Friday, September 30, 2005
At Least Daley Waited
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley wasted almost no time in mobilizing the bulldozers after the FAA gave its approval to his O'Hare Airport expansion plan. My favorite reaction came from one of my favorite local talk radio hosts, Deborah Rowe: At least Daley waited for the FAA's approval before he sent the bulldozers.
Meigs Field was not so lucky; on April 1, 2003, Daley sent the bulldozers to tear up the runway without seeking FAA approval. This was the first step in executing the mayor's ill-advised airport plan, which intensifies air traffic at my least favorite airport in the whole world (O'Hare,) and gives the cold shoulder to a proposed third airport in suburban Peotone.
More runways at O'Hare may ease runway congestion, but it doesn't change the fact that O'Hare's air corridor is one of the most congested in the nation. If anything, more runways may tempt airlines into offering more flights, complicating the congestion problems.
The entire plan smacks of poor planning and pork-barrel politics. Meigs Field needed to be closed by Daley because it was the airport frequently used by downstate Republicans. The proposed Peotone Airport had to be stopped because it would siphon business away from the city and into the suburbs.
Meigs Field was not so lucky; on April 1, 2003, Daley sent the bulldozers to tear up the runway without seeking FAA approval. This was the first step in executing the mayor's ill-advised airport plan, which intensifies air traffic at my least favorite airport in the whole world (O'Hare,) and gives the cold shoulder to a proposed third airport in suburban Peotone.
More runways at O'Hare may ease runway congestion, but it doesn't change the fact that O'Hare's air corridor is one of the most congested in the nation. If anything, more runways may tempt airlines into offering more flights, complicating the congestion problems.
The entire plan smacks of poor planning and pork-barrel politics. Meigs Field needed to be closed by Daley because it was the airport frequently used by downstate Republicans. The proposed Peotone Airport had to be stopped because it would siphon business away from the city and into the suburbs.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Basra Jailbreak and Saddam's Trial
The situation in Basra, once considered a model for Iraq's future, is a distressing sign for the believers in the democratic experiment that is Iraq. The Basra police are imprisoning British soldiers instead of handing them over to coalition authorities (and the crimes they were accused of were probably bogus to begin with.) Further, the Basra police have been infiltrated by Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. This was the story being covered by the late journalist Stephen Vincent before he was murdered in Basra, perhaps by the police.
The situation in Basra is not anomalous to Iraq as a whole. The government elected by the Iraqis is ripe with corruption; the defense ministry alone has imbezzled over a billion dollars, while the oil ministry has skimmed off money earmarked for the country's reconstruction. The Shiite majority has not taken an active role in rising up to defend the country against the Islamist forces who seek civil war. They have been slow to mobilize and weak-willed. The Kurds have shown great bravery and resilience but lack the unity needed to ensure Iraq's future. The Sunni Arab community has proven useless, actively opposing democracy in Iraq.
If Iraq descends into the depths of civil war (as is the direction that trends seem to point out,) the Iraqi people will have erased any notion about the feasibility of Arab democracy. Further, they will have validated Saddam Hussein's 24 years of terror. The inability of Iraqis to coexist or follow the rule of law shows that they need a strongman like Saddam to keep them in line. Saddam Hussein would gladly kill his countrymen, have their wives raped, and send their children to prison. But perhaps this is the only way to deal with an uncivilized and tribal society.
If the trial of Saddam Hussein does go forward (as is planned for Oct. 19,) he should not be tried by an Iraqi court. The Iraqis have yet to earn the right to try Saddam Hussein. In my eyes, Saddam's crimes are against the American people. 2100 Americans have been killed by the Iraqis since the attack on the USS Stark in May 1987. Nearly 1800 Americans have died since freeing the country from Saddam Hussein. American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors have selflessly fought, sacrificed, and died. They have seen no selfish or personal gain for their service and sacrifice. The least we can give them is the man who started it all, Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein should be brought to Guantanamo Bay and tried for war crimes against the United States: the unlawful imprisonment and execution of Scott Speicher in 1991, and the execution of POW Donald Walters in 2003. He should be convicted by a military tribunal. The Pentagon should then give wounded soldiers and marines the chance to draw straws. One lucky serviceman will be rewarded with the chance to shoot Saddam with a bazooka. Saddam's gruesome death at the hands of a wounded American will be the only justice in this pain-ridden world.
The situation in Basra is not anomalous to Iraq as a whole. The government elected by the Iraqis is ripe with corruption; the defense ministry alone has imbezzled over a billion dollars, while the oil ministry has skimmed off money earmarked for the country's reconstruction. The Shiite majority has not taken an active role in rising up to defend the country against the Islamist forces who seek civil war. They have been slow to mobilize and weak-willed. The Kurds have shown great bravery and resilience but lack the unity needed to ensure Iraq's future. The Sunni Arab community has proven useless, actively opposing democracy in Iraq.
