same time, it makes sense to keep Cannon open in case it can be used in the future. It's biggest asset is its remote location, and it might make sense to relocate another base to Cannon if urban encroachment becomes a problem.
If Cannon does close by 2010, a new economic engine will be needed to sustain Clovis. New Mexico faced a similar situation when Roswell's Walker Air Force Base closed in the mid 60's. It wasn't until the 1980's that a resurgent interest in the celebrated UFO crash from 1947 brought tourism and business back to the town.
Clovis can attempt the Roswell revival by luring in a flying saucer and shooting it down. The townspeople should line up at night, drop their trousers, moon the night sky, and use fires on the ground to spell out "Probe This!" Seeing as how aliens have flown dozens of light years to ram probes up our butts, this is an excellent trap for "The Grays." When the flying saucers fall for the bait, the town's farmers open up with their shotguns and bring the aliens down.
All kidding aside, there's plenty you can do with an old Air Force base. An old Oklahoma base will soon be used for space tourist flights (although New Mexico is getting a spaceport already, and it won't be in Clovis.) Roswell's old airfield is now used for storing and scrapping mothballed and retired airliners.
The BRAC decision gives the leadership in Clovis and the state of New Mexico some extra time to plan for the city's future unless the base miraculously finds a new mission from the Air Force. If the town can pull together a transition plan, the base's anticipated closure in 2010 will not mean death for Clovis.
I'm still not certain what will happen to Cannon. At this stage it seems like there will be a minimal presence at Cannon just to maintain the base and keep jobs in Clovis, NM. The plan may make Governor Bill Richardson happy, but it's squandering military funds that could be used for the Air Force's primary mission: kill people and break their toys.
At the same time, it makes sense to keep Cannon open in case it can be used in the future. It's biggest asset is its remote location, and it might make sense to relocate another base to Cannon if urban encroachment becomes a problem.
If Cannon does close by 2010, a new economic engine will be needed to sustain Clovis. New Mexico faced a similar situation when Roswell's Walker Air Force Base closed in the mid 60's. It wasn't until the 1980's that a resurgent interest in the celebrated UFO crash from 1947 brought tourism and business back to the town.
Clovis can attempt the Roswell revival by luring in a flying saucer and shooting it down. The townspeople should line up at night, drop their trousers, moon the night sky, and use fires on the ground to spell out "Probe This!" Seeing as how aliens have flown dozens of light years to ram probes up our butts, this is an excellent trap for "The Grays." When the flying saucers fall for the bait, the town's farmers open up with their shotguns and bring the aliens down.
All kidding aside, there's plenty you can do with an old Air Force base. An old Oklahoma base will soon be used for space tourist flights (although New Mexico is getting a spaceport already, and it won't be in Clovis.) Roswell's old airfield is now used for storing and scrapping mothballed and retired airliners.
The BRAC decision gives the leadership in Clovis and the state of New Mexico some extra time to plan for the city's future unless the base miraculously finds a new mission from the Air Force. If the town can pull together a transition plan, the base's anticipated closure in 2010 will not mean death for Clovis.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
BRAC Presents The BRAC Show Starring BRAC
The Base Realignment and Closure committee will conclude tomorrow with big decisions on the fates of two major Air Force bases: Cannon and Ellsworth.
Everybody I've spoken with who served at Cannon hated the place. The reason is because the base is in the middle of nowhere. People don't find much to do in Clovis, New Mexico. At the same time, being in the middle of nowhere is Cannon's greatest asset. Urban encroachment is the biggest bane being faced by bases like Nellis AIr Force Base and Naval Air Station Oceana. The Defense Secretary wants to disband Cannon's F-16 wing and redistribute the planes among other F-16 squadrons.
At the same time, Ellsworth is also viewed as an inhospitable place: it's ball-freezingly cold. The North Dakota base was on the chopping block several times in the past, but Sen. Tom Daschle's clout saved the base. With Jim Thune now in Daschle's seat, he doesn't have the stature to save Ellsworth anymore (although he ran for office believing that he was better able to save Ellsworth than Daschle was.)
As it stands, all of the Air Force's operational B-1's are stationed at Ellsworth after the 2002 realignment and reduction of the B-1 fleet. The current plan is to close Ellsworth and move the operational B-1 units to the B-1 training base at Dyess in Texas. Can one base handle all of the Air Force's B-1's?
Here's a modest proposal: why not close down Ellsworth, but send the B-1's to Cannon? With Cannon's better year-round flying weather and strategic location (in the middle of the boonies,) Cannon would be a good place for B-1 operations.
Everybody I've spoken with who served at Cannon hated the place. The reason is because the base is in the middle of nowhere. People don't find much to do in Clovis, New Mexico. At the same time, being in the middle of nowhere is Cannon's greatest asset. Urban encroachment is the biggest bane being faced by bases like Nellis AIr Force Base and Naval Air Station Oceana. The Defense Secretary wants to disband Cannon's F-16 wing and redistribute the planes among other F-16 squadrons.
At the same time, Ellsworth is also viewed as an inhospitable place: it's ball-freezingly cold. The North Dakota base was on the chopping block several times in the past, but Sen. Tom Daschle's clout saved the base. With Jim Thune now in Daschle's seat, he doesn't have the stature to save Ellsworth anymore (although he ran for office believing that he was better able to save Ellsworth than Daschle was.)
As it stands, all of the Air Force's operational B-1's are stationed at Ellsworth after the 2002 realignment and reduction of the B-1 fleet. The current plan is to close Ellsworth and move the operational B-1 units to the B-1 training base at Dyess in Texas. Can one base handle all of the Air Force's B-1's?
Here's a modest proposal: why not close down Ellsworth, but send the B-1's to Cannon? With Cannon's better year-round flying weather and strategic location (in the middle of the boonies,) Cannon would be a good place for B-1 operations.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Constitute This
With just two days left to amend Iraq's draft constitution, it is apparent that the nation is approaching a crucial tipping point. The final constitution, while not perfect, will serve as a template for responsive government in Iraq. Unfortunately, the disaffected and largely-militant Sunni minority disagrees. While Sunnis have legitimate fears about Kurdish separatists and unequal distribution of oil revenues, they also have to accept that the Saddam Hussein days are over, and the central government will never wield the same amount of authority as it did under the dictator. Sunni demands that Iraq be an "Arab country" versus an "Islamic country" are petty and bigoted; it would be equivalent to saying that America should be a "Caucasian country" instead of a "Christian country."
If the Shiite and Kurd-dominated parliament rams the constitution through without winning Sunni support, civil war would be a likely result. Dan Senor, the former spokesman for Paul Bremer, was on Brit Hume's show explaining that Sunnis lack the political organization to block the constitution when it comes up for a nationwide vote in October.
If Sunnis reject the constitution, it's hard to forsee what will happen next. While the American tradition is to abide by the law (even if we disagree with it,) disaffected Iraqis will likely launch violent opposition. Moderate Sunnis and passive supporters of the insurgency may become full-time insurgents. Shiites (who have shown remarkable restraint in the face of Sunni violence) would likely take off the kid gloves and fight it out with the Sunni rebels.
Dan Senor also offered the sobering assessment that Iraq's constitution would not diminish the insurgency over the next fifteen months. This is an important span of time, because it's approximately the amount of time until the next midterm election. During this span, I fully expect the Democrats to become an anti-war party (instead of the confused and wishy-washy position the party currently advocates,) and I think that the strategy will allow them to take back the House and perhaps the Senate. If Congress no longer has the will to finish the mission and support Iraq's fledgling democracy, then the battle will be ceded to the Baathists and the Wahhabis.
If the Shiite and Kurd-dominated parliament rams the constitution through without winning Sunni support, civil war would be a likely result. Dan Senor, the former spokesman for Paul Bremer, was on Brit Hume's show explaining that Sunnis lack the political organization to block the constitution when it comes up for a nationwide vote in October.
If Sunnis reject the constitution, it's hard to forsee what will happen next. While the American tradition is to abide by the law (even if we disagree with it,) disaffected Iraqis will likely launch violent opposition. Moderate Sunnis and passive supporters of the insurgency may become full-time insurgents. Shiites (who have shown remarkable restraint in the face of Sunni violence) would likely take off the kid gloves and fight it out with the Sunni rebels.
Dan Senor also offered the sobering assessment that Iraq's constitution would not diminish the insurgency over the next fifteen months. This is an important span of time, because it's approximately the amount of time until the next midterm election. During this span, I fully expect the Democrats to become an anti-war party (instead of the confused and wishy-washy position the party currently advocates,) and I think that the strategy will allow them to take back the House and perhaps the Senate. If Congress no longer has the will to finish the mission and support Iraq's fledgling democracy, then the battle will be ceded to the Baathists and the Wahhabis.
Venezuelan Takeout?
The call to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (by the ever-controversial Rev. Pat Robertson,) is getting a disproportionately-large amount of play time in the news media. Although the media coverage is intended to smear Christianity in general, it gives us an opportunity to address the way Christians should feel about Chavez and what would constitute an ethical reaction to the Venezuelan autocrat.
