<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

We're gonna have to face it, we're addicted to oil 

Normally I try to avoid the State of the Union addresses because it is so painful to watch the president speak. Nevertheless, I had to watch after the news media promised that the president would address our unhealthy demand for foreign oil.

For the most part, the president did not have me for most of the speech. He is trying to ward Americans such as myself away from islolationism. In that regard, he lost me. However, I stand with him on the general goal of energy independence.

After this month's coal mine disasters, I feel that it was a poor decision to support the further development of coal power. It's time to start living in the 21st century, and coal should not be a part of America's energy future. I would have preferred specifics on the plan to jump start nuclear power in this country; I would also prefer that the president stop saying "nucular."

It's also time to realize that hybrid cars are not an economical solution, and hydrogen is a long ways away from practicality. The answer lies in bio-diesel--the conversion of plant oils (especially cooking oils) into vehicle fuels. The fuel proposed by George Washington Carver nearly 70 years ago is economically-viable and technically-mature now.

The goal of the president's initiative seems overwhelming at first: reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil by 75% over a 20-year period. But once we get past the surface, it is a significant challenge. As we speak, the US gets approximately 30% of its petroleum from OPEC nations. The current domestic production of petroleum reached "peak oil" in the 1970's, and unless Congress allows for Alaskan drilling, this will not change. As our domestic production falls and our rising population demands more energy, how can this problem be solved? While it is certainly in our interest to find alternate importers as we turn away from OPEC, the problem must be addressed by both decreasing our per-person petroleum consumption and by using emerging technologies to stretch our petroleum further.

While I may disagree with the president on the specifics, we have taken a major first step by admitting our unhealthy dependence on foreign energy sources. From here, our government and our entire society must make a real effort to win America's second independence--independence from the oil sheiks.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Martyrs in Iraq 

The wounds of the Crusades are still being expressed in Iraq, as Islamic militants continue their war against Iraqi Christians. Today, four Christian churches were bombed in Baghdad and Kirkuk. Similar incidents took place in Baghdad and Mosul in August and September 2004.

Even when high-profile bombings aren't taking place, Christians face persecution on a daily basis in Iraq. Activities that Christians take for granted in the rest of the world, like operating liquor stores and eating pork, have now become grounds for persecution by Muslims in Iraq.

Of all Iraq's ethnic and sectarian groups, none have seen their quality of life drop since the fall of Saddam like the Christians have. Saddam did not persecute the Christians so long as they did not openly practice their religion. With Saddam gone, there is nobody to stop them from showing their faith, but there is nobody to protect them either.

At the same time, post-Saddam Iraq has seen much change in the practices of the Iraqi Christians. Most of Iraq's Christians had been members of the Catholic (Chaldean) and Orthodox (Assyrian) churches. Since the fall of Saddam, evangelical Christian missionaries have brought their faith to many Iraqi Christians. While the Chaldean and Assyrian churches are understandably upset by their declining followings, it is good that Iraqi Christians be given a choice for their denomination and their means of praising the Lord.

Iraqi Christians deserve more support from the US. The removal of Saddam Hussein has made Iraq more hostile to Christianity, and we need to recognize that. We also need to give Iraqi Christians a chance to flee their persecution, and help them to resettle in countries where Christianity is tolerated.

Requiem for a peace process 

The Israeli-Palestianian Peace Process: born in 1993, died in 2006. Rest-in-peace.

Obviously, the quest for peace in the former Judaea has seen its ups and downs in its 12+ year history. The landmark "land for peace" deal between Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat was a start, but cut short by an assassin's bullet in 1995. The following year, Rabin's successor Shimon Perez lost his position to Bejamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party. The Likud was loathe to deal with Yassir Arafat, who was rendered impotent by the internal corruption within the Fatah movement and by his own noncommittal attitude towards true peace in the region.

Events reached a climax in 2000 when Ehud Barak (a more liberal successor to Netanyahu) went to the bargaining table with Yassir Arafat, at the strong urging of President Clinton. While Barak offered East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, Arafat walked away from the table. Israelis lost confidence in Barak, forcing him to hold the election which saw Ariel Sharon replace him as Prime Minister. Sharon walked to Joseph's Tomb and declared the land to belong to Israel, sparking a renewed intifada.

President Bush, who intially took a detached view of the peace process, worked with British PM Tony Blair to propose a "roadmap to peace" after the 9/11 attacks forced a new perspective on a White House that was initially opposed to nation-building. That roadmap was short-lived, as Palestianian suicide bombings in 2002 and the resignation of Palestianian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in 2003 showed that Palestinain authorities could control neither the violence nor the internal corruption. The key factor in these failings was aging Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat. When Arafat died in November 2004, there was some hope that peace could again be found.

Perhaps the most important event of 2004 was Ariel Sharon's change of heart on the idea of making peace with the Palestinians. While the former hawk had no intentions of working with Arafat, he engaged in unilateral actions that could decrease tensions between the warring factions. While his security fence earned the scorn of liberals worldwide, he gained widespread praise for abandoning the Gaza strip and dismantling some West Bank settlements.