If Iraq descends into the depths of civil war (as is the direction that trends seem to point out,) the Iraqi people will have erased any notion about the feasibility of Arab democracy. Further, they will have validated Saddam Hussein's 24 years of terror. The inability of Iraqis to coexist or follow the rule of law shows that they need a strongman like Saddam to keep them in line. Saddam Hussein would gladly kill his countrymen, have their wives raped, and send their children to prison. But perhaps this is the only way to deal with an uncivilized and tribal society.
If the trial of Saddam Hussein does go forward (as is planned for Oct. 19,) he should not be tried by an Iraqi court. The Iraqis have yet to earn the right to try Saddam Hussein. In my eyes, Saddam's crimes are against the American people. 2100 Americans have been killed by the Iraqis since the attack on the USS Stark in May 1987. Nearly 1800 Americans have died since freeing the country from Saddam Hussein. American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors have selflessly fought, sacrificed, and died. They have seen no selfish or personal gain for their service and sacrifice. The least we can give them is the man who started it all, Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein should be brought to Guantanamo Bay and tried for war crimes against the United States: the unlawful imprisonment and execution of Scott Speicher in 1991, and the execution of POW Donald Walters in 2003. He should be convicted by a military tribunal. The Pentagon should then give wounded soldiers and marines the chance to draw straws. One lucky serviceman will be rewarded with the chance to shoot Saddam with a bazooka. Saddam's gruesome death at the hands of a wounded American will be the only justice in this pain-ridden world.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Dell is for Zeroes
I spent about two hours on the phone with Dell Computers today. I was simply trying to buy a DVD burner for a laptop.
Dell is the epitome of customer service nightmares. You swim in an ocean of touch-tone menus, talk to people who simply want to pass the buck, and half of the customer service reps are hard to understand (one of the many drawbacks of outsourcing tech jobs to India.)
Most of the time, when I was transferred by somebody, it took me back to a menu I had already been through and back to the person I was originally speaking with. If you don't have a product number or customer number, they'll attempt a transfer to the sales department. They'll send you back to the menu you just went through, or you'll get to the sales people, who will bounce you back to the original people in the peripherals department.
Besides their failing customer service, there are a lot of things to hate about Dell. Their systems come with refurbished RAM and skimpy hard drives. Dell's preloaded software is useless. Microsoft Works? Sonic Record Now? Dell, don't dick around when it comes to software. Give us Microsoft Office (or, better yet, Open Office) and Roxio Easy CD Creator.
New Dells often have critical defects that lead to the death of the system. Case in point is my brother's laptop, which had a CPU problem that lead to the system abruptly shutting down after an hour of operation. And he's not the only one I've talked to who had this problem. Dell's only redeeming geature is their excellent warranty, which will send a repair person out in no time to fix your system. With reliability problems that are common to Dells, the warranty is sorely needed.
The last nail in Dell's coffin is their former spokesman, "Dell Guy." Turns out he was a big-time stoner who was eventually arrested for marijuana possession. Frankly, I'd have to be stoned if I were buying a Dell for myself. Gotta get a Dell? "Gotta get a dime bag" is more like it. When you're paying your company spokesman with weed, you know your company is all jacked up.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Krazy Krauts
I don't think I've ever been as interested in German politics as I have been over the past few weeks. I'm stoked about the gains made by the Christian Democrats but a little disappointed that Angela Merkel doesn't have a clear mandate.
When Gerhard Schroeder was first elected Chancellor, I remember how the media painted a very rosy picture of him. I felt fairly neutral about old Gerhard until President Bush first went to the UN about inspecting (and eventually invading) Iraq. Gerhard Schroeder apparently knows nothing about diplomacy; that diplomacy without a credible threat of force is useless. When Schroeder and his buddies, Jacques Chirac and Vladimir "Pootie" Putin, ruled out the use of force, it was clear that there would never be full cooperation or openness from Iraq--only mutual appeasement of the Iraqi fascists and Euro-liberals.
Even more odious was Schroeder's gleeful arrogance and attacks against his enemies, whether they be German conservatives or the American president. Even as he faces the end of his chancellorhood, Gerhard Schroeder wastes no opportunites in ridiculing Angela Merkel. At the same time, Angela Merkel is talking about compromise and concensus-building, both within her party and with other parties that are opposed to hers.
Angela Merkel has what it takes to be a good chancellor, and hopefully she can convince German voters to give her a mandate during the next election. I'm a little disappointed that the pro-nuclear agenda will likely be shafted in an alliance with the Greens, but the alliance will give Ms. Merkel time to build support for her policies if she plays her cards right.
Gerhard Schroeder's buffoonery cut a very negative impression in my mind of the German nation and people. But while I was in college I learned that Schroeder doesn't speak for a majority of Germans. If anything, German society is as bitterly divided between conservatives and liberals as American society. If a grand coalition is formed, maybe it will help to heal that rift. But if healing is to take place, it will require strong leadership, humility, and mutual understanding. Gerhard Schroeder is incapable of these traits, but I have optimism that Angela Merkel can bring them to bear.