Hugo Chavez has taken a juvenile delight in irritating the United States. His first act as president was to visit Saddam Hussein; he's also been very close to Fidel Castro, and he's taken an active role in supporting Marxist revolutionaries in Latin America. Like all supporters of a planned economy, he is not afraid to deprive his people of their individual liberties to create his "utopia of mediocrity."
There is no way that an ethical Christian could support Hugo Chavez. At the same time, it's premature for Christians to call for his assassination. Although Pat Roberts may disagree, it's pretty clear that Hugo Chavez is not an imminent danger to the United States. Pat Roberts also seems to have forgotten the lessons we've learned from Saddam Hussein--it's not enough to merely "cut the head off the snake." Deposing dictators is fairly easy compared to the much larger task of reforming an entire nation.
The best Christian response to Hugo Chavez would be public denunciation of his offensive policies and rhetoric. Further, Christians should fervently pray that God will change Hugo Chavez's wicked heart and allow him to reform.
Hugo Chavez has taken a juvenile delight in irritating the United States. His first act as president was to visit Saddam Hussein; he's also been very close to Fidel Castro, and he's taken an active role in supporting Marxist revolutionaries in Latin America. Like all supporters of a planned economy, he is not afraid to deprive his people of their individual liberties to create his "utopia of mediocrity."
There is no way that an ethical Christian could support Hugo Chavez. At the same time, it's premature for Christians to call for his assassination. Although Pat Roberts may disagree, it's pretty clear that Hugo Chavez is not an imminent danger to the United States. Pat Roberts also seems to have forgotten the lessons we've learned from Saddam Hussein--it's not enough to merely "cut the head off the snake." Deposing dictators is fairly easy compared to the much larger task of reforming an entire nation.
The best Christian response to Hugo Chavez would be public denunciation of his offensive policies and rhetoric. Further, Christians should fervently pray that God will change Hugo Chavez's wicked heart and allow him to reform.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Chuck Hagel's Vietnam Flashbacks
Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, made headlines this weekend by telling George Stephanopolous that Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam. Hagel's words carry a lot of weight; unlike other know-it-all pundits who make the same comparison, Hagel actually fought in Vietnam.
To be fair to Sen. Hagel, he did preface his remarks by saying that there were some important differences between the two wars (a line the mainstream media gleefully omits.) However, Hagel has frequently offered harsh diagnoses of the situation in Iraq.
Right-wing talk radio was quick to pounce on Hagel, with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity insinuating that Hagel's comments are designed to position himself for a 2008 presidential run. I don't think that the speculation and the attacks from talk radio commentators are justified.
I wouldn't criticize Hagel for what he said, but I would criticize him for what he failed to say. He didn't give supporting details for what he sees in Iraq that reminds him of Vietnam, nor did he flesh out the important differences. I see the biggest similarity as our inability to maintain a force in the enemy-infiltrated towns of north and western Iraq (due to our insufficient force levels.) Iraq's election should not necessarily be viewed as proof that we will prevail. South Vietnam had elections too--very corrupt elections that put Nguyen Van Thieu in charge.
Yet the end of the Vietnam war also holds a lesson for us. Turning the war over to the indigenous forces is the correct strategy, as long as it's done gradually. Support for the indigenous forces is also important, as the fall of Saigon in April 1975 can be linked to cuts in American aid to South Vietnam the year before. Americans should also know that peace will NOT prevail just because the US stops fighting. In the case of Vietnam, the people who supported us were murdered or "re-educated" by the Communists after the south fell.
Other American failures, like Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, indicate that the stakes in Iraq are even higher than in Vietnam. The use of terror tactics by Islamists against the US military resulted in political victories for the fanatics. Their small-scale successes emboldened them to launch even bigger terror attacks in the belief that they could break the will of "the great white satan."
Rush and Sean are correct when they criticize Hagel's timing for his remarks. When radical anti-war groups are gaining media exposure and sympathy, it is not wise to say things that will bolster their case. American withdrawal will lead to more attacks on the homeland and on the Iraqis--peace is a far cry from what will result. It is not too late for Iraq, as long as the president and Secretary Rumsfeld are willing to commit more men to the situation and pressure the Iraqi leaders to reach a political solution to domestic unrest. The only quagmire I see is the lovable womanizer named Glen Quagmire on the cartoon "Family Guy."
To be fair to Sen. Hagel, he did preface his remarks by saying that there were some important differences between the two wars (a line the mainstream media gleefully omits.) However, Hagel has frequently offered harsh diagnoses of the situation in Iraq.
Right-wing talk radio was quick to pounce on Hagel, with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity insinuating that Hagel's comments are designed to position himself for a 2008 presidential run. I don't think that the speculation and the attacks from talk radio commentators are justified.
I wouldn't criticize Hagel for what he said, but I would criticize him for what he failed to say. He didn't give supporting details for what he sees in Iraq that reminds him of Vietnam, nor did he flesh out the important differences. I see the biggest similarity as our inability to maintain a force in the enemy-infiltrated towns of north and western Iraq (due to our insufficient force levels.) Iraq's election should not necessarily be viewed as proof that we will prevail. South Vietnam had elections too--very corrupt elections that put Nguyen Van Thieu in charge.
Yet the end of the Vietnam war also holds a lesson for us. Turning the war over to the indigenous forces is the correct strategy, as long as it's done gradually. Support for the indigenous forces is also important, as the fall of Saigon in April 1975 can be linked to cuts in American aid to South Vietnam the year before. Americans should also know that peace will NOT prevail just because the US stops fighting. In the case of Vietnam, the people who supported us were murdered or "re-educated" by the Communists after the south fell.
Other American failures, like Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, indicate that the stakes in Iraq are even higher than in Vietnam. The use of terror tactics by Islamists against the US military resulted in political victories for the fanatics. Their small-scale successes emboldened them to launch even bigger terror attacks in the belief that they could break the will of "the great white satan."
Rush and Sean are correct when they criticize Hagel's timing for his remarks. When radical anti-war groups are gaining media exposure and sympathy, it is not wise to say things that will bolster their case. American withdrawal will lead to more attacks on the homeland and on the Iraqis--peace is a far cry from what will result. It is not too late for Iraq, as long as the president and Secretary Rumsfeld are willing to commit more men to the situation and pressure the Iraqi leaders to reach a political solution to domestic unrest. The only quagmire I see is the lovable womanizer named Glen Quagmire on the cartoon "Family Guy."
Sunday, August 21, 2005
An Anti-Terror Papacy?
Statements like this from Pope Benedict XVI give me some hope for the future of the Roman Catholic Church. One of my biggest complaints with John Paul II's papacy is that he spent far too much time criticizing U.S. policy and very little effort criticizing rogue states and terrorists.
The Catholic church's mission is to bring the Lord's peace into the world. It can never succeed in this mission if it ignores the starvation in North Korea or the Islamist and Baathist oppression in the middle east. Further, it has to recognize that fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat faced by Christianity today. Out of all nations, none have made the efforts to fight these oppressive forces like the United States has.
Back in the 1990's, we had the shameful situation where the Pope was repeating Iraqi propaganda about the starvation of its people, in ignorance of the protection to the rest of the world that came from sanctioning and containing a hostile Iraq. Unless the church can atone for its sins, it will lose its moral authority. It will make the mortal sin of emboldening rogue states and serve as an apologist for those who seek to do evil and destroy Christendom. We must hope that new leadership can reform a falterning church and turn it into a power for good in the age of sacred terror.
The Catholic church's mission is to bring the Lord's peace into the world. It can never succeed in this mission if it ignores the starvation in North Korea or the Islamist and Baathist oppression in the middle east. Further, it has to recognize that fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat faced by Christianity today. Out of all nations, none have made the efforts to fight these oppressive forces like the United States has.
Back in the 1990's, we had the shameful situation where the Pope was repeating Iraqi propaganda about the starvation of its people, in ignorance of the protection to the rest of the world that came from sanctioning and containing a hostile Iraq. Unless the church can atone for its sins, it will lose its moral authority. It will make the mortal sin of emboldening rogue states and serve as an apologist for those who seek to do evil and destroy Christendom. We must hope that new leadership can reform a falterning church and turn it into a power for good in the age of sacred terror.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
An Iraq Divided
Although Iraq's constitution is far from final, the hints emerging from Baghdad point to a disjointed Iraq that teeters on the verge of fissioning along ethnic and religious divisions.
I am a supporter of American federalism as allowed under the U.S. Constitution. The nation is a union of fifty individual states, with fifty elected legislatures who should have broad powers to pass laws reflecting the values of the individual state. Only the union of states will have the power to pass treaties and print currency.