The peace process was clearly wounded at the beginning of this year when Ariel Sharon's career was ended by a debilitating stroke. Still, the peace process had strong momentum from Sharon's newly-formed Kadema party (including former PM Shimon Perez and current PM Ehud Olmert.) However, the Palestinian people seemgly rejected the idea of peace by surrendering their parliament to the violent Hamas movement. With Hamas's endorsement of violent resistance, the idea of honest negotiations with a Palestinian government is now suicidal for Israelis.

The reaction of Israeli voters in upcoming elections will be noteworthy, and the effects of the Hamas election will be clearly evident. Ariel Sharon's stroke did wound Kadema, but it was felt that Kadema could still make a strong showing at the polls due to heavyweights like Shimon Perez. Now that the Palestians have elected a government that is openly hostile to Israel's very existance, Israelis are highly unlikely to elect a peace party. Instead, the country will likely shift to the political right. Israelis will look to the Likud party and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to be a face of strength in opposition to Hamas.

The trend in old Judaea over the coming decade will see escalating violence, and peace will be a rare commodity. In this atmosphere, it's unlikely that the Roadmap for Peace (let alone the non-binding 2004 Geneva agreement) can be resumed. Israelis may find themselves in a tough position, rivaling the 1973 Yom Kippur War when the nation was nearly overrun. Between the election of a terrorist government in Palestine and Iran's suspected drive for nuclear weapons, it's a hard time to be Jewish island in a sea of Islam.

Friday, January 27, 2006

The Case Against Sharansky 

Just over a year ago, President Bush delivered his second inaugural address, promising to devote his presidency towards the cause of global freedom. His inspiration came from Israeli legislator Natan Sharansky and his book The Case For Democracy. In the year since the speech, the spread of global democracy and its consequences have been mixed at best. At worst, it has demonstrated that not all cultures are suited for democracy, and in their hands it can be a tool for populist depravity.

Obviously, the president had some history on his side, delivering his speech just days after Iraq's first free elections since 1958. Yet the Iraqi election opened a deeper rift in that society, as Sunni Arabs refused to participate.

The next pair of elections in the middle east were also hailed as a success; Palestinians made moderate Mahmoud Abbas their president, while Sunnis and Christians in northern Lebanon elected an anti-Syrian government. Still, the Shiites of southern Lebanon continued their support for the Islamist militia Hezbollah.

The end of the year saw a further erosion of the case for democracy. Egyptians went to the polls and gave a larger portion of seats in their legislature to the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Iranians elected Mahmood Ahmadinejad, an anti-Semitic fanatic who is too radical even for the clerics, as their president. Iraqis largely voted along sectarian lines in their Dec. 15 elections. And last, but not least, disaffected Palestinians gave control of their parliament to Hamas terrorists.

At least there were two bright spots in the quest for global freedom over the past year. The Germans, after eight years of Social Democrat rule, gave a plurality to the Christian Democrats and new chancellor Angela Merkel. The Canadian Liberal Party's bubble finally burst after 12 years. Both elections brought to power democratic governments that will have warmer relations with the US than their predecessors. Yet the lesson for the US Republican Party is clear. Just like the Canadian Liberals, they will see their base erode away if they let the hubris of power and the ensuing scandals consume the party. Republicans will have to act decisively to purge the party of members who have been tainted by scandal.

The middle east is proving that Democracy is not the birthright of all peoples; that it is part of a natural cultural revolution, but one that must come with time. Just as European societies evolved from monarchy to parliamentary monarchy to full democracies, the middle east must follow the same route. That region of the world is still awaiting its renaissance, and there is little the US can do to hasten the process. The best we can do is to let the autocrats run their course, and suppress the premature introduction of democracy to the middle east.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

The Terrible Two's 

As of today, this blog has been sitting on the web and viewed by a handful of people for two full years. Rather than celebrate, I feel like reflecting on the journey we have gone through over the course of two years.

You have probably noticed an evolution in the tone of this blog as time has gone on. Over the last few years, my faith in this nation's leadership (from both political parties) has steadily eroded. My view of America's role in the world is constantly shifting. Yet some things do not change, and those are the things worth holding on to.

America will always strive to be great, and it is this spirit, embodied in its people, which makes this nation the greatest on earth. America was built on the spirit of self-reliance, and a fear that a government left unchecked would take that self-reliance away.

Likewise, Impossible Scissors will strive to preserve American self-reliance, and it will support checks on government power and exposure of governmental inefficiency. To that end, it will continue to seek the base truth that underlies all of the spin that comes from those who seek to govern for personal gain. It will turn an eye towards those people who cannot stand America and wish her people harm. Impossible Scissors will support a strong national defense that will protect our people from external wickedness.