When Gerhard Schroeder was first elected Chancellor, I remember how the media painted a very rosy picture of him. I felt fairly neutral about old Gerhard until President Bush first went to the UN about inspecting (and eventually invading) Iraq. Gerhard Schroeder apparently knows nothing about diplomacy; that diplomacy without a credible threat of force is useless. When Schroeder and his buddies, Jacques Chirac and Vladimir "Pootie" Putin, ruled out the use of force, it was clear that there would never be full cooperation or openness from Iraq--only mutual appeasement of the Iraqi fascists and Euro-liberals.
Even more odious was Schroeder's gleeful arrogance and attacks against his enemies, whether they be German conservatives or the American president. Even as he faces the end of his chancellorhood, Gerhard Schroeder wastes no opportunites in ridiculing Angela Merkel. At the same time, Angela Merkel is talking about compromise and concensus-building, both within her party and with other parties that are opposed to hers.
Angela Merkel has what it takes to be a good chancellor, and hopefully she can convince German voters to give her a mandate during the next election. I'm a little disappointed that the pro-nuclear agenda will likely be shafted in an alliance with the Greens, but the alliance will give Ms. Merkel time to build support for her policies if she plays her cards right.
Gerhard Schroeder's buffoonery cut a very negative impression in my mind of the German nation and people. But while I was in college I learned that Schroeder doesn't speak for a majority of Germans. If anything, German society is as bitterly divided between conservatives and liberals as American society. If a grand coalition is formed, maybe it will help to heal that rift. But if healing is to take place, it will require strong leadership, humility, and mutual understanding. Gerhard Schroeder is incapable of these traits, but I have optimism that Angela Merkel can bring them to bear.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Appeasing Kim Jong Il
The six-party talks to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program have hit an impasse, because North Korea wants a nuclear reactor from the US, while the American ambassador is saying "Nuts to you, Kim Jong Il."
Our bargaining position seems to have hardened since 1994. Back then, we agreed to give North Korea fuel oil, and Japan and South Korea would build two light-water reactors for North Korea. All that we expected from North Korea was an end to their nuclear weapons program.
Since 1994, North Korea did shut down its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon, but it started a secret program to produce bomb fuel from enriched uranium (with much assistance from our perfidous "ally" Pakistan.) Consistent with the hard-line brought to the White House by the Bush administration, the agreed framework of 1994 was officially dead by the end of 2002. With the reactors and oil sales halted, North Korea felt free to reopen Yongbyon for plutonium-producing business.
If North Korea is truly willing to end its nuclear weapons program (an admittedly-dubious proposition,) there should be no barrier to us returning to the 1994 agreed framework, or a similar agreement.
The official US position on a peaceful nuke power program for North Korea is that we can't trust Kim Jong Il. Yongbyon is used as an example of North Korea taking a peaceful power station and using it for sinister purposes. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fundamentals of nuclear reactor design. Yongbyon is a fairly small reactor (5 megawatts) that is clearly designed to turn Uranium 238 into Plutonium 239. The proposed light-water reactors would output far more power, and it would be nearly impossible to use them for making plutonium.
Light water reactors use low-enriched uranium as fuel (enriched to 2 or 3 percent, far too little for a bomb) and they moderate the reaction with plain water, which doesn't allow for very efficient breeding of plutonium. The only concern is how North Korea would perform the uranium enrichment. Under the 1994 framework, the uranium would be enriched outside of North Korea and imported into the country by the firm who was managing the two reactors. At this stage, there is no way we can trust North Korea with uranium enrichment.
The smartest thing we can propose to end the North Korea standoff is a gentlemanly return to the 1994 agreed framework. If we catch North Korea cheating on its end of the bargain again, we can always back out, as we did in 2002. As an ulterior motive, we can get American companies involved in the construction of the North Korean reactor(s,) which will hopefully spark the construction of new reactors in the states as well.
Our bargaining position seems to have hardened since 1994. Back then, we agreed to give North Korea fuel oil, and Japan and South Korea would build two light-water reactors for North Korea. All that we expected from North Korea was an end to their nuclear weapons program.
Since 1994, North Korea did shut down its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon, but it started a secret program to produce bomb fuel from enriched uranium (with much assistance from our perfidous "ally" Pakistan.) Consistent with the hard-line brought to the White House by the Bush administration, the agreed framework of 1994 was officially dead by the end of 2002. With the reactors and oil sales halted, North Korea felt free to reopen Yongbyon for plutonium-producing business.
If North Korea is truly willing to end its nuclear weapons program (an admittedly-dubious proposition,) there should be no barrier to us returning to the 1994 agreed framework, or a similar agreement.