The federalist concept embraced by Kurds and radical Shiites gives too much autonomy to large regions of Iraq. The concept of Iraqi unity is shattered and replaced with separate ethnic & religious identities. The Kurdish regions will apparently be treated as a single block instead of the three or so provinces with a Kurdish majority. Iraqis have much to learn about the way federalism should work. In the US, we learned the hard way. The nation began as independent colonies that grew together, united against the French and eventually the British. The nation's original plan of government, the Articles of Confederation, was doomed because it gave the states too many powers, like printing currency. The Constitution as originally written struck a harmonious balance between state and national authority. Perhaps Iraq's new constitution will be viewed as an "Articles of Confederation," hopefully guiding the country through this turbulent period until democratic ideals can truly take root.
At the same time, Iraqis are proposing a dual court system. Muslims will be judged according to the Sharia, while non-Muslims may choose to be judged by secular legal codes. Any move towards the Sharia should be seen as a step backwards for a society that had been run under a secular (though inherently unfair) legal code during Saddam's reign of terror. The bright side is that Iraq will be making some concessions towards non-Muslims. But one has to wonder whether this divided court system will further ostracize Iraq's Christians and other non-Muslims, or if the non-Muslim legal system will treat the non-Muslims fairly.
Before we invaded Iraq, I dismissed the warnings of people who claimed that Iraqi Shiites would want an Iranian-style government. The big difference between the two groups was the cultural divide between Arabs and Iranians. The Iraqis had also lived under a secularized society during the Saddam era. Unfortuantely, the secularization dictated by Saddam has made some Iraqi Shiites more zealous about legislating their faith on the rest of the country. We are drifting closer to the nightmare scenario where Saddam's Iraq has been replaced by "Iran-lite."
I am a supporter of American federalism as allowed under the U.S. Constitution. The nation is a union of fifty individual states, with fifty elected legislatures who should have broad powers to pass laws reflecting the values of the individual state. Only the union of states will have the power to pass treaties and print currency.
The federalist concept embraced by Kurds and radical Shiites gives too much autonomy to large regions of Iraq. The concept of Iraqi unity is shattered and replaced with separate ethnic & religious identities. The Kurdish regions will apparently be treated as a single block instead of the three or so provinces with a Kurdish majority. Iraqis have much to learn about the way federalism should work. In the US, we learned the hard way. The nation began as independent colonies that grew together, united against the French and eventually the British. The nation's original plan of government, the Articles of Confederation, was doomed because it gave the states too many powers, like printing currency. The Constitution as originally written struck a harmonious balance between state and national authority. Perhaps Iraq's new constitution will be viewed as an "Articles of Confederation," hopefully guiding the country through this turbulent period until democratic ideals can truly take root.
At the same time, Iraqis are proposing a dual court system. Muslims will be judged according to the Sharia, while non-Muslims may choose to be judged by secular legal codes. Any move towards the Sharia should be seen as a step backwards for a society that had been run under a secular (though inherently unfair) legal code during Saddam's reign of terror. The bright side is that Iraq will be making some concessions towards non-Muslims. But one has to wonder whether this divided court system will further ostracize Iraq's Christians and other non-Muslims, or if the non-Muslim legal system will treat the non-Muslims fairly.
Before we invaded Iraq, I dismissed the warnings of people who claimed that Iraqi Shiites would want an Iranian-style government. The big difference between the two groups was the cultural divide between Arabs and Iranians. The Iraqis had also lived under a secularized society during the Saddam era. Unfortuantely, the secularization dictated by Saddam has made some Iraqi Shiites more zealous about legislating their faith on the rest of the country. We are drifting closer to the nightmare scenario where Saddam's Iraq has been replaced by "Iran-lite."
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
In the hands of the enemy
I saw "The Great Raid" this past Friday. While watching the movie, I couldn't help but think about a person I knew who had gone through a similar experience during the Pacific war.
Tony didn't talk much about his past, but he opened up about his experiences as a Marine during World War II after a local newspaper printed a small article about his experiences. Tony was one of the Marines who was captured by the Japanese during the assault on Wake Island. He spent the remainder of the war as a prisoner of the Japanese. He talked candidly about seeing his friends beheaded, which was apparently Japan's way of instilling fear in their remaining captives. Tony painted the portrait of inhuman savagery.
At the time, I was shocked by his experiences. Even today I can't shake the images of what he must have endured, and I can't help but be impressed by Tony's unbreakable spirit which helped him survive Hell and return to his wife when the war ended.
Tony died nearly ten years ago, but I think that "The Great Raid" is the most fitting tribute I've seen to all of the brave souls who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during World War II. While most critics found the movie lacking in action, I thought that the buildup to the climax was paying its rightful dues to the iron characters of the prisoners, the civilians who aided them, and the soldiers who eventually rescued them.
The Hollywood trades are criticizing the Weinstein brothers for releasing "The Great Raid" after a delay of nearly three years, as the film finished 10th at the box office during its opening weekend. To lock a film like this in a vault for fiscal reasons is utter bullshit. This is a story America needs to see; money should be no object. "The Great Raid" is the best way we have of saying thanks to iron men like Tony, and will hopefully inspire similar bravery in all of us.
Tony didn't talk much about his past, but he opened up about his experiences as a Marine during World War II after a local newspaper printed a small article about his experiences. Tony was one of the Marines who was captured by the Japanese during the assault on Wake Island. He spent the remainder of the war as a prisoner of the Japanese. He talked candidly about seeing his friends beheaded, which was apparently Japan's way of instilling fear in their remaining captives. Tony painted the portrait of inhuman savagery.
At the time, I was shocked by his experiences. Even today I can't shake the images of what he must have endured, and I can't help but be impressed by Tony's unbreakable spirit which helped him survive Hell and return to his wife when the war ended.
Tony died nearly ten years ago, but I think that "The Great Raid" is the most fitting tribute I've seen to all of the brave souls who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during World War II. While most critics found the movie lacking in action, I thought that the buildup to the climax was paying its rightful dues to the iron characters of the prisoners, the civilians who aided them, and the soldiers who eventually rescued them.
The Hollywood trades are criticizing the Weinstein brothers for releasing "The Great Raid" after a delay of nearly three years, as the film finished 10th at the box office during its opening weekend. To lock a film like this in a vault for fiscal reasons is utter bullshit. This is a story America needs to see; money should be no object. "The Great Raid" is the best way we have of saying thanks to iron men like Tony, and will hopefully inspire similar bravery in all of us.
Good grief
There's much media overreaction to the Valerie Plame-Judith Miller-Karl Rove story and very little thoughtful discussion of what really happened.
Frankly, there is no need for further investigation of the Valerie Plame leak. Under the 1982 statute being investigated, Plame does not meet the definition of an undercover agent because she hadn't been on an undercover assignment in six years prior to Bob Novak's disclosure. Karl Rove's confirmation of the Plame-CIA rumor showed poor judgement on his part, but he wasn't breaking any law. Rove learned of Plame's identity from another reporter and did not use his White House connections to confirm it.
If a crime was committed, it should be Bob Novak's head on a platter. After all, he reported Valerie Plame's identity when most of the country was in the dark about her connections to Joe Wilson and Niger. Yet even Novak might be exonerated, because he apparently deduced Valerie Plame's identity by reading books like "Who's Who in America" and got lucky when he guessed it in the pages of his nationally-syndicated column.
Given the pettiness of the case, it was silly to prosecute Judith Miller for her silence. Then again, it was foolish of Miller to hold her tongue when her testimony would not have lead to anybody's prosecution. Freedom of the press should not be absolute, and reporters should not be allowed to shield anonymous sources if they are suspected of a crime. Perhaps the value in Judith Miller's jailing is that this message has been instilled in reporters.
The Valerie Plame case is an example of a non-story that was latched onto by the president's opponents and carried by a scandal-loving media. Democrats personally took aim at Karl Rove, who deserves the lion's share of the credit for President Bush's two elections. Yet it appears that Rove is nowhere as clever or sinister as Democrats fear. The Democratic party will have to look inside itself to see why they're not winning elections rather than placing the blame on Republicans.
Frankly, there is no need for further investigation of the Valerie Plame leak. Under the 1982 statute being investigated, Plame does not meet the definition of an undercover agent because she hadn't been on an undercover assignment in six years prior to Bob Novak's disclosure. Karl Rove's confirmation of the Plame-CIA rumor showed poor judgement on his part, but he wasn't breaking any law. Rove learned of Plame's identity from another reporter and did not use his White House connections to confirm it.
If a crime was committed, it should be Bob Novak's head on a platter. After all, he reported Valerie Plame's identity when most of the country was in the dark about her connections to Joe Wilson and Niger. Yet even Novak might be exonerated, because he apparently deduced Valerie Plame's identity by reading books like "Who's Who in America" and got lucky when he guessed it in the pages of his nationally-syndicated column.
Given the pettiness of the case, it was silly to prosecute Judith Miller for her silence. Then again, it was foolish of Miller to hold her tongue when her testimony would not have lead to anybody's prosecution. Freedom of the press should not be absolute, and reporters should not be allowed to shield anonymous sources if they are suspected of a crime. Perhaps the value in Judith Miller's jailing is that this message has been instilled in reporters.
