Written by: Beck

Laura is done speaking, and if I'm not gravely mistaken, that's it for the night apart from the punditry and commentary. Blogger.com willing, I'll be back tomorrow evening covering & commenting on Day 3 of the RNC--watching the whole damn thing so you don't have to.

Hey, I kind of like that for a motto.

Speakers tomorrow include Lynn Cheney, Dick Cheney, and keynote speaker Democrat Zell Miller.

Buh-bye.

Written by: Beck

The introductions of the Bush daughters complete, they've cut to footage of President Bush who will introduce Laura via live remote.

I can't imagine this will be an especially exciting speech, but then, the job of the First Lady's speech isn't to be exciting. She just needs to be genuine and endearing. From what the pundits were saying earlier, Laura Bush is one of the two most popular First Ladies in modern politics, the other one being Barbara Bush, so she shouldn't have too hard a time.

I think Laura is the only person I've heard say Dick Cheney's name without it somehow sounding sinister or creepy. She's also the only one who can say, "George Dubya," without sounding like there's an implied insult behind the nickname. The only problem I have is the strong hint of a Dallas accent (not to be mistaken for other, much less annoying Texas accents).

She definitely looks more comfortable than she did four years ago when she made her first major public speaking appearance ever (if I recall correctly) at the convention itself. Also, unlike her husband, she doesn't look like she's aged in the past four years. Bush looks about 10 years older than he did in 2000.

Update: The issue most important for the future: to fight terror and make our country secure, "So our children can grow up in a more peaceful world."

[Paraphrasing] "Our nation owes its thanks to the young men and women fighting so that we can have a safer future." This certainly beats Kerry's wife's speech wherein she bragged about her "struggle" against racism in South Africa (which seems to have involved going to one protest) and pontificating about how people needed to be more conscious of their responsibility to the environment.

Update: I didn't know Laura Bush's father died of Alzheimer's. He was present at the liberation of one of the Nazi Death Camps. Perhaps Alzheimer's was something of a mercy.

Update: She's making another point which I think hasn't been emphasized enough--the freedom of the women of Afghanistan. They weren't even legally allowed to learn how to read under the Taliban. The Taliban regime was one of the feminist movement's cause celebre's of choice. Strangely, they fell silent when it was a Republican who freed those virtual slaves.

I think I just hit the boredom wall. Laura's voice is a bit too monotonous and her delivery a bit too much like Senator Dole's.

In other news, Bush & Laura met at a BBQ and were married 3 months later. Yeesh.

Written by: Beck

The Bush daughters are up to the plate. I think they just propositioned Schwartzenegger. Lame speech so far, but then, what do you expect? Ixnay on the Sex in the City jokes. Yeesh.

Self referential jokes--"We spent the last 4 years trying to stay out of the spotlight. [Chagrined look]."

"When your dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn how to stand up for yourself." More jokes. Not especially funny. The DNC handled this better--parading the daughters of Kerry and Edwards in front of the camera, but keeping their time on stage to a minimum (not short enough though, what with the hamster CPR story). Plus, the daughters are playing up the "Ditzy Coed Girl" routine. Actually, it probably plays pretty well to the base.

"We had a hamster too. Let's just say ours didn't make it." Now THAT'S funny.

Moving on to the "substance" part of the speech now, they're talking about what wonderful people their parents are and all the values and whatnot they learned from them. I think it might be time for another sandwich.

Written by: Beck

Maria Shriver's overbite has always disturbed me. Am I the only one? She's sitting next to George H. W. Bush, amusingly. Sorry, was that off topic?

Pundits: He won the Mr. Universe contest 5 times.

Ahnold: "This is like winning an Oscar... Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called True Lies. And that's what the Democrats should have called their convention." Not really funny, and the quoting your movie career stuff was old back during the California governor recall election. Please, let it stop.

"To stand here and speak on behalf of the President of the United States of America is an immigrant's dream." Followed by a list of great things about the USA. He should try to get a "USA! USA! USA!" chant going. When he says that becoming an American citizen was his proudest day, you can tell he means it.

Update: He's talking of the fear he lived in under the Soviet oppressed Austrian nation. And the USA! USA! USA! chant has started! Can I call 'm or what?