The official US position on a peaceful nuke power program for North Korea is that we can't trust Kim Jong Il. Yongbyon is used as an example of North Korea taking a peaceful power station and using it for sinister purposes. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fundamentals of nuclear reactor design. Yongbyon is a fairly small reactor (5 megawatts) that is clearly designed to turn Uranium 238 into Plutonium 239. The proposed light-water reactors would output far more power, and it would be nearly impossible to use them for making plutonium.
Light water reactors use low-enriched uranium as fuel (enriched to 2 or 3 percent, far too little for a bomb) and they moderate the reaction with plain water, which doesn't allow for very efficient breeding of plutonium. The only concern is how North Korea would perform the uranium enrichment. Under the 1994 framework, the uranium would be enriched outside of North Korea and imported into the country by the firm who was managing the two reactors. At this stage, there is no way we can trust North Korea with uranium enrichment.
The smartest thing we can propose to end the North Korea standoff is a gentlemanly return to the 1994 agreed framework. If we catch North Korea cheating on its end of the bargain again, we can always back out, as we did in 2002. As an ulterior motive, we can get American companies involved in the construction of the North Korean reactor(s,) which will hopefully spark the construction of new reactors in the states as well.
Friday, September 16, 2005
An A For Effort
President Bush's hurricane address had the right comforting words and a powerful delivery from a man who is usually a poor public speaker. He offered consolation, explained the situation, took responsibility, and laid out a plan. The hurricane's horrible destruction has nevertheless given us an opportunity to build a better gulf coast and undo the effects of decades of racial discrimination. Of course, the speech would have been better received if it came a week ago, but it serves as a transition from cleanup to rebuilding.
The cost of rebuilding will be a contentious issue. My gut feeling is that we will abandon plans to return to the moon so we can pay for hurricane relief. Liberal Democrats will try to get us to abandon Iraq, and we may see the president cave to them by hastening our withdrawal in 2006. Of course, I would begin to pay for Katrina relief by cutting the pork out of the highway bill and farm bill, two notorious sources of wasteful spending. But that's why I'm not in government, and tha pork is what keeps people elected.
The cost of rebuilding will be a contentious issue. My gut feeling is that we will abandon plans to return to the moon so we can pay for hurricane relief. Liberal Democrats will try to get us to abandon Iraq, and we may see the president cave to them by hastening our withdrawal in 2006. Of course, I would begin to pay for Katrina relief by cutting the pork out of the highway bill and farm bill, two notorious sources of wasteful spending. But that's why I'm not in government, and tha pork is what keeps people elected.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Happy Birthday Prostitute
Super Mario Bros. celebrates its 20th bithday today. Since then, Mario has been a part of countless Nintendo games, only a few of which I consider to be true sequels:
1986: Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan title--"The Lost Levels" in the US)
1988: Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA title--"Doki Doki Panic" in Japan)
1990: Super Mario Bros 3
1991: Super Mario World (Super Mario Bros. 4)
1996: Super Mario 64
Since then, Mario has been a whore who has been dropped into every generic game churned out by Nintendo, from Mario Kart to the pathetic Mario Party series. Few games have compared to the orignal Mario series in terms of simple but engrossing gameplay and creativity. The people who grew up on the original NES need to force Nintendo to make a true "Super Mario Bros. 6" Perhaps it should feature the raunchy humor that characterized "Conker's Bad Fur Day."
1986: Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan title--"The Lost Levels" in the US)
1988: Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA title--"Doki Doki Panic" in Japan)
1990: Super Mario Bros 3
1991: Super Mario World (Super Mario Bros. 4)
1996: Super Mario 64
Since then, Mario has been a whore who has been dropped into every generic game churned out by Nintendo, from Mario Kart to the pathetic Mario Party series. Few games have compared to the orignal Mario series in terms of simple but engrossing gameplay and creativity. The people who grew up on the original NES need to force Nintendo to make a true "Super Mario Bros. 6" Perhaps it should feature the raunchy humor that characterized "Conker's Bad Fur Day."
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Why We Fight
Today I'm flying the friendly skies, in knowledge that brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice so I can enjoy this priviledge. I'd like to express my gratitude to the original sources of the photographs in this post.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Missing-Captured
After several months of silence, the media is reporting that former Iraqi leaders know the fate of missing pilot Scott Speicher.
This news is fairly old, having been mentioned in the media last May. The Navy's conclusion was the result of a review board, prompted by a series of news stories in July 2004. At the time, reporters like Bill Gertz were quoting Gen. Keith Dayton (former commander of the Iraq Survey Group) that Speicher was dead and the search was over.
When Iraq was first invaded, I was optimistic that Speicher could still be alive in an Iraqi prison. Hopes faded after Baghdad fell and the only trace of him were the letters "M.S.S." (perhaps a sign from Michael Scott Speicher) scratched in the wall of a prison cell.
The Navy's conclusion hinges on a flight suit that the Iraqis handed to a Red Cross team in 1995. If the suit is truly Speicher's (I don't know if this was ever confirmed,) it would only make sense that the Iraqs either captured him alive or found his remains.