In closing, go about and live your lives bravely. I will be here for the forseeable future to offer my insights and perspectives; feel free to accept or reject them in equal measure. Remain skeptical of your government, but never become cynical. Ask what you can do for your country (as Jack Kennedy said) instead of what your country can do for you (as Ted Kennedy says.) No matter what the future brings, always keep faith that things will get better with time and effort. Most importantly, feel free to laugh at life, because you're not getting out of it alive.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Pakistani Prevarication 

Once again, Pakistan is talking from both sides of its mouth on the issue of terrorism and fundamentalism in Pakistan. While anonymous Pakistani sources are confirming the presence of high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in the Damadolla airstrike, Pakistan's government is publicly condemning the attack. On Wolf Blitzer's CNN program last Sunday, the Pakistani Prime Minister claimed there was no evidence of any al Qaeda members in the three homes that were demolished.

With Iraq, we were told that the Iraqi regime was evil but the common people were good. In Pakistan, the opposite is true. While Pakistan's leaders are pragmatists who see the benefits of cooperating with the US (and the consequences of defying the US,) the average Pakistani is an extremist fanatic who sympathises with Osama bin Laden.

In order to prevent a popular uprising, the Pakistani government publicly echoes the anti-American positions of its people, or at least avoids the appearance of standing hip-to-hip with America. Their private utterances to our government are a bit more reassuring. Nevertheless, public condemnations of American policy by Pakistan's government, no matter how insincere, only reinforce the anti-American sentiment in that region of the world.

At best, Pakistan is an ally of convenience in the war against Wahhabism. It is a nation of wickedness, and America will be best served when India turns Pakistan into a radioactive pancake.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Reciprocity 

In a rare first, the US military has admitted to holding eight Iraqi women as prisoners. That should provide ample leverage to get back reporter Jill Carroll. I'm not talking about a trade. I'm talking about reciprocity.

The cornerstone of the Geneva Conventions is the golden rule: do unto others as they would do unto you. If your enemy does not follow the conventions, you are not obligated to follow them either. As the insurgency has flaunted the Geneva Conventions, so should we. There should be no limits on the brutality we use to fight the insurgency. President Bush needs to take the leash off our military and take the kid gloves off.

We need to give the savage kidnappers an ultimatum: if Jill Carroll is not freed in 24 hours, we will decapitate one of the Iraqi women. Following that, another Iraqi woman will be decapitated every 12 hours thereafter until all eight are dead.

If the insurgents cave in, we get Jill Carroll back. If not, we make more space in prison and lose the burden of incarcerating eight insurgents. It's a win-win situation.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Ransom 

Good news: reporter Jill Carroll is still alive.
Bad news: terrorists will kill her in 72 hours unless the US releases all female prisoners in Iraq.

At this point, the US military has never admitted to retaining female prisoners, aside from the recently-released “Mrs. Anthrax” and “Dr. Germ.” Besides, terrorists cannot be trusted to be honest negotiators, and they will only be encouraged by appeasement. Just look at Colombia, where people can be kidnapped multiple times as long as their families continue to pay ransoms.

The key to securing Jill Carroll’s release and deterring future kidnappings is not to cave in to terrorist demands, but to give the terrorists a taste of their own medicine. The US needs to capture a prominent Sunni leader and demand the release of American hostages. If the insurgents do not meet OUR demands, we cut the bastard’s head off or splatter his brains with a 50-caliber machine gun.

In this case, we have a perfect target for retribution: Sunni political leader Adnan al-Dulaimi. Let’s consider the circumstances behind Jill Carroll’s kidnapping. She got permission from al Dulaimi for an interview. She shows up at Dulaimi’s office, where he is a no show. 300 yards away, her car is ambushed; the driver is thrown out, the translator is killed, and Carroll is kidnapped. Dulaimi certainly smells fishy. In any case, he is a perfect piece of bait for my “counter-kidnapping” plan.

Grab al-Dulaimi’s sorry ass off the street. Beat him. Sodomize him with M-16’s. Stick his sorry face on al Jazeera and threaten to blow his worthless brains out unless our people are let go. Treat these Iraqi savages in a savage way that only they could understand.

The ultimate irony is that Jill Carroll believed in the dignity of the Iraqi people and tried to tell that story to the world. Instead, the only side of the Iraqis I can see is a subhuman savagery. It is that same subhuman savagery that threatens the life of Jill Carroll right now.

Setting the record straight 

Impossible Scissors would like to extend a "kudos" to the Associated Press for finally reporting that at least four terrorists were killed in the recent Predator strike in Pakistan, only to have their sorry carcasses removed by the locals. Unfortunately, the truth arrived too late to prevent the Pakistanis from using the incident for anti-American propaganda.

As far as I'm concerned, none of the adults killed in the strike were innocent. They were terrorists, or terror-sympathizers who invited the terrorists for dinner. The children killed in the attack had their fates sealed by their wicked parents, who chose a life of Jihad instead of being responsible parents.