The Valerie Plame case is an example of a non-story that was latched onto by the president's opponents and carried by a scandal-loving media. Democrats personally took aim at Karl Rove, who deserves the lion's share of the credit for President Bush's two elections. Yet it appears that Rove is nowhere as clever or sinister as Democrats fear. The Democratic party will have to look inside itself to see why they're not winning elections rather than placing the blame on Republicans.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Changes to the links
You may have noticed that I've tweaked the links section, and I will continue to mess around with it until I'm happy with the organization. There's a separate media section, and I hope to add a mil-blogs section soon.
Notice the addition of "Set America Free." This group's goal is to reduce American dependence on petroleum, particularly from foreign sources. There are many left-wing alternative energy groups out there, but "Set America Free" is unique in that it's run by prominent conservatives who have actual government experience. Check it out and become part of the solution. As Bill Maher (ugh) wrote, "When you ride alone, you ride with bin Laden."
Notice the addition of "Set America Free." This group's goal is to reduce American dependence on petroleum, particularly from foreign sources. There are many left-wing alternative energy groups out there, but "Set America Free" is unique in that it's run by prominent conservatives who have actual government experience. Check it out and become part of the solution. As Bill Maher (ugh) wrote, "When you ride alone, you ride with bin Laden."
Friday, August 12, 2005
Mars or Bust?
Today America embarked on its latest odyssey to Mars, launching the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The new probe will carry the sharpest camera ever taken to the red planet (which should hopefully find the lost Mars Polar Lander,) and a ground-penetrating radar.
The robots exploring Mars have taught us much, but the eventual arrival of humans will infinitely expand our knowledge of Mars. The question is whether the men of Mars get there sooner or later.
Five years ago, I started reading the works of Robert Zubrin and his Mars Society. I enthusiastically believed that humans could go to Mars in just ten years and $30 billion. After learning more, I have to conclude that while Zubrin may be right about getting humans to Mars, his plan doesn't have a good shot of getting the humans back alive.
The moon is needed as an intermediate step in our Mars program. It should not be viewed as a rest stop on the way to Mars, but it is a place where we can test equipment and operational techniques before we are ready for Mars. The moon may make some people (alas, not my generation) say "Been there, done that." But have we really "done" the moon? The Apollo missions only stayed for a few days at a time. That's a far cry from the 500 days that astronauts will spend on the Martian surface.
At least the moon can serve as a place where we can experiment with new life support systems, power generators, and other equipment. We can learn how to live on another world, performing experiments, conducting geology, pioneering first aid techniques, living in a reduced-gravity environment, and manufacturing things. The moon gives us experience and confidence that we can leverage to make our first Mars mission successful.
I would love to see humans on Mars in my lifetime, and plenty of other people (like Robert of Lime Shurbet) feel the same way. But I'd rather wait until our technologies are mature, so we can explore Mars the correct way instead of the fast and cheap way. If doing so means that I'd die before astronauts get to Mars, I'd rather die of age and let the astronauts travel safely instead of sending them recklessly to their death while I sit back and watch.
The robots exploring Mars have taught us much, but the eventual arrival of humans will infinitely expand our knowledge of Mars. The question is whether the men of Mars get there sooner or later.
Five years ago, I started reading the works of Robert Zubrin and his Mars Society. I enthusiastically believed that humans could go to Mars in just ten years and $30 billion. After learning more, I have to conclude that while Zubrin may be right about getting humans to Mars, his plan doesn't have a good shot of getting the humans back alive.
The moon is needed as an intermediate step in our Mars program. It should not be viewed as a rest stop on the way to Mars, but it is a place where we can test equipment and operational techniques before we are ready for Mars. The moon may make some people (alas, not my generation) say "Been there, done that." But have we really "done" the moon? The Apollo missions only stayed for a few days at a time. That's a far cry from the 500 days that astronauts will spend on the Martian surface.
At least the moon can serve as a place where we can experiment with new life support systems, power generators, and other equipment. We can learn how to live on another world, performing experiments, conducting geology, pioneering first aid techniques, living in a reduced-gravity environment, and manufacturing things. The moon gives us experience and confidence that we can leverage to make our first Mars mission successful.
I would love to see humans on Mars in my lifetime, and plenty of other people (like Robert of Lime Shurbet) feel the same way. But I'd rather wait until our technologies are mature, so we can explore Mars the correct way instead of the fast and cheap way. If doing so means that I'd die before astronauts get to Mars, I'd rather die of age and let the astronauts travel safely instead of sending them recklessly to their death while I sit back and watch.
War is a Bitch
Fox News is reminding us of the brave men who took back Fallujah and taking time to reflect on the heroes we lost. Don't miss it.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
A Cry for the Fallen
Although Cindy Sheehan and her radical supporters continue to tarnish the memory of Spec. Casey Sheehan by protesting in front of the Western White House, the rest of Spec. Sheehan's family issued a statement, trying to give him some quiet dignity.
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Let this serve as a message to Michael Moore, Michael Moore's 500-pound ass, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and everybody else who has disgustingly manipulated Mrs. Sheehan. Quit exploiting the memory of a brave young man for your partisan gain.
(With thanks to Matt Drudge for originally reporting this.)
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Let this serve as a message to Michael Moore, Michael Moore's 500-pound ass, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and everybody else who has disgustingly manipulated Mrs. Sheehan. Quit exploiting the memory of a brave young man for your partisan gain.
(With thanks to Matt Drudge for originally reporting this.)
Able Danger
When the US first started to recover from the shock of 9/11 and unfortunately lost the euphoria of American unity, the blame game began in regards to the terrorist attacks. For the Democrats, the question was “What did Bush know, and when did he know it?” For Republicans, the question is whether the Clinton administration ever had a coherent policy regarding Osama bin Laden, and why nothing more than a few misdirected cruise missile strikes were sent after him.
Many people have speculated that the hijackings could have been prevented. The FBI and CIA had some suspicions about a few of the hijackers, but up until now I felt that the attacks would have proceeded in some form, even if the FBI acted decisively when they had the chance.
Revelations by Rep. Curt Weldon now make me reconsider the preventability of 9/11. He claims that a covert military intelligence unit, Able Danger, determined that terrorist ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were members of an al Qaeda cell back in 1999. A year before the attack, they tried to pass this info to the FBI, but were rebuffed by Pentagon lawyers. Because Atta and co. were legal immigrants, these lawyers did not want to spy on them.
The 9/11 commission made a huge error in ignoring when the attacks were originally planned--back in 1994, as Ramzi Yousef’s “Operation Bojinka.” Although Yousef was captured in 1995, his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to develop the plan into what we saw on 9/11. Between this time and late 1999, the best opportunity to stop the attacks was to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There were several attempts to do so, but they were all unsuccessful.
In late 1999, a summit was held in Indonesia amongst high-level al Qaeda operators to put the plan in motion. (One of these terrorists may have been a member of Iraq’s Fedayeen Saddam, a fact withheld from the 9/11 commission.) After the plan was put in motion, the only way to stop it would involve the arrest of the four hijackers who were training to fly the hijacked jets into their targets. Of the other 16 terrorists (15 of whom succeeded into making it into the country,) they merely provided muscle and could have been easily replaced if they were caught.
Until now, I believed that we were totally in the dark about the identities of the four pilot hijackers until the dastardly deeds were done. I was wrong. Able Danger was the only group of people who had the info that could have saved America. And a massive federal bureaucracy, tied down by the straps of political correctness, prevented them from doing their jobs.
That last fact is not lost on liberal Democrats, some of whom are in full damage-control mode. They’re assaulting the military for conducting domestic surveillance. They’re accusing the Bush administration of withholding this info from the 9/11 commissioners (which appears to be untrue, seeing as how members of Able Danger spoke to staffers from the commission on two different occasions.) None of this diversion of blame changes the fact that Able Danger was prevented from action when they could have prevented us from the worst act of war on American soil.
If I were a member of Able Danger, what would I have done in that predicament? Would I have let it fly, hoping that these Islamists were benign? Would I have gone vigilante and busted a cap in their bitch-asses? Perhaps there will be a day in our lifetimes when the members of Able Danger will be free to speak about what they knew and how they really felt.
All that was required for evil to triumph on that day was for good men to do nothing.
Many people have speculated that the hijackings could have been prevented. The FBI and CIA had some suspicions about a few of the hijackers, but up until now I felt that the attacks would have proceeded in some form, even if the FBI acted decisively when they had the chance.
Revelations by Rep. Curt Weldon now make me reconsider the preventability of 9/11. He claims that a covert military intelligence unit, Able Danger, determined that terrorist ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were members of an al Qaeda cell back in 1999. A year before the attack, they tried to pass this info to the FBI, but were rebuffed by Pentagon lawyers. Because Atta and co. were legal immigrants, these lawyers did not want to spy on them.