My personal belief is that Speicher was captured alive by Iraqi authorities but perished shortly afterwards. Perhaps he died of wounds from his ejection, but my gut tells me that the Iraqis executed him.
The US government must find Scott Speicher, dead or alive. This is the promise it makes with the members of its armed forces, and after the emotional roller-coaster ride his family has been through, it's the least the government can do for them. The US government failed Scott Speicher numerous times between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Likewise, the Iraqi government sadistically and cruelly withheld Scott Speicher's fate from his family because they wanted to spite the United States. The US cannot leave Iraq without solving the mystery of Operation Desert Storm's first casualty.
This news is fairly old, having been mentioned in the media last May. The Navy's conclusion was the result of a review board, prompted by a series of news stories in July 2004. At the time, reporters like Bill Gertz were quoting Gen. Keith Dayton (former commander of the Iraq Survey Group) that Speicher was dead and the search was over.
When Iraq was first invaded, I was optimistic that Speicher could still be alive in an Iraqi prison. Hopes faded after Baghdad fell and the only trace of him were the letters "M.S.S." (perhaps a sign from Michael Scott Speicher) scratched in the wall of a prison cell.
The Navy's conclusion hinges on a flight suit that the Iraqis handed to a Red Cross team in 1995. If the suit is truly Speicher's (I don't know if this was ever confirmed,) it would only make sense that the Iraqs either captured him alive or found his remains.
My personal belief is that Speicher was captured alive by Iraqi authorities but perished shortly afterwards. Perhaps he died of wounds from his ejection, but my gut tells me that the Iraqis executed him.
The US government must find Scott Speicher, dead or alive. This is the promise it makes with the members of its armed forces, and after the emotional roller-coaster ride his family has been through, it's the least the government can do for them. The US government failed Scott Speicher numerous times between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Likewise, the Iraqi government sadistically and cruelly withheld Scott Speicher's fate from his family because they wanted to spite the United States. The US cannot leave Iraq without solving the mystery of Operation Desert Storm's first casualty.
Hail to the King
Comedy genius Mike Judge (Office Space, Beavis & Butt-Head) is saying that the upcoming 10th season of "King of the Hill" will be the last.
In a world where comedies frequently rely on shock and vulgarity for laughs, King of the Hill was a refreshing respite. The show centered around old-fashioned propane salesman Hank Hill. Unlike most TV dads, Hank was a traditionalist who worked hard, loved his family, and learned to respect people even when it seemed that the world was drifting away from Hank's version of normal. The humor came from Hank's clashes with his reactionary old coot of a father and his attempts to reform his son Bobby, who "ain't right." Hank's naive obliviousness also created a multitude of funny situations.
Mike Judge wraps up the show's legacy in an eloquent observation: "...we had a show that was kind of a quiet hit and was portraying normal, unhip middle-Americans with dignity — instead of just making fun of them in a crass way."
King of the Hill's biggest knock is that Fox didn't adequately support it. Like the equally-witty "Futurama," King of the Hill was forced into the post-football timeslot and was often pre-empted when a football game went into overtime.
Don't miss King of the Hill's last hurrah this season. Also, make sure to check out Mike Judge's upcoming comedy "Idiocracy."
In a world where comedies frequently rely on shock and vulgarity for laughs, King of the Hill was a refreshing respite. The show centered around old-fashioned propane salesman Hank Hill. Unlike most TV dads, Hank was a traditionalist who worked hard, loved his family, and learned to respect people even when it seemed that the world was drifting away from Hank's version of normal. The humor came from Hank's clashes with his reactionary old coot of a father and his attempts to reform his son Bobby, who "ain't right." Hank's naive obliviousness also created a multitude of funny situations.
Mike Judge wraps up the show's legacy in an eloquent observation: "...we had a show that was kind of a quiet hit and was portraying normal, unhip middle-Americans with dignity — instead of just making fun of them in a crass way."
King of the Hill's biggest knock is that Fox didn't adequately support it. Like the equally-witty "Futurama," King of the Hill was forced into the post-football timeslot and was often pre-empted when a football game went into overtime.
Don't miss King of the Hill's last hurrah this season. Also, make sure to check out Mike Judge's upcoming comedy "Idiocracy."
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Free Advice for Gov. Bill Richardson
Natural disasters often have a way of forcing military bases to close. Clark Air Base in the Phillippines closed following the devastation of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Homestead Air Force Base was devastated by Hurricane Andrew after the base's downsizing had already begun.
The latest victim is Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. Hurricane Katrina's wrath may have destroyed up to 90% of the buildings on base. This puts the Air Force in a major bind because Keesler is where the Air Force conducts technical and weather training.
The Air Force could decide to put everything on hold while Keesler is rebuilt. Or maybe it should consider moving Keesler's training missions to Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. Cannon is losing its jets and its mission, but the base will stay open until at least 2010 in "enclave" status.