The incident should help to hammer home my point that Pakistan is a breeding ground of terrorism, and the US needs to throw its weight behind supporting India. As to whether Zawahiri was killed, we may never know unless we find all of the terrorist bodies from the strike; but he should at least feel rattled that we could take out his friends and confidantes.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Gored by the hypocrisy 

So let me get this straight. Al Gore is attacking President Bush for ordering the NSA to wire-tap phone calls without a warrant. At the same time, President Clinton (and previous presidents before him) also used the NSA for unwarranted wiretapping. This begs the question, what did Al Gore know about wiretapping when he was vice president, and how did he feel about the subject at the time?

Al Gore's tirades against the president's Iraq and wire-tapping policies should be seen as nothing more than a political charade, because he supported similar policies when he was vice president. Instead, Al Gore's recent tirades show Democrat activists that he is still politically alive. Do not count Al Gore out in 2008. If the anti-war Democrats remain strong, Al will seek the presidency and has a good shot at surpassing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Al could very well pull off a repeat performance of Richard Nixon in 1968.

At the same time, I am personally disturbed that the president thinks he is above the law. It is perfectly acceptable for the president to seek a warrant for a wire tap after such a wiretap has already been performed (especially in response to suspicious chatter which the NSA allaegedly screens for.) Yet the president does not seek these warrants because he feels that the "war on terrorism" resolution of Sept. 14, 2001 relieves him of this burden. Nevertheless, the president is not above the law, and the Constitution does not give him (or President Clinton or any previous president) the authority to ignore the fourth amendment. Ultimately, it may be the supreme court (and possibly Samuel Alito) who decides whether the war resolution allows the president to go down the slippery slope of suspending the constitution.

Honestly, Al Gore's calls for a federal investigation and an implied impeachment of President Bush are beyond the pale. Al Gore needs to take some advice from his favorite political action committee; it's time for Al Gore to Move On (.org)

Sympathy for the Devil 

I try to mark the anniversary of the start of Operation Desert Storm (Jan 16, 1991) with a relevant post in Impossible Scissors. While the post may be relevant, it may shock my faithful readership. If you choose to never read my blog again after this post, I will respect your decision, even as I try to promote my viewpoint to all who choose to listen.

For the past fifteen years we have been assured by three separate presidents (Bush 41, Clinton, & Bush 43) that our beef with Iraq is not with the "noble people" of Iraq, but with their cruel leader, Saddam Hussein. Up until two years ago, I firmly believed that. I naively thought that, once the burden of dictatorship was removed, the "noble" Iraqis could form a free and inclusive society that would be a model for the region to follow. I was gravely mistaken in this belief, and over 2,200 Americans have given their lives for a civilizing mission in a savage land.

We have pulled the tyrant from his spider hole, killed his sons, closed his rape rooms, and scattered the Fedayeen who tossed dissidents off rooftops and put them in plastic shredders. Yet how have the Iraqis showed their gratitude to their American liberators? They have bombed us in the streets, fired grenades at our helicopters, killed our bodyguards and dragged their charred bodies through the streets, and cut the heads off our kidnapped civilians. While the defenders of the Iraqis will point to the involvement of foreign jihadists, the sad truth is that over 90% of the enemy is composed of Iraqis who fall into jihadist, nationalist, and tribalist camps.

When Moqtada al Sadr began his revolt in April 2004, I had to ask myself, What's going on here? This was a Shiite whose father was killed by Saddam, yet he is declaring war on us. At that point, I slowly began to lose all respect for the Shiite community in Iraq. At the same time, I started to see the logic behind Saddam Hussein's actions. After all, if he killed Moqtada's old man, he couldn't have been that bad of a guy.

As time went on, the situation in Shiite-held areas of Iraq only worsened. This summer, journalist Stephen Vincent was murdered in Basra, perhaps by the local police. Two British soldiers were imprisoned by authorities in Basra, where the police have been infiltrated by al Sadr's militia and by Iranian-backed militias. The Basra locals protested the British presence and attacked British soldiers. That's when I said that enough was enough. The only way to govern Iraq is Saddam's way.

The key to understanding Iraq is understanding the three factions who want nothing to do with each other. There are the fiercly militant Sunni Arabs, who pledge allegiance to various Islamist, pan-Arabist, tribalist, and ultimately xenophobic philosophies. They hate us because we are not them--Sunni Iraqi Arabs.

The Shiite community is overwhelmingly lazy--too lazy to fight back against the insurgency, too lazy to take a proactive role in building a democratic government, and too lazy to express an independent thought aside from those approved by Ayatollah Sistani. They say things like "give us democracy" to the Americans; these statements only demonstrate their ignorance of what democracy is all about. Democracy can't be given to a society; democracy can only be built through the cooperation of people within the society.

There are a minority of Shiites who are proactive, but they're not the good ones. They are the fanatical followers of al Sadr, who believe they are paving the way for the Islamic messiah. They are Iranian-backed militants who are smuggling armor-piercing IED's into Iraq. They need to be exterminated.

The Kurds are the only faction America can count on. While the Kurds are fierce and while they are Sunnis, they are appreciative of America for freeing them from Saddam. While the Shiite community as a whole was too spineless to stand up to Saddam, the Kurds mustered every man they had and fought Saddam with tooth and nail.