The 9/11 commission made a huge error in ignoring when the attacks were originally planned--back in 1994, as Ramzi Yousef’s “Operation Bojinka.” Although Yousef was captured in 1995, his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to develop the plan into what we saw on 9/11. Between this time and late 1999, the best opportunity to stop the attacks was to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There were several attempts to do so, but they were all unsuccessful.
In late 1999, a summit was held in Indonesia amongst high-level al Qaeda operators to put the plan in motion. (One of these terrorists may have been a member of Iraq’s Fedayeen Saddam, a fact withheld from the 9/11 commission.) After the plan was put in motion, the only way to stop it would involve the arrest of the four hijackers who were training to fly the hijacked jets into their targets. Of the other 16 terrorists (15 of whom succeeded into making it into the country,) they merely provided muscle and could have been easily replaced if they were caught.
Until now, I believed that we were totally in the dark about the identities of the four pilot hijackers until the dastardly deeds were done. I was wrong. Able Danger was the only group of people who had the info that could have saved America. And a massive federal bureaucracy, tied down by the straps of political correctness, prevented them from doing their jobs.
That last fact is not lost on liberal Democrats, some of whom are in full damage-control mode. They’re assaulting the military for conducting domestic surveillance. They’re accusing the Bush administration of withholding this info from the 9/11 commissioners (which appears to be untrue, seeing as how members of Able Danger spoke to staffers from the commission on two different occasions.) None of this diversion of blame changes the fact that Able Danger was prevented from action when they could have prevented us from the worst act of war on American soil.
If I were a member of Able Danger, what would I have done in that predicament? Would I have let it fly, hoping that these Islamists were benign? Would I have gone vigilante and busted a cap in their bitch-asses? Perhaps there will be a day in our lifetimes when the members of Able Danger will be free to speak about what they knew and how they really felt.
All that was required for evil to triumph on that day was for good men to do nothing.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
We can never go back--to $2.00 gas
The gas price jumped nine cents per gallon today, which was not surprising given the $65 per barrel that crude oil is going for. The sad part is that, while the gas price will certainly fluctuate, the days of paying less than $2.00 per gallon are over, and prices exceeding $3.00 per gallon will become commonplace.
No single factor can totally explain the price increases. Highest on my list, however, is the "terror premium" and the oil speculators. Crude prices are being artificially inflated out of fears that terror in the middle east will threaten the oil supply. There is some legitimacy to this argument (sabotage against Iraqi pipelines,) but it should also be remembered that Iraq was under sanctions back when crude was under $40 per gallon.
For a liberal conspiracy theorist, claiming that invading Iraq was about oil is a win-win situation. You can argue that it was about getting more oil from Iraq (a dubious proposition, after comparing pre-war Iraqi oil exports to the amount that can be pumped without sabotage today,) or you can claim that it was about making "big oil" richer. It would be interesting to see which oil speculators have gotten rich over the past two years. If any of them have ever shaken hands with President Bush, Michael Moore will start jumping for joy (causing massive earthquake damage in his hometown of Davison, Michigan.)
Another major factor is that demand will always rise while supply will always fall. China and India are consuming more gas as their quality of life continues to improve. The earth's finite oil reserves will start running dry. In the absence of bio diesel or an alternate fuel (I'm excluding hydrogen because I'm not convinced of its viability for mass distribution,) mankind will continue slurping up petroleum at an ever-increasing rate.
Perhaps it will be a sense of schadenfreude that will cause me to gloat if Hawaii experiences fuel shortages. The state just approved price caps on gasoline, accusing the industry of price gouging. Perhaps they should consider the fact that fuel, like many other products, has to be shipped to Hawaii from the continental US and thus costs more.
The gouging is taking place on OPEC's end of the deal, as crude prices continue to rise as a result of excessive speculation. If we want to prevent gouging on the refining and distribution end of the fuel production process, perhaps we should ease the regulations that have prevented a new refinery from being built in over thrity years. America's shrinking refining capacity will eventually become a bottleneck that will further restrict the supply of fuel and drive the price up--but it's premature to say that this is an immediate problem.
Short-term relief could come if the president opens up the strategic oil reserve, just as President Clinton did when Al Gore was running for president. This would be the height of hypocrisy for George W. Bush, seeing as how he denounced this tactic back in 2000. Such a move would be political paydirt for the president (people are happy when you give them cheap fuel,) but it would be foolish in the long term as America comes to grips with a dwindling oil supply. History has shown that George W. Bush would rather do what he believes is right instead of what's popular.
The best advice I can give people is to lower their expectations and accept the fact that gas prices will show a long-term rise. That, and invest in a well-built compact car.
No single factor can totally explain the price increases. Highest on my list, however, is the "terror premium" and the oil speculators. Crude prices are being artificially inflated out of fears that terror in the middle east will threaten the oil supply. There is some legitimacy to this argument (sabotage against Iraqi pipelines,) but it should also be remembered that Iraq was under sanctions back when crude was under $40 per gallon.
For a liberal conspiracy theorist, claiming that invading Iraq was about oil is a win-win situation. You can argue that it was about getting more oil from Iraq (a dubious proposition, after comparing pre-war Iraqi oil exports to the amount that can be pumped without sabotage today,) or you can claim that it was about making "big oil" richer. It would be interesting to see which oil speculators have gotten rich over the past two years. If any of them have ever shaken hands with President Bush, Michael Moore will start jumping for joy (causing massive earthquake damage in his hometown of Davison, Michigan.)
Another major factor is that demand will always rise while supply will always fall. China and India are consuming more gas as their quality of life continues to improve. The earth's finite oil reserves will start running dry. In the absence of bio diesel or an alternate fuel (I'm excluding hydrogen because I'm not convinced of its viability for mass distribution,) mankind will continue slurping up petroleum at an ever-increasing rate.
Perhaps it will be a sense of schadenfreude that will cause me to gloat if Hawaii experiences fuel shortages. The state just approved price caps on gasoline, accusing the industry of price gouging. Perhaps they should consider the fact that fuel, like many other products, has to be shipped to Hawaii from the continental US and thus costs more.
The gouging is taking place on OPEC's end of the deal, as crude prices continue to rise as a result of excessive speculation. If we want to prevent gouging on the refining and distribution end of the fuel production process, perhaps we should ease the regulations that have prevented a new refinery from being built in over thrity years. America's shrinking refining capacity will eventually become a bottleneck that will further restrict the supply of fuel and drive the price up--but it's premature to say that this is an immediate problem.
Short-term relief could come if the president opens up the strategic oil reserve, just as President Clinton did when Al Gore was running for president. This would be the height of hypocrisy for George W. Bush, seeing as how he denounced this tactic back in 2000. Such a move would be political paydirt for the president (people are happy when you give them cheap fuel,) but it would be foolish in the long term as America comes to grips with a dwindling oil supply. History has shown that George W. Bush would rather do what he believes is right instead of what's popular.
The best advice I can give people is to lower their expectations and accept the fact that gas prices will show a long-term rise. That, and invest in a well-built compact car.
Left-wing extremists v. Roberts
The recent spate of attacks against future Supreme Court justice John Roberts have been among the most disgusting political shenanigans I have witnessed in quite some time. Nevertheless, the joke is on the left-wing extremists who oppose John Roberts. He will be easily confirmed, with perhaps 70 votes or more in the Senate.
The New York Times thinks that it's legitimate to pry into the Roberts family's adoption records, looking for any improprieties. Adoption is the most loving thing that two people can do for a child, and the New York Times has to tarnish it.
Of course, a double standard exists amongst the nation's newspapers regarding the confidential records of public figures. For the Times, John Roberts's adoption records are fair game. For the equally-disgusting Chicago Tribune, the divorce records of Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan are legitimate quarry--especially if they contain tawdry allegations about taking his wife to Paris sex clubs.
At no point in the 2004 campaign were John Kerry's divorce records an issue. It would have been inappropriate, as the records don't reveal anything that Americans need to know about him. Kerry's military records, on the other hand, are something that America deserved to see. Kerry's four months in Vietnam became a centerpiece of his campaign. Americans had a right to know if Kerry was dishonorably discharged for his anti-war protests while still a member of the U.S. Navy. Of course, the media never bothered to look into Kerry's discharge.
More troubling than the Roberts adoption investigation is a recent advertisement by the National Abortion Rights Action League, now playing on CNN and other stations. The message from the commercial is clear: John Roberts is a murderer who blows up abortion clinics. If you disagree with NARAL, you are the great white satan.
Despite the smear attacks by the extreme left, John Roberts will be easily confirmed. He's seen as a conservative by most conservatives, but his work for gay rights and the homeless has won him the respect of moderate Democrats. He's independent and thoughtful enough to win people's respect. He's also avoided controversial issues and avoided making a name for himself, so the opposition to him is not as widespread.
Still, I can't shake the suspicion that John Roberts will be another David Souter. My fear stems from a May 2003 ruling where he said that prisoners of war from Operation Desert Storm could not sue to recover damages from Saddam Hussein's frozen assets. With the Supreme Court facing major decisions on whether civil or military justice should be applied to war criminals, his ruling tells me that he may be going wobbly in the area where he needs to be strongest.