Maybe there are problems with Cannon picking up the slack for Keesler. Maybe Keesler's damage isn't as bad as initially reported. Still, if I were a New Mexico lawmaker, I would be pushing the Air Force pretty hard to grab this new mission for the eastern New Mexico base.
The latest victim is Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. Hurricane Katrina's wrath may have destroyed up to 90% of the buildings on base. This puts the Air Force in a major bind because Keesler is where the Air Force conducts technical and weather training.
The Air Force could decide to put everything on hold while Keesler is rebuilt. Or maybe it should consider moving Keesler's training missions to Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. Cannon is losing its jets and its mission, but the base will stay open until at least 2010 in "enclave" status.
Maybe there are problems with Cannon picking up the slack for Keesler. Maybe Keesler's damage isn't as bad as initially reported. Still, if I were a New Mexico lawmaker, I would be pushing the Air Force pretty hard to grab this new mission for the eastern New Mexico base.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Vigilante Justice
When the courts give sexual predators a slap on the wrist, we need more people like this guy to keep the children safe.
Stand Up or Step Aside
In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explains that impeachment is the avenue for Congress to remove executive and judicial officials who pose a danger to the nation. The harbinger of defeat in Iraq, the creation of a terrorist anarchy in that country, and the emboldening of Islamic militants is the greatest danger this nation faces. Unfortunately, our commander-in-chief refuses to effectively address this growing danger.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush promised us that this war would not be one of half-measures. Time and time again, he has reneged on this solemn vow. Towns in northern and western Iraq are falling victim to Islamic militants. American forces return en masse to liberate the towns, only to leave and have the same militants return. We have insufficient forces in Iraq to accomplish our mission, and the president stubbornly refuses to boost troop levels. While the family members of soldiers and Marines place "Half my heart is in Iraq" stickers on their cars, the president should be putting a "Half my ass is in Iraq" sticker on the presidential motorcade.
We are now locked in a war of attrition, a battle of wills. Vietnam and Lebanon and Somalia demonstrated how weak the will of Americans can be. Our enemies, on the other hand, have been waging war against the infidels since the time of the Crusades. Their will is strong and their grudge may be immortal. If we continue to fight a war of attrition, and shy away from going on the offensive, is there any way we can win?
Congress needs to give the president and vice-president an ultimatum: give our armed forces what they need to win this war, or we'll impeach your bitch-asses.
America needs a larger army and it needs to put more of its army in Iraq until the Iraqi forces are ready. If we can't enlist the necessary number of men for the army, we should take them from the Air Force and Navy. We should entice immigrants to enlist in exchange for citizenship. We should take them away from low-priority peacekeeping missions.
America also needs to employ excessive force and firepower in subduing Iraq and shutting its borders down. The Syrian border should become a heavily-mined "demilitarized zone" like the one in Korea, but much longer. The full spectrum of America's arsenal should be applied, including the Mother Of All Bombs if necessary.
President Bush's supporters are losing faith in their commander-in-chief because he refuses to support them. I want to believe in President Bush, but his stagnant strategy has eroded whatever faith I had in his leadership. President Bush needs to remember the promise he made to us on March 19, 2003, and do his best to keep it. If he refuses to stand up, he and Dick Cheney should step aside so a guy with balls (like John McCain) can give us real leadership.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush promised us that this war would not be one of half-measures. Time and time again, he has reneged on this solemn vow. Towns in northern and western Iraq are falling victim to Islamic militants. American forces return en masse to liberate the towns, only to leave and have the same militants return. We have insufficient forces in Iraq to accomplish our mission, and the president stubbornly refuses to boost troop levels. While the family members of soldiers and Marines place "Half my heart is in Iraq" stickers on their cars, the president should be putting a "Half my ass is in Iraq" sticker on the presidential motorcade.
We are now locked in a war of attrition, a battle of wills. Vietnam and Lebanon and Somalia demonstrated how weak the will of Americans can be. Our enemies, on the other hand, have been waging war against the infidels since the time of the Crusades. Their will is strong and their grudge may be immortal. If we continue to fight a war of attrition, and shy away from going on the offensive, is there any way we can win?
Congress needs to give the president and vice-president an ultimatum: give our armed forces what they need to win this war, or we'll impeach your bitch-asses.
America needs a larger army and it needs to put more of its army in Iraq until the Iraqi forces are ready. If we can't enlist the necessary number of men for the army, we should take them from the Air Force and Navy. We should entice immigrants to enlist in exchange for citizenship. We should take them away from low-priority peacekeeping missions.
America also needs to employ excessive force and firepower in subduing Iraq and shutting its borders down. The Syrian border should become a heavily-mined "demilitarized zone" like the one in Korea, but much longer. The full spectrum of America's arsenal should be applied, including the Mother Of All Bombs if necessary.