In short, the idea of an Iraqi nation is a fiction, and the idea that Iraqis can sustain a democracy without a strong American presence in the country is science-fiction. Iraqis do not understand laws and civility; they will only respond to violence and killing. While I am leery of Iraq becoming like post-Soviet Afghanistan in the wake of American withdrawal, I am also tired of these awful Iraqis killing our brave Americans and allies. When confronted with two equally-awful outcomes, I would rather seek out a third way:

Reinstate Saddam Hussein.

As ludicrous and wicked as it sounds, it may be the best solution for America. Granted, I am willing to give Iraq's newly elected government a six-month trial to see if it can unite the warring factions, but I am highly skeptical at its chances for success. If Iraqi democracy fails, we have to go back to a known quantity, and that quantity is Saddam Hussein and his fellow Baathist thugs.

I have no doubts that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States; yet everything we have learned after invading Iraq shows that Saddam was a containable threat. If Iraq becomes a terrorist anarchy, that is an uncontainable threat.

Because US tactics are too soft-handed to contain the wickedness that is the Iraqi people, we need to turn to somebody who has no qualms and no morals. While it might be nice to have a pro-US, benevolent dictator to run Iraq, it would take time to establish such a dictatorship, and there are no guarantees it would work. A restored Saddam Hussein dictatorship has a proven track record. It would speak to the Iraqi people in the only language they understand: mustard gas and mass graves.

Of course, the United States should never sell out its friends. That's why we need to have programs to help the Iraqi factions that we like. For Iraq's Christians, who have endured great suffering since Saddam's regime ended, we can evacuate them to the US and other countries where Christianity is tolerated. We can work with Turkey to carve out a new nation from northern Iraq that would serve as a home for Iraqi Kurds. Prior to the establishment of that nation, we would have to turn the Kurdish militias loose in Kirkuk and Mosul to kill and otherwise relocate the Sunni Arabs who moved there under Saddam's Anfal campaign. After the establishment of the Kurdish state, a US military presence would be needed to assure Turkey that the country would not be used to support Kurdish insurgents in Turkey.

As for the rest of Iraq, they can have a leader who is every bit as savage as they are: Saddam Hussein. When they rise up against authority, Saddam will gas their cities, kill their men, rape the women, and put the children in prison. That might be enough to make the Shiites and Sunnis behave themselves.

My plan may sound wicked and callous. But I have reached the point where I am tired of seeing brave and noble Americans being killed while trying to bring freedom to a savage and ungrateful people who frankly don't deserve freedom. Iraqis need to be oppressed, lest their wickedness spread throught the region and the entire world. When people ask how many Iraqis have been killed in this war, I can only respond, "Twenty-six million too few."

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Conspiracies Du Jour 

Here's some food-for-thought for my readers who happen to be more paranoid than the average American:

Is Hillary Clinton really being attacked by left-wing anti-war activists? Or is this just a charade to re-cast Hillary as a centrist for her presidential bid in 2008?

Pat Robertson's recent rants about "God punishing Ariel Sharon" and "taking out Hugo Chavez" (plus his rant with Jerry Falwell about 9/11 being divine punishment for America's "sins") have angered the White House. Perhaps Pat Robertson is really a Democratic operative, trying to discredit Christian conservatives. Pat Robertson certainly gave credence to the theory in November 2004 when he stated that he warned the president about invading Iraq, and claimed the president thought the operation would be a cakewalk.

With crazy theories like these, I could become a right-wing version of Michael Moore (minus 300 pounds of body weight.)

Praying that all are safely home 

The Impossible Scissors asks its readers to keep kidnapped reporter Jill Carroll in their thoughts and prayers.

Normally I get a sense of schadenfreude when I hear about misfortune befalling journalists in Iraq, because most of them are slackers who are doing a shitty job. But Jill Carroll and the rest of the team at the Christian Science Monitor are the exception. They want to tell the story of what's happening in Iraq without any kind of partisan spin. They aren't afriad to leave their hotels in the Green Zone. Many of them are still embedded with American units, which is perhaps the only means for a journalist to access most of the country. Americans should support the Christian Science Monitor and its brave reporters.

Indeed, we should pray for all the people and their families who have gone missing as a result of the battle for the middle east (World War IV.) We should hope to find Sgt Matt Maupin, who was abducted by insurgents in April 2004 and likely executed less than two months later. We should pray for the safe release of Aban Elias, an American civil engineer who returned to his homeland to help its people, only to be kidnapped in May 2004. And we should pray to determine exactly what happened to Capt. Scott Speicher, the naval aviator who went missing in Iraq nearly 15 years ago, and that his family may find closure.

While the people we care about may be lost to us, we can pray that all are safely home.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Heroes of OEF #1: Major Duane Dively 


Major Duane Dively was a U-2S pilot assigned to the Air Force's 1st Reconnaissance Squadron, deployed to the United Arab Emirates as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was a 20-year Air Force veteran whose life came to an abrupt end in a landing accident on June 22, 2005. He was 43 years old.