The New York Times thinks that it's legitimate to pry into the Roberts family's adoption records, looking for any improprieties. Adoption is the most loving thing that two people can do for a child, and the New York Times has to tarnish it.
Of course, a double standard exists amongst the nation's newspapers regarding the confidential records of public figures. For the Times, John Roberts's adoption records are fair game. For the equally-disgusting Chicago Tribune, the divorce records of Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan are legitimate quarry--especially if they contain tawdry allegations about taking his wife to Paris sex clubs.
At no point in the 2004 campaign were John Kerry's divorce records an issue. It would have been inappropriate, as the records don't reveal anything that Americans need to know about him. Kerry's military records, on the other hand, are something that America deserved to see. Kerry's four months in Vietnam became a centerpiece of his campaign. Americans had a right to know if Kerry was dishonorably discharged for his anti-war protests while still a member of the U.S. Navy. Of course, the media never bothered to look into Kerry's discharge.
More troubling than the Roberts adoption investigation is a recent advertisement by the National Abortion Rights Action League, now playing on CNN and other stations. The message from the commercial is clear: John Roberts is a murderer who blows up abortion clinics. If you disagree with NARAL, you are the great white satan.
Despite the smear attacks by the extreme left, John Roberts will be easily confirmed. He's seen as a conservative by most conservatives, but his work for gay rights and the homeless has won him the respect of moderate Democrats. He's independent and thoughtful enough to win people's respect. He's also avoided controversial issues and avoided making a name for himself, so the opposition to him is not as widespread.
Still, I can't shake the suspicion that John Roberts will be another David Souter. My fear stems from a May 2003 ruling where he said that prisoners of war from Operation Desert Storm could not sue to recover damages from Saddam Hussein's frozen assets. With the Supreme Court facing major decisions on whether civil or military justice should be applied to war criminals, his ruling tells me that he may be going wobbly in the area where he needs to be strongest.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Dodging Armageddon
As of today, the world can say that sixty years have elapsed without a nuclear weapon being used in anger. The very thought that we could last sixty years without resorting to nuclear weapons would have surprised most people living in the 1950's and early 1960's.
Regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it can truly be said that the world's most horrible weapon was used to end the world's most horrible war. The bombing takes on new light with the revelations of historian Richard B. Frank in this week's "Weekly Standard." Not only would an American invasion of Japan been costly, but it may have been a disaster for the US had we proceeded. Moreover, Japan could not be persuaded to a peace that would not preserve the Japanese militarists and the empire. Perhaps a lengthy naval blockade and bombardment could have defeated Japan, at the cost of millions of people killed in Japan's continued occupation of China and Indochina. The essay gives me even more respect for Truman and makes me lose more respect for Douglas MacArthur.
Today the spectre of nuclear holocaust is not cast by imperial Japan or Soviet Russia, but by militant Islam. The new nuclear enemy has no defined territory to retaliate against, and no political agenda should it crush "the great white satan." It is a human plague, existing only to create destruction and misery. With nuclear weapons in Pakistan, nuclear programs in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the risk of Russian weapons being sold on the black market, the world is a more fearsome place now than at any point in the 20th century.
Regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it can truly be said that the world's most horrible weapon was used to end the world's most horrible war. The bombing takes on new light with the revelations of historian Richard B. Frank in this week's "Weekly Standard." Not only would an American invasion of Japan been costly, but it may have been a disaster for the US had we proceeded. Moreover, Japan could not be persuaded to a peace that would not preserve the Japanese militarists and the empire. Perhaps a lengthy naval blockade and bombardment could have defeated Japan, at the cost of millions of people killed in Japan's continued occupation of China and Indochina. The essay gives me even more respect for Truman and makes me lose more respect for Douglas MacArthur.
Today the spectre of nuclear holocaust is not cast by imperial Japan or Soviet Russia, but by militant Islam. The new nuclear enemy has no defined territory to retaliate against, and no political agenda should it crush "the great white satan." It is a human plague, existing only to create destruction and misery. With nuclear weapons in Pakistan, nuclear programs in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the risk of Russian weapons being sold on the black market, the world is a more fearsome place now than at any point in the 20th century.
Monday, August 08, 2005
A Mother's Pain, A Hippie's Gain
Matt Drudge will never be taken seriously by the mainstream media, but that will never stop him from doing research and asking questions that the mainstream media will not.
This weekend, the media found a new celebrity: the mother of a slain soldier who is protesting outside the president's "Western White House" in Crawford, TX. Yet Matt Drudge has exposed the praise that she gave to the president a year ago when he personally met with her.
Some of her contradictory feelings between May 2004 and now can be reconciled. The death of a loved one in such a fashion always brings out the full spectrum of emotion. I do not have a child, nor have I ever lost a child, so I cannot possibly judge what this woman has gone through.
Yet it's impossible to say that she's totally consistent. She portrays him as a saint in May 2004, but she thinks he's an unfeeling monster in August 2005. I suspect that the anti-war movement has taken advantage of this woman's suffering and turned her into a pawn of the pro-Baathist, pro-jihad movement. I wish I could say that was the cruelest thing the anti-war movement has done. Yet looking at the shameful way that Vietnam veterans were treated when they came home, the manipulation of Mrs. Sheehan is just the tip of the iceberg.
It hurts to hear Mrs. Sheehan talk about how "George W. Bush killed my son." It takes away from what really happened to Specialist Casey Sheehan: he was killed by Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army while rushing to the rescue of fellow soldiers. If we listen to the advice of Mrs. Sheehan, her son's murderers will control Iraq and rule it with Iranian-style savagery.
For all those who wish to learn more about Specialist Casey Sheehan and honor his memory without resorting to partisan bullshit, I suggest you visit the Military City website.
This weekend, the media found a new celebrity: the mother of a slain soldier who is protesting outside the president's "Western White House" in Crawford, TX. Yet Matt Drudge has exposed the praise that she gave to the president a year ago when he personally met with her.
Some of her contradictory feelings between May 2004 and now can be reconciled. The death of a loved one in such a fashion always brings out the full spectrum of emotion. I do not have a child, nor have I ever lost a child, so I cannot possibly judge what this woman has gone through.
Yet it's impossible to say that she's totally consistent. She portrays him as a saint in May 2004, but she thinks he's an unfeeling monster in August 2005. I suspect that the anti-war movement has taken advantage of this woman's suffering and turned her into a pawn of the pro-Baathist, pro-jihad movement. I wish I could say that was the cruelest thing the anti-war movement has done. Yet looking at the shameful way that Vietnam veterans were treated when they came home, the manipulation of Mrs. Sheehan is just the tip of the iceberg.
It hurts to hear Mrs. Sheehan talk about how "George W. Bush killed my son." It takes away from what really happened to Specialist Casey Sheehan: he was killed by Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army while rushing to the rescue of fellow soldiers. If we listen to the advice of Mrs. Sheehan, her son's murderers will control Iraq and rule it with Iranian-style savagery.
For all those who wish to learn more about Specialist Casey Sheehan and honor his memory without resorting to partisan bullshit, I suggest you visit the Military City website.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Signing Off
Peter Jennings, host of ABC World News Tonight, has died. Tonight's news came shockingly and unexpectedly, seeing as how Jennings announced his lung cancer diagnosis just a few months ago.
Jennings and I rarely saw eye-to-eye on the issues. I was often critical of the slanted way in which he chose to deliver the news. Then again, I never cared very much for the disemboweled version of the news that is presented in primetime by the broatcast networks. Yet now is still a time for sadness, not the gloating that I reserve for the deaths of murderers and tyrants like King Fahd or the sons of Saddam Hussein. Frankly, Jennings wasn't that bad. At least he was never as bad as Dan Rather.
May Peter Jennings find his eternal peace, and may those he left behind in the industry recommit themselves to factual reporting and integrity.
Jennings and I rarely saw eye-to-eye on the issues. I was often critical of the slanted way in which he chose to deliver the news. Then again, I never cared very much for the disemboweled version of the news that is presented in primetime by the broatcast networks. Yet now is still a time for sadness, not the gloating that I reserve for the deaths of murderers and tyrants like King Fahd or the sons of Saddam Hussein. Frankly, Jennings wasn't that bad. At least he was never as bad as Dan Rather.
May Peter Jennings find his eternal peace, and may those he left behind in the industry recommit themselves to factual reporting and integrity.
The Challenge of Arab-Islamic Democracy
I used to be an optimist who believed that all people and all cultures were capable of responsible self-government, if the conditions were right. Such reasoning led me to believe that post-war Iraq could be peaceful and democratic, and that all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups would tolerate each other. The events of the past two years have dashed this world view and made me reconsider if Iraq can ever be a model for middle eastern governance.