President Bush's supporters are losing faith in their commander-in-chief because he refuses to support them. I want to believe in President Bush, but his stagnant strategy has eroded whatever faith I had in his leadership. President Bush needs to remember the promise he made to us on March 19, 2003, and do his best to keep it. If he refuses to stand up, he and Dick Cheney should step aside so a guy with balls (like John McCain) can give us real leadership.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
A Giant Has Fallen
Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was truly a giant, serving on the court since 1972 and as chief justice since 1986. He will probably be remembered for swinging the court back in the conservative direction, ending a trend of runaway judicial activism stretching from the 1950's through the 1970's. There was nothing really ideological about Rehnquist, though. He was a very wise man who looked upon the entirety of law and ruled in favor of the spirit of the law, rather than his personal whims or feelings.
For President Bush, the sudden passing of Justice Rehnquist creates a new challenge. John Roberts was allegedly his choice to replace Justice Rehnquist, not Sandra Day O'Connor. Does the president want to promote Roberts to Chief Justice? Will he nominate Antonin Scalia to be promoted to the chief spot? Will Alberto Gonzalez get nominated? Or will the president try to find a moderate justice who will preserve the court's balance of power (Roberts and the unnamed moderate replacing the conservative Rehnquist and unpredictable O'Connor?)
Justice Rehnquist, if your spirit is still listening, please give our president the inspiration he needs to guide the court back to the path of reason.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was truly a giant, serving on the court since 1972 and as chief justice since 1986. He will probably be remembered for swinging the court back in the conservative direction, ending a trend of runaway judicial activism stretching from the 1950's through the 1970's. There was nothing really ideological about Rehnquist, though. He was a very wise man who looked upon the entirety of law and ruled in favor of the spirit of the law, rather than his personal whims or feelings.
For President Bush, the sudden passing of Justice Rehnquist creates a new challenge. John Roberts was allegedly his choice to replace Justice Rehnquist, not Sandra Day O'Connor. Does the president want to promote Roberts to Chief Justice? Will he nominate Antonin Scalia to be promoted to the chief spot? Will Alberto Gonzalez get nominated? Or will the president try to find a moderate justice who will preserve the court's balance of power (Roberts and the unnamed moderate replacing the conservative Rehnquist and unpredictable O'Connor?)
Justice Rehnquist, if your spirit is still listening, please give our president the inspiration he needs to guide the court back to the path of reason.
Voices From the Storm
If you're a public figure in America, it's become obligatory for you to make a statement about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. Unfortunately, most of what I've been hearing has been nonsense, and some of the good commentary is being pushed aside as "insensitive."
Major praise goes to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who says it doesn't make sense to rebuild New Orleans in its present form. Bravo. Who was the idiot who decided to put a city seven feet below sea level, surrounded by two major levees? New Orleans's city planning is a major case of poor civil engineering. When engineers mess up, we need to admit their mistakes and design something better. Taxpayers should not foot the bill to rebuild the city in its disaster-prone state.
Tiger Woods also scores bonus points. When asked about the tragedy, he used his two cents to condemn the growing lawlessness in New Orleans, particularly the unconscionable attacks against people who are trying to rescue hurricane victims.
Making his way onto my "idiots" list is President Bush, who wants to rebuild New Orleans better than before. Congress's $10.5 billion is just "a down payment" as far as he's concerned. Isn't he listening to Denny Hastert?
New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin also earns major "dufus points." A few commentators have compared his frustrated anguish to the cool demeanor of 9/11's Rudy Giuliani and realize there's no comparison here. Mayor Nagin has spent a lot of energy criticizing the federal government, but much of his anger is misplaced. Why didn't the city have food and sanitation ready to go in the Superdome? Why was there no plan to use city buses for evacuating people without transportation? Shouldn't he criticize his own governor for not readying the National Guard?
The Mayor of New Orleans and other state officials are certainly culpable for making the storm's effects worse, but no more culpable than any of their predecessors. New Orleans was a city caught with its pants down. For a hundred years, nobody had put serious planning into a strike by a major hurricane, because nobody believed it was possible.
The ugliest aspect of the hurricane's devastation is the racial element. This was bound to happen in a city as diverse as New Orleans, where the majority of the people left behind in the city were poor and black. The victims were left with the overall impression that "Whitey doesn't care." The situation is not helped when the city leaders would rather blame the federal government instead of providing real leadership. Some victims obviously felt that vengeful looting was justified under these conditions. The situation is best summed up by idiotarian Kanye West: "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
In short, while the hurricane is a disaster on a scale greater than 9/11, America's response has been conducted with less competent leadership and more ill-will than the immediate response to the terror attacks on the US. I think that much can be said about the character of New York mayor Rudy Giuliani in setting an example of stoicism for his people, while Ray Nagin runs around like a decapitated chicken.
Major praise goes to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who says it doesn't make sense to rebuild New Orleans in its present form. Bravo. Who was the idiot who decided to put a city seven feet below sea level, surrounded by two major levees? New Orleans's city planning is a major case of poor civil engineering. When engineers mess up, we need to admit their mistakes and design something better. Taxpayers should not foot the bill to rebuild the city in its disaster-prone state.