The U-2 spyplane has been a high-profile and indispensible asset in the defense of this nation for fifty years. Between July 4, 1956 and May 1, 1960, the U-2 gave us our best look at the military might of the Soviet Union. In October 1962, U-2's provided irrefutable evidence that the Soviets had nuclear missiles in Cuba. The U-2 provided photographic coverage over Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. But its successes were not without a heavy price. Francis Gary Powers was captured by the Soviets and held prisoner for two years. U-2 pilots lost their lives during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Operation Deliberate Force.

Major Duane Dively had the right stuff to fly one of the most challenging planes ever built. On a typical mission, he would strap on the same suit that space shuttle astronauts wear, fly above 70,000 feet where the air density is a tiny fraction of what it is at sea level, fly for a dozen hours or so, and bring the plane back for a delicate landing on its bicycle landing gears. The plane's long, thin wings are so fragile that any abrupt maneuver could snap them off. Major Dively was a true professional, and he did an excellent job.

While U-2 operations are still very secretive, it's not hard to imagine the impact they have made in the war against Jihad. Photographic intelligence of Afghanistan lets our Soldiers and Marines know where the enemy is hiding, while communications intercepts from the U-2 let us get inside the enemy's decision-making cycle. The impact that Major Dively made on the war effort may never be disclosed to the public, but he wasn't in it for the glory. He loved to fly and he loved his nation. Doing what he did best in defense of the nation was enough to Major Dively.

Click here to read more about the life of this great American.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Still Guilty After All These Years 

Just a week ago, the media was abuzz with headlines like Did Virginia execute an innocent man? and DNA to decide if innocent man was executed. The slant to such stories was blatant and palpable. However, the new DNA tests have confirmed what the Virginia prosecutor and twelve ordinary citizens have believed: Roger Keith Coleman, a Virginia coal miner, raped and murdered his sister-in-law back in 1981. Reading the media reports gives you the sense that the news organizations are crestfallen.

Death penalty opponents have long pointed to Coleman's case and claimed that an innocent man fell victim to the American justice system. While they can no longer claim that Coleman was innocent, their arguments against the death penalty become no less valid. While I do not feel that the death penalty should be totally abolished, I think that a lifetime of prison rape and beatings would have been more appropriate in Coleman's case.

At the same time, the goal of death penalty opponents to prove that innocent people have been executed is slipping further and further away. Have innocent people been executed in the past? The odds game would make this a certainty. But as time has marched on, the odds of this happening have rapidly dwindled. Juries are more reluctant to mete out the death penalty now, and prosecutors have become more hesitant in seeking it. The appeal process has become lengthier, and death row inmates have better access to competent attorneys, thanks in part to the activism of death penalty opponents. Most importantly, the proliferation of DNA testing makes it easier for the innocent to go free, and gives us peace of mind that we're putting the right people on death row.

In short, death penalty abolishonists have lost one of their cause celebres, but their movement will not substantially weaken. In the meantime, the death penalty will become more and more rare, but our certainty of guilt when handing down death sentences will increase. I greatly doubt that an innocent man will be executed in America during the rest of my lifetime.

Judicial Charades 

The news has been dominated by four days of confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito, who will probably be the next Supreme Court justice. It would be a mistake to call the confirmation hearings an honest attempt to determine Alito's fitness to be a justice. Instead, think of it as a judicial game.

Going into the hearing, I suspect that all 100 senators had already determined which way they would vote on Samuel Alito. The only uncertainty is whether the Democrats, lacking the votes to defeat Alito, would fillibuster him. Back in May, the Democrats agreed that they would only filibuster a judicial nominee under "extreme circumstances." This vague terminology set the stage for the heated confirmation hearings. While the Republican questions were geared towards making Alito look like a shining example of even-temperedness and judicial restraint, Democrats tried to goad Judge Alito into making a shocking comment that would create grounds for "extraordinary circumstances."

By the end of the hearings, Samuel Alito and the Republicans were the clear winners. In spite of the loaded questions, Alito held his ground, displayed his poise and intellect, and never gave the Democrats any kind of incendiary sound-bite to rally around. Even when his wife left the room in tears, Alito maintained his discipline. The Republican goal of making Judge Alito look even-tempered was fulfilled, due mainly to Alito's responses to Democrat questions.

At the same time, Republicans shouldn't have let Alito off so easily. The Supreme Court fight is one of the most important political battles; it's important to not get another David Souter who will wrap himself in conservative clothing to hide his radical heart. Perhaps most importantly is the battle over eminent domain; Americans deserve a justice who will keep local governments in check on this matter.

The damage done on the Democrats this week has yet to be determined, but it will be significant. Prominent party leaders like Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein came off as mean-spirited but impotent. Pundits like Pat Buchanan are predicting the end of Joe Biden's presidential aspirations. The event may lead to the weakening of the Democratic leadership, although an even more radical party will almost certainly replace it.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Naive New Orleans 

While the politicians focus on the social engineering behind rebuilding New Orleans, I am trained to think about the hydrological and civil engineering that needs to go into the city's rebuilding. Unfortunately, the plan advocated by the Bring New Orleans Back committee reflects the same laissez-faire attitude that dominated the city prior to Hurricane Katrina.