The news coming from the Iraqi constitutional committee is not encouraging. If the constitutional government strictly adheres to the sharia (Islamic law) and the Koran, the fundamental rights of many Iraqis will be lost. Women will lose their basic rights, and the religious freedoms of Iraqi minorities (particularly the Christians) will be curtailed. Further, the emergence of strong militias only strengthens the chances of sectarian violence.
Perhaps I should study the Koran more before making these judgements. From what I do know, the Koran does not specifically call for women to wear head garments or burquas or abayas. My understanding is that Arab cultural norms regarding women have led to this strict interpretation of the Koran.
The region's greatest hope for a model democracy is Turkey. The Turks have had their democracy in place since the 1920's (albeit with military juntas during that span of time.) Currently, the Turks are trying to emphasize more liberal interpretations of Islam, and they are trying to show the Europeans that they are a strong nation worthy of EU membership. Still, Turkey faces big challenges, not the least of which is the Kurdish separatist movement. Further, the Arabs will be reluctant to adopt the ways of the Turks, given the vast cultural gap between the two groups.
The model for religious tolerance and freedom in the region is northern Lebanon, where Christians and Sunni Muslims have learned to live in peace since the end of that country's civil war. Lebanon as a whole is far from being a model society, as the fearsome Hezbollah militia controls the southern half of the country under the iron fist of Shiite fundamentalist laws.
If there is any hope for political reform in the middle east, it will have to wait for more liberal Islamic teachings to replace fundamentalism. The people will also have to make their tribal loyalties subordinate to their sense of nationalism.
If Iraq's emergine government can survive the Baathist-jihadist onslaught, I do not feel that it will be a truly liberal democracy. It will be an illiberal democracy for some time to come as it gathers momentum and the conditions emerge for truly responsive government.
Should this scenario comes to pass, it should be viewed as a natural outcome of the circumstances under which the government was created. After all, the Phillipines went through a period of American occupation and anti-occupation insurgency. It was also raped by the Japanese during World War II. The government that emerged was not a liberal democracy, but it went through a reform process beginning with the election of Corazon Aquino.
The battle for the soul of Iraq has valid parallels with prior military-political struggles, including Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the Phillipines, and Vietnam. Americans should hope for (and work towards) a Phillipine-type resolution, with the religious coexistence we see in northern Lebanon. Otherwise, the illiberal government will collapse as Nguyen van Thieu's government in South Vietnam did. In spite of the hopes of Americans, we should not raise our expectations too high.
The news coming from the Iraqi constitutional committee is not encouraging. If the constitutional government strictly adheres to the sharia (Islamic law) and the Koran, the fundamental rights of many Iraqis will be lost. Women will lose their basic rights, and the religious freedoms of Iraqi minorities (particularly the Christians) will be curtailed. Further, the emergence of strong militias only strengthens the chances of sectarian violence.
Perhaps I should study the Koran more before making these judgements. From what I do know, the Koran does not specifically call for women to wear head garments or burquas or abayas. My understanding is that Arab cultural norms regarding women have led to this strict interpretation of the Koran.
The region's greatest hope for a model democracy is Turkey. The Turks have had their democracy in place since the 1920's (albeit with military juntas during that span of time.) Currently, the Turks are trying to emphasize more liberal interpretations of Islam, and they are trying to show the Europeans that they are a strong nation worthy of EU membership. Still, Turkey faces big challenges, not the least of which is the Kurdish separatist movement. Further, the Arabs will be reluctant to adopt the ways of the Turks, given the vast cultural gap between the two groups.
The model for religious tolerance and freedom in the region is northern Lebanon, where Christians and Sunni Muslims have learned to live in peace since the end of that country's civil war. Lebanon as a whole is far from being a model society, as the fearsome Hezbollah militia controls the southern half of the country under the iron fist of Shiite fundamentalist laws.
If there is any hope for political reform in the middle east, it will have to wait for more liberal Islamic teachings to replace fundamentalism. The people will also have to make their tribal loyalties subordinate to their sense of nationalism.
If Iraq's emergine government can survive the Baathist-jihadist onslaught, I do not feel that it will be a truly liberal democracy. It will be an illiberal democracy for some time to come as it gathers momentum and the conditions emerge for truly responsive government.
Should this scenario comes to pass, it should be viewed as a natural outcome of the circumstances under which the government was created. After all, the Phillipines went through a period of American occupation and anti-occupation insurgency. It was also raped by the Japanese during World War II. The government that emerged was not a liberal democracy, but it went through a reform process beginning with the election of Corazon Aquino.
The battle for the soul of Iraq has valid parallels with prior military-political struggles, including Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the Phillipines, and Vietnam. Americans should hope for (and work towards) a Phillipine-type resolution, with the religious coexistence we see in northern Lebanon. Otherwise, the illiberal government will collapse as Nguyen van Thieu's government in South Vietnam did. In spite of the hopes of Americans, we should not raise our expectations too high.
Kursk Vindicated
The feel-good story of the summer is the rescue of seven Russian sailors from an AS-28 mini-sub that was ensnared in 625 feet of water. With the rescue occurring less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the Kursk sinking, I think that the model of international cooperation we just witnessed was a vindication of the Kursk's doomed crew. They did not die in vain, as their sacrifice undermined the foolish pride of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Of Kursk's 118-man crew, the lucky ones were the sailors who died during the torpedo-room explosions that sank Kursk. Yet 23 men survived in the aft comparments, surviving perhaps for days. Death was slow and agonizing; perhaps they asphyxiated, or mayeb their compartments flooded.
The Russian navy struggled for days to dock with the sub via diving bells, in spite of strong ocean currents. The initial refusal of help, in the form of the US Navy's Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles, was critical. Eventally Russia broke down and asked the Norwegian navy for divers. When the Norwegians opened the boat's hatches a week after it sank, all hope was lost-- the boat was totally flooded.
In stark contrast, the United States and United Kingdom came to the rescue of the AS-28 and its crew was spared the agonizing fate of the Kursk survivors. The rescue was reminiscent of the 2002 Pennsylvania miners, who held out after the media pundits had declared them dead.
Although most of the world believes that America is the great white satan, America's generous actions have shown otherwise, particularly in the recent sub rescue. We assisted a nation that had undermined our containment policy on Iraq for a decade, then refused to help us stabilize the country. I think that some repayment for the favor is in order.
Of Kursk's 118-man crew, the lucky ones were the sailors who died during the torpedo-room explosions that sank Kursk. Yet 23 men survived in the aft comparments, surviving perhaps for days. Death was slow and agonizing; perhaps they asphyxiated, or mayeb their compartments flooded.
The Russian navy struggled for days to dock with the sub via diving bells, in spite of strong ocean currents. The initial refusal of help, in the form of the US Navy's Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles, was critical. Eventally Russia broke down and asked the Norwegian navy for divers. When the Norwegians opened the boat's hatches a week after it sank, all hope was lost-- the boat was totally flooded.
In stark contrast, the United States and United Kingdom came to the rescue of the AS-28 and its crew was spared the agonizing fate of the Kursk survivors. The rescue was reminiscent of the 2002 Pennsylvania miners, who held out after the media pundits had declared them dead.
Although most of the world believes that America is the great white satan, America's generous actions have shown otherwise, particularly in the recent sub rescue. We assisted a nation that had undermined our containment policy on Iraq for a decade, then refused to help us stabilize the country. I think that some repayment for the favor is in order.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Best Buy isn't a Burger King
If you go to Burger King, customers have the option of substituting onion rings for fries. At Blake's Lotaburger (a New Mexico burger chain that's quite tasty,) customers can get a milkshake instead of a drink when ordering a value meal.
At Best Buy, computer package deals aren't like fast-food value meals. They're more like "screw the customer meals." Case in point: I wanted to buy a computer package (after the original PC I wanted was sold out.) However, In order to get one of the package's many rebates (one worth $150,) I had to buy a particular printer. Alas, the printer in question was not being stocked at the local Best Buy (aka Worst Buy,) so I could not get the initial rebate. The store couldn't or wouldn't make the substitution of a differerent printer, so I couldn't get the package for the advertised price.
When shopping for computers at Best Buy, be warned that every shifty salesman is going to want you to buy the extended service plans and the anti-virus software. Don't get suckered in. The extended service plans are pure profit, because the probability of your hardware failing during the extended period is low. As for the anti-virus software, there's plenty of free stuff out there, and you can always pirate the good stuff.
Disgusted, I walked out of Best Buy. I felt most sorry for the sales associate, who made every effort to get me the package I wanted. It was also her last day of work before going back to college. There's hope that in the lower echelons of the big retailers, there are still people who care about helping the customers.
Still, I remain disgusted about the customer-unfriendly policies of Best Buy, like the inflexible packages, merchandise going out of stock, and rebates galore (that most consumers never apply for.) The message I send to the Best Buy corporate management is clear: eat shit and burn in hell.
At Best Buy, computer package deals aren't like fast-food value meals. They're more like "screw the customer meals." Case in point: I wanted to buy a computer package (after the original PC I wanted was sold out.) However, In order to get one of the package's many rebates (one worth $150,) I had to buy a particular printer. Alas, the printer in question was not being stocked at the local Best Buy (aka Worst Buy,) so I could not get the initial rebate. The store couldn't or wouldn't make the substitution of a differerent printer, so I couldn't get the package for the advertised price.