Tiger Woods also scores bonus points. When asked about the tragedy, he used his two cents to condemn the growing lawlessness in New Orleans, particularly the unconscionable attacks against people who are trying to rescue hurricane victims.
Making his way onto my "idiots" list is President Bush, who wants to rebuild New Orleans better than before. Congress's $10.5 billion is just "a down payment" as far as he's concerned. Isn't he listening to Denny Hastert?
New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin also earns major "dufus points." A few commentators have compared his frustrated anguish to the cool demeanor of 9/11's Rudy Giuliani and realize there's no comparison here. Mayor Nagin has spent a lot of energy criticizing the federal government, but much of his anger is misplaced. Why didn't the city have food and sanitation ready to go in the Superdome? Why was there no plan to use city buses for evacuating people without transportation? Shouldn't he criticize his own governor for not readying the National Guard?
The Mayor of New Orleans and other state officials are certainly culpable for making the storm's effects worse, but no more culpable than any of their predecessors. New Orleans was a city caught with its pants down. For a hundred years, nobody had put serious planning into a strike by a major hurricane, because nobody believed it was possible.
The ugliest aspect of the hurricane's devastation is the racial element. This was bound to happen in a city as diverse as New Orleans, where the majority of the people left behind in the city were poor and black. The victims were left with the overall impression that "Whitey doesn't care." The situation is not helped when the city leaders would rather blame the federal government instead of providing real leadership. Some victims obviously felt that vengeful looting was justified under these conditions. The situation is best summed up by idiotarian Kanye West: "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
In short, while the hurricane is a disaster on a scale greater than 9/11, America's response has been conducted with less competent leadership and more ill-will than the immediate response to the terror attacks on the US. I think that much can be said about the character of New York mayor Rudy Giuliani in setting an example of stoicism for his people, while Ray Nagin runs around like a decapitated chicken.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Able Danger refuses to die
Just when the televised newsmedia latched onto Hurricane Katrina and used it as a convenient excuse to forget about "Able Danger," we get informational stories like this one in the Washington Times.
Able Danger, if fully investigated, will prove to be the scandal of a century. Heads should roll because of the mistakes made in 2000, but they haven't, and probably never will. Forces from both parties will do their best to make sure that the truth of Able Danger will never see the light of day.
Like the media, I expect Congress to forget about the Able Danger investigation after the hurricanes. The blogosphere and talk radio cannot allow that to happen. We have to keep the pressure on, find out what was known and when, and hold people responsible for screwing the pooch. The blogosphere brought down Dan Rather; we can do the same for the spineless weasels who blocked the heroes of Able Danger and enabled 9/11 to happen.
Able Danger, if fully investigated, will prove to be the scandal of a century. Heads should roll because of the mistakes made in 2000, but they haven't, and probably never will. Forces from both parties will do their best to make sure that the truth of Able Danger will never see the light of day.
Like the media, I expect Congress to forget about the Able Danger investigation after the hurricanes. The blogosphere and talk radio cannot allow that to happen. We have to keep the pressure on, find out what was known and when, and hold people responsible for screwing the pooch. The blogosphere brought down Dan Rather; we can do the same for the spineless weasels who blocked the heroes of Able Danger and enabled 9/11 to happen.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Earth to Bobby Kennedy: Eat Shit
I posted this comment on Dan Darling's awesome blog, Regnum Crucis, but I thought it deserved repeating here. I do so mainly because I'm tired of America's fascination with the Kennedy bastards and the media's unwillingness to challenge their hypocrisy.
I'd like to thank Dan and his fellow commenters for being a voice of reason amongst the widespread tragedy and vile partisanship of Hurricane Katrina.
As far as Bobby Kennedy Jr. goes, it's clear that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Just look towards Uncle Teddy and Michael Skakel. The "evil gene" is hereditary.
I don't need to take crap from an environmental extremist like RFK Jr. His hatred for Republicans is well-known. While he's publicly calling for more environmental laws, he's riding in SUV's and eating rare lobsters. All the while, folks like me are driving compact cars, recycling their trash, and voting Republican.
Please forgive me if I'm wasting valuable space bashing another Kennedy. At least I won't get started on the human debris that is Sidney Blumenthal.
I'd like to thank Dan and his fellow commenters for being a voice of reason amongst the widespread tragedy and vile partisanship of Hurricane Katrina.
As far as Bobby Kennedy Jr. goes, it's clear that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Just look towards Uncle Teddy and Michael Skakel. The "evil gene" is hereditary.
I don't need to take crap from an environmental extremist like RFK Jr. His hatred for Republicans is well-known. While he's publicly calling for more environmental laws, he's riding in SUV's and eating rare lobsters. All the while, folks like me are driving compact cars, recycling their trash, and voting Republican.
Please forgive me if I'm wasting valuable space bashing another Kennedy. At least I won't get started on the human debris that is Sidney Blumenthal.