That's not to say that the committee was a total failure. There's a lot of good material about working with private enterprise, strengthening public education, and fostering the arts. However, two issues throw up bright red flags: the levees and the areas below sea level.

The plan only calls for building levees that can withstand a Category 3 hurricane. While that may have been sufficient to hold back Katrina, the requirement assumes that New Orleans will not see a storm any worse than Katrina. That is a tragically-ludicrous assumption, just like the former belief that New Orleans would never be hit by a significant hurricane. The requirement should be written so that the levees will withstand a Cat 5.

Further, the plan calls for rebuilding the neighborhoods that were below sea level. Understandably, there is much history in these areas, and people have long-standing and deeply emotional ties to lands that have been in the family for generations. Nevertheless, we have to cut our ties to the past, lest we merely repeat the mistakes of the past. Continuing a mistake cannot be excused by the fact that our forebears made the same mistake. We have to admit that it was foolish to build on these low-lying areas. For the people who lost their homes in the flood, they can be compensated with new homes built on higher ground outside the existing city limits. Whether the low-lying areas are left as they are, turned into parks, or converted into lagoons can be decided on a case-by-case basis. But no further construction should be allowed by rational city leadership.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

That Other War 

An emerging controversy in the town of Duluth, Minnesota caught my attention. A man who works for a Democratic politician has hung a sign in his office's window keeping tally of the Americans killed and wounded in Iraq. The occurrence is much like Ted Koppel reading the names of the war dead on an episode of Nightline in May 2004.

While the people behind these gestures claim they are honoring the fallen, the question must be asked, why aren't they honoring the fallen Soldiers and Marines from Afghanistan? The only answer I can see is that Afghanistan is being ignored because it isn't an unpopular war that has become a political liability for the president and his supporters. This ignorance is all the more shameful when we consider that fighting al Qaeda and its Taliban backers in Afghanistan has prevented future waves of attacks against our homeland.

Impossible Scissors seeks to rectify this egregious error. Every week, Impossible Scissors will have a post entitled "OEF Hero of the Week," honoring those brave Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for us and for our freedoms during Operation Enduring Freedom. This series will continue until Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar are killed.

On behalf of rational Americans, Impossible Scissors thanks everybody who has contributed to America's efforts in "that other war." We must learn from the errors of the Korea generation and ensure that it isn't a forgotten war.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Fakin' It? 

Although it's been a month since the execution deadline passed without a word, we're still hearing pleas for the release of the Christian Peacemaker Teams activists. Pat Kember, wife of one of the pacifists, issued a statement calling for her husband Norman's release.

When the four men were captured in November, the entire affair smelled extremely fishy. These activists were "exposing American abuse of Iraqis" and trying to end the occupation. All of a sudden, they are kidnapped by the Swords of Righteousness Brigade, and threatened with execution if the US does not release prisoners and leave Iraq. The lives of the activists were threatened for the same goals that they sought. Now that the execution deadline has passed, no "snuff video" has emerged on al Jazeera or the Islamist websites; is this a coincidence?

Still, there is a chance that the kidnapping is legit. Most of the abductions begin with criminal gangs, who know they can take hostages and sell them to ideologues for money. The insurgents are so desperate that somebody else has to do their dirty work for them. After the insurgents buy their hostage, they can make their demands on Jihad TV, then film the snuff video when their patience runs out. In this case, the Swords of Righteousness Brigade might be paranoid enough to believe that the activists are really spies. They might be motivated by a desire to kill Christians (even shitty Christians who help wicked heathens.)

The Christian Peacemaker Teams are the latest incarnation of the Quakers who aided the enemy in Vietnam, and we have every reason to be suspicious of their actions. I think it will be a long time before we find out what happened to the four activists and the exact circumstances of their kidnapping. Let's just say I won't be terribly disturbed if their snuff movie pops up on the internet.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Axis of Assholes 

Ariel Sharon's debilitating stroke has brought out a variety of reactions across the world, and some of them are so vile that they defy description. By virtue of their comments on Ariel Sharon, these incorrigible individuals have joined my "Axis of Assholes."

The Alpha Asshole is Iran's maniacal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Then again, this is the same donkey-raper who denies the holocaust, calls for the extermination of Israel, and justifies the Iran hostage crisis (which he may have participated in.) I pray nightly that my just and merciful God kills this sick son-of-a-bitch.

Those Palestinians who celebrated Sharon's stroke also deserve to be carpet-bombed. Then again, we are talking about the same savages who celebrated in the streets on September 11, 2001. They have no gratitude to the man who gave them the Gaza Strip back. Let them die the deaths of ingrates.

Finally, we have the All-American Asshole, Pat Robertson. The infamous holy-roller is at it again, claiming that the stroke is "divine retribution" for giving the holy land away. He also claimed that 9/11 was divine retribution for what he viewed as America's sins. Give me a break, Pat. The only divine retribution going on here is my divine foot kicking Pat Robertsaon's sinner ass.