When shopping for computers at Best Buy, be warned that every shifty salesman is going to want you to buy the extended service plans and the anti-virus software. Don't get suckered in. The extended service plans are pure profit, because the probability of your hardware failing during the extended period is low. As for the anti-virus software, there's plenty of free stuff out there, and you can always pirate the good stuff.
Disgusted, I walked out of Best Buy. I felt most sorry for the sales associate, who made every effort to get me the package I wanted. It was also her last day of work before going back to college. There's hope that in the lower echelons of the big retailers, there are still people who care about helping the customers.
Still, I remain disgusted about the customer-unfriendly policies of Best Buy, like the inflexible packages, merchandise going out of stock, and rebates galore (that most consumers never apply for.) The message I send to the Best Buy corporate management is clear: eat shit and burn in hell.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Hack It
If this world had any sanity left in it, we'd be focusing on the winner of an election instead of the loser. Yet Marine Corps reservist Paul Hackett is treating his loss to Jean Schmidt as a pyrrhic victory.
Democrats make a big deal of the fact that Hackett won 48% of the vote in a very conservative district. Yet I think that stems from the fact that he is an Iraq veteran, and I think that pro-military voters may have left the conservative block just to put a vet in Congress. If any other Democrat had run for that seat, he or she would have been flattened.
Really I wish there were more Democrats like Hackett who actually had military experience and knew what the needs of our fighting men and women were. Hackett initially seemed like a pragmatic Democrat, attacking our reasons for going to war but rejecting premature withdrawals and timetables.
Hackett lost my support when he ventured into the politics of extremism. Rhetoric like "George Bush is the greatest threat to America" is pure moonbattery. He accused the president of encouraging the enemy with bellicose statements like "bring 'em on." Fair enough, but what does he think about Teddy Kennedy's "This war is a lie cooked up in Texas" and all of the calls for withdrawal by Democrats and other leftists? Does Paul Hackett have any intellectual honesty?
Although many great leaders have worn the uniform, the uniform doesn't always make for a good leader. Hiding behind the camoflauged battle dress uniform doesn't shield us from partisan hypocrisy.
Democrats make a big deal of the fact that Hackett won 48% of the vote in a very conservative district. Yet I think that stems from the fact that he is an Iraq veteran, and I think that pro-military voters may have left the conservative block just to put a vet in Congress. If any other Democrat had run for that seat, he or she would have been flattened.
Really I wish there were more Democrats like Hackett who actually had military experience and knew what the needs of our fighting men and women were. Hackett initially seemed like a pragmatic Democrat, attacking our reasons for going to war but rejecting premature withdrawals and timetables.
Hackett lost my support when he ventured into the politics of extremism. Rhetoric like "George Bush is the greatest threat to America" is pure moonbattery. He accused the president of encouraging the enemy with bellicose statements like "bring 'em on." Fair enough, but what does he think about Teddy Kennedy's "This war is a lie cooked up in Texas" and all of the calls for withdrawal by Democrats and other leftists? Does Paul Hackett have any intellectual honesty?
Although many great leaders have worn the uniform, the uniform doesn't always make for a good leader. Hiding behind the camoflauged battle dress uniform doesn't shield us from partisan hypocrisy.
Here's to you, Stephen Robinson
NASA used to be an agency that inspired people. When John Glenn was strapped to an Atlas missile and orbited the earth as only a Soviet had done before, the American people dropped everything to watch. When Neil and Buzz walked on the moon, the world stopped. When Apollo 13 hobbled home and when Skylab was courageously fixed, people were still in awe.
The NASA of old captured the public's attention because it did things that were thought impossible and it made them look easy. If NASA could put a man on the moon, imagine what great things we can accomplish on an individual basis.
The agency took a big step backwards when Challenger was lost and the very reputation of the nation was damaged. By the time Columbia was lost, the agency had no reputation left to lose.
Today, the agency achieved a first in the 24-year history of the space shuttle program: an astronaut walked under the nose of the space shuttle to repair the heat shield. It's not a giant leap for mankind like Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon, but it's a leap forward for a space program that has revolved around "acceptable risk." The agency is taking appropriate steps to deal with the problems in an unsafe design and make it as safe as possible.
It will take a lot of effort for NASA to make people dream again. But when I watched Stephen Robinson pulling the second gap-filler from between two tiles this morning, I knew that the agency was trying to channel the good feelings from its glory days. I can see that today's NASA is not the same agency as it was on the day Columbia was lost. This NASA is capable of getting us back to the moon and beyond.
The NASA of old captured the public's attention because it did things that were thought impossible and it made them look easy. If NASA could put a man on the moon, imagine what great things we can accomplish on an individual basis.
The agency took a big step backwards when Challenger was lost and the very reputation of the nation was damaged. By the time Columbia was lost, the agency had no reputation left to lose.
Today, the agency achieved a first in the 24-year history of the space shuttle program: an astronaut walked under the nose of the space shuttle to repair the heat shield. It's not a giant leap for mankind like Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon, but it's a leap forward for a space program that has revolved around "acceptable risk." The agency is taking appropriate steps to deal with the problems in an unsafe design and make it as safe as possible.
It will take a lot of effort for NASA to make people dream again. But when I watched Stephen Robinson pulling the second gap-filler from between two tiles this morning, I knew that the agency was trying to channel the good feelings from its glory days. I can see that today's NASA is not the same agency as it was on the day Columbia was lost. This NASA is capable of getting us back to the moon and beyond.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
The Fifteen Year Itch
Iraq invaded Kuwait exactly fifteen years ago today, setting off a chain of events that will lead to the undoing of a society. The jury is still out on whether the United States will fundamentally change the middle east, or if the middle east will destroy the United States. The only conclusion we can draw is that the status quo is gone and can never be restored.
Bush 41's decision to shield Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait was, ironically, a logical extension of the Reagan middle east strategy: preserve the status quo. However, Operation Desert Storm had the unintended consequence of pushing Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden onto the same side, and strengthening the hatred they already harbored for the United States.
With Saddam wounded but his power intact, and with the American forces containing him (from Saudi soil) giving Osama bin Laden a rallying point, the stage was set for future terrorism, culminating with the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
The middle east has proven to be quicksand in the grand scheme of geopolitics. Once you step in it, you either sink, or you swim your way across. If we had avoided the 1990-91 intervention, the region would have been destroyed due to the wickedness of Saddam, Osama, and the House of Saud. America would have been economically wounded in the short term after losing the region's oil supply, but we would have recovered and regained our prosperity.
Instead, America now shoulders the burden of fighting a 12th century mentality (Wahhabism and jihad) while trying to build 21st century democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In hindsight, it would have been better to sacrifice the economy to save the lives of our people in the face of jihad. But hindsight won't do us much good now. We have to swim our way out of the jihadist quicksand, or die in the attempt.
Bush 41's decision to shield Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait was, ironically, a logical extension of the Reagan middle east strategy: preserve the status quo. However, Operation Desert Storm had the unintended consequence of pushing Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden onto the same side, and strengthening the hatred they already harbored for the United States.
With Saddam wounded but his power intact, and with the American forces containing him (from Saudi soil) giving Osama bin Laden a rallying point, the stage was set for future terrorism, culminating with the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
The middle east has proven to be quicksand in the grand scheme of geopolitics. Once you step in it, you either sink, or you swim your way across. If we had avoided the 1990-91 intervention, the region would have been destroyed due to the wickedness of Saddam, Osama, and the House of Saud. America would have been economically wounded in the short term after losing the region's oil supply, but we would have recovered and regained our prosperity.
Instead, America now shoulders the burden of fighting a 12th century mentality (Wahhabism and jihad) while trying to build 21st century democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In hindsight, it would have been better to sacrifice the economy to save the lives of our people in the face of jihad. But hindsight won't do us much good now. We have to swim our way out of the jihadist quicksand, or die in the attempt.
Monday, August 01, 2005
All Wahhabis Go To Hell
Saudi Arabia's King Fahd has died. If there is any justice in this world, his afterlife will not be spent porking seventy virgins. Instead, he will be Satan's bitch. Maybe he will be gang-raped by Uday and Qusay, or playing poker with Hitler and Stalin.
Of course, President Bush had to disappoint me again by expressing his sympathies for the old bastard. Sympathies? Saudi Arabia is terror central. We should be partying! The world is better for having lost King Fahd. I pray daily that God will rid us of Fahd's successors, King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan. I will not rest until the kingdom of Wahhabism is erased from the earth.
Of course, President Bush had to disappoint me again by expressing his sympathies for the old bastard. Sympathies? Saudi Arabia is terror central. We should be partying! The world is better for having lost King Fahd. I pray daily that God will rid us of Fahd's successors, King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan. I will not rest until the kingdom of Wahhabism is erased from the earth.