Update: I remember from my one trip to Austria what a huge national hero Schwartzenegger is. I wonder if they're all watching his speech right now. I also wonder how they feel about his line that [paraphrased], "I still love Austria, but my home is the USA."

Now he's quoting his impression on coming to the United States of hearing Nixon speak. I'm not sure how that's going to play. Expect it to be taken out of context in the press. "Nixon talked about free enterprise and getting government off your back and it was like a breath of fresh air to me." This was an Arnold who had just arrived in the States. "I heard that, and I said, 'I am a Republican.'" Followed by a pot-shot at the Kennedys.

"Immigrants tonight, we want you to know how welcome you are in this party." Arnold's an interesting person to be making immigrant outreach. For one thing he's an immigrant himself, but for another, he's governor of the state with the most immigrants, legal and otherwise, of any state in the nation.

Update: "How do you know if you're a Republican? If you believe the government should be accountable to the people, not that the people should be accountable to the government, then you are a Republican... If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, than you are a Republican... If you believe that your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... If you believe that this country, not the United Nations is the best hope for Democracy..." That last one has the crowd going wild. It's amazing how much the US has turned against the UN. There have been people advocating an American exit from the UN for decades, but they were never really taken seriously until after the UN absolutely failed to support the US in the war on terrorism.

Nuts, he just said something about "terminating terrorism." The California legislature should pass a law banning Schwartzenegger from ever making another pun from one of his movies. I'm guessing now that he's going to wrap things up with an, "I'll be back," to say nothing of the fact that he just dropped a "girly man" reference. Oh well, I guess you stick with what you know. It seems to work for the crowd.

He makes a great point here: Remember 20 years ago when people said that Japan and Germany were overtaking the United States (economically)? It was nonsense, and fear-mongering that India and China are overtaking the US economically is equally nonsense. I don't agree with him entirely, but he makes a compelling point. My opinion is that Japan didn't overtake us (Germany had too many structural problems for long term success (i.e. they were too economically liberal) was because America recognized the threat and responded by adopting Japanese manufacturing methods, working harder, and being conscious of the fact that we couldn't keep making shitty cars and expecting people to buy them.

Update: "Make no mistake, terrorism is a greater threat than communism, because it seeks not just to destroy the individual, but an entire way of life... Bush went to Iraq not because it was popular, indeed the polls said just the opposite, he went to Iraq to combat a threat to the American way of life, that's why we're safer today under President George W. Bush." [paraphrasing there a bit at the end.]

The audience is absolutely eating this stuff up. The networks may not have seen fit to broadcast Giuliani or McCain, but at least the whole nation has an opportunity to watch this one.

Update: Well, he's nearing the end of his speech, and he used the "I'll be back," line, but in a novel way--relating how someone else had used the line on him.

"My fellow Americans, I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains the great idea that inspires the world..." Now he's chanting "4 more years" along with the audience--the first speaker I've seen join in the chant.

Close out with a camera shot of Bush Sr. waving an "ARNOLD" sign. Annnnd cut.

Written by: Beck

Michael Steel--Maryland's Lieutenant Governor--is speaking now on Civil Rights.

"I had planned to give a moving defense of conservative principles tonight, but there was one problem--Barack Obama gave it last month at the Democratic National Convention." OK, I noticed the same thing too, as did others--change one or two words, and Obama could have been delivering the Republican keynote speech. However, considering that most Americans didn't see Obama's speech, I have to question the wisdom of making this point. The audience clearly was rather uncertain of how to react.

He's moved on to tallying Republican accomplishments in civil rights, from Abraham Lincoln to defeating the pro-segregation Southern Democrats during the Civil Rights Act fights. I can think of a few people who likely would argue that the Republican party is NOT the party of minorities. That's another debate for another time however.

Update: Turns out Steele is the first minority elected to a statewide office in Maryland.

"[Kerry] doesn't want to use the word 'war' to describe our efforts against terrorism. Well ladies and gentlemen, I don't want to use the words 'Commander in Chief' to describe John Kerry." Well, I guess we've strayed a wee bit off the civil rights topic, but I have to admit, if I had a chance to speak at the convention, I wouldn't be able to resist a few anti-Kerry digs regardless of what the topic was.

Ah, now he's bringing the anti-Kerry schtick around to the civil rights. All the things that Republicans, and often Democrats, voted for in the Senate, "...but not John Kerry." The crowd is chanting along with him.

"Alright, enough about [Kerry.]" Agreed.

Update: His mother, a life-long Democrat, asked Steele how he could grow up to be a Republican. "Mom, you raised me well." HAW! "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot encouraging the weak by bringing down the strong... you cannot bring about the brotherhood of man by encouraging conflict." All good stuff. I missed a few of his "you cannots" because he was going too fast. You'll just have to take my word on it.

Written by: Beck

Ron Paige, the Secretary of Education, is speaking now. Shockingly, he's speaking about education. I think I'm going to go have a sandwich.

Update: Actually, Paige delivered a pretty good (and mercifully brief) speech. He did a good job making the case for the No Child Left Behind program and argued that it has succeeded. Further, he pointed out that Bush increased education more in the past 3 years than Clinton did during the entire 8 years he was in office.

Written by: Beck

Blogger.com seems to be working again. Looks like someone had to go in manually and kill a couple posts that never properly went through. At least someone's on the job.

In other news, Bill Frist is speaking at the moment. This fact is primarily noteworthy because he's considered to be on the short list of potential Republican candidates in 2008. His speech thus far has been fine, but not especially noteworthy. His delivery reminds me of John Kerry--his style is fine, he's convincing, he's sincere, it's not like he's monotone or anything, it's just that he doesn't engender excitement.

In other news, Frist just called for the partial privitization of social security again. This wonderful idea cannot be pushed hard enough as far as I'm concerned. The more people are given free market opportunities for investment, the more efficiently savings will accrue and the less likely the government is to bankrupt itself as it becomes swamped by the mass retirements of the baby boomer generation.

"...our abused personal injury system, the abuse of trial lawyers... and we oppose those predators. [Paraphrasing] We must stop them from twisting medical service into a medical lottery where they hit the jackpot and patients wind up paying." I agree entirely, and this is another message that needs to be told. Also, it's a highly effective criticism of John Edwards who profiteered off the suffering of poor families and exploitation of pseudo-science and the ignorance of juries.

"You can no longer be pro-patient and pro-trial lawyer... John Kerry has made his choice, he put a trial lawyer on his ticket."

Update: Frist is having entirely too much rhetorical fun, and his speech has gone on far too long. The last five minutes have been entirely a repeat of points he had already raised, phrased in new ways in an attempt to be catchy. It didn't especially work, but it still served to get his primary messages across. Namely he argues that Bush is better on health care and that despite claims to the contrary, the Bush White House hasn't banned stem cell research, they've just limited government funding on certain specific types of stem cell research, and banned nothing.

Written by: Beck

George P. Bush has taken the stage now. He recently spoke out in opposition to government efforts to strengthen border patrol officer's abilities to fight illegal immigration. He does this at a time when more and more reports are coming out about terrorists trying to enter the United States disguised as Mexican immigrants crossing America's Southern border. I can't help but think George P., much like George W., isn't thinking beyond the basic surface level implications of immigration policy.

George P., after making a point about W.'s increase in education spending, has pointed out that minority home-ownership has reached the highest levels in American history & that tax breaks help small business owners--two points not heard or said often enough.

Update: It's pretty obvious that George P. will be pursuing a political life before too long. I've got a hunch--interruption: he just launched into Spanish. Good accent (I understand he's 100% fluent in Spanish, like his father). Where was I? Ah yes. I was going to complain about how all of the Bush's seem inclined to name their sons "George." It's really frigging annoying. A prediction: in twenty years or so George P. Bush will be running for president, and his opponents will make unending tired parallels between King George III and George P. This will annoy me when it occurs. You have been warned.

Written by: Beck

Senator Dole is speaking now. I was never a huge fan of her, but then, that's largely because I see her as an enemy of high speed limits. The accent is kind of annoying too.

Tonight's theme is "Compassion of the American People," which I can't help but imagine translates to, "A bunch of boring pontification." It's a necessary part of politics--I wouldn't expect to see anything any different--still, it hardly makes for rousing stuff.

Updates to follow if Dole says anything worth commenting on.

Update: "Marriage between a man and a woman isn't something Republicans invented, but it is something Republicans will defend." Followed by a pro-elderly and a pro-unborn