A wise history professor of mine once said, "It takes a hawk to make peace." He was referring to Nixon's policies on Vietnam and China, but the same could be said about Ariel Sharon. The former general and the defense minister during the Lebanon invasion would become the prime minister who gave Gaza back to the Palestinians. Gaza is a test case to see if the Palestinians can form a responsible government and earn their right to statehood (and they're not doing a very good job of that right now.) For Israel, Ariel Sharon has vacillated between the sword and the olive branch; he understands that effective diplomacy requires an effective stick to make the carrot appear sweeter. Ariel Sharon's policies will overshadow the so-called peace process in the middle east for decades to come. Shame to all who denigrate him and his legacy.

Do Not Go Softly Into That Gentle Night 

It seems like I haven't been myself lately. I'm a lot more irritable, uncooperative, snappy, depressed, and downtrodden at the same time. This is to blame, in part, on the recent passing of my maternal grandmother.

The last six years of my grandmother's life were a gift from God that I did not fully utilize. I remember my grandmother saying during June 1998 that, according to her doctor, she would be dead from emphysema within a year. Well, there are two things you must know about my grandmother. First and foremost, she was a fighter who was too stubborn to quit. Second, she was never a person who trusted doctors. The last years of her life were spent being true to herself, as she kept going despite her increasing need for medical assistance.

The last time I saw her was Christmas 2004. We had spoken on the phone a few times since then, like on the day of my birthday. But it was clear that I had never really gotten to know her as a person to to fully appreciate what she had done for her family.

She died rather suddenly, just a few days before I flew home for Christmas. It came as a disgusting shock, but not a surprise. I felt isolated from her and the family during her final moments. My grandmother was then cremated, which denied me what I felt was an opportunity to say goodbye. In spite of the healing symbolism that goes into a funeral service, I know that it does the dead no good; it benefits only the living. From the life after this life, I know that my grandmother is free to judge me as she chooses. All I can say is that I'm sorry for failing as a grandson.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

The Most Dangerous Job 

Recent media reports gave Americans false hope for another mine rescue miracle. After initial confusion, only one of the thirteen West Virginia coal miners has been rescued alive from his tomb over two miles below the earth's surface.

Yet this incident, much like the previous Pennsylvania miners miracle of 2002 and the movie October Sky, makes me question why our society makes men dig in mines for a living. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs, when one considers the on-the-job fatality rates. And for those miners who are not killed in cave-ins and explosions, death may come slowly in the form of black lung disease. Coal mining is a job that should become obsolete.

The reason why brave men mine coal is because Americans still rely heavily on coal for energy. We are long past due in phasing coal out of usage. This should have become clear to us during the energy crisis of the early 70's. Unfortunately, neither political party has shown the bold leadership needed to shift the power paradigm. With so many reliable forms of energy like nuclear, hydro, biodiesel & biomass, wind, and even solar, it is possible for this nation to build a robust energy infrastructure that doesn't include dirty & dangerous coal. This is a promise we must make to the miners who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation's energy needs, and it is one worth keeping.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Getting Conned by ComCast 

I had my cable service disconnected over the past two months and recently decided to have it hooked back up. THe process started with a phone call to "Friendly Neighborhood Cable Monopoly" ComCast. It turns out that it would take several days to send a technician to physically reconnect the cable. I thought I was a patient guy, so I waited it out.

In the days that followed, I received a notice from a professional debt collection agency that ComCast wanted its cable modem back. Imagine the indignity I felt at this harrassment.

Anyways, the cable guy arrived at the tail end of his four-hour window, chatted with some other guy I didn't recognize while he was outside, then told me that the service should be up and running within an hour. When the time elapsed, I tried to connect to the internet, only to find that my account hadn't yet been activated. I began what became a 20-minute phone call to the cable monopoly.

The conversation began with a receptionist who pointed out that the work order for the hookup hadn't been called in yet. I was transferred to tech support, where I was promised they could do something about it. The tech support weenie then told me that he was powerless to do anything about it. I asked to be transferred back to the main office. A synopsis of our conversation follows.

ME: There has to be somebody who has the authority to activate my account.
COMCAST: Sir, there isn't
ME: Well, can't you call the repair man to get him to verify that he hooked me back up, or get him to call my account info in?
COMCAST: No, sir. You will have to wait until he comes back into the office, which will probably be at the end of the business day.
ME: This is so frustrating. I don't even know why I bother dicking around with ComCast.
COMCAST: What was that, sir?
ME: I said, I don't know why I bother dicking around with ComCast.
COMCAST: Sir, that language is unnecessary.
ME: I'm tired of this. Your company is running a bush-league operation. If my cable is not running by tomorrow morning, I'm cancelling my service.
COMCAST: Well, I hope your problem is fixed and you have a nice day.
ME: Burn in Hell. (Hang up.)

The moral of the story: consolidation in the cable TV market is hurting customers. Attention Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez: please break up this destructive monopoly.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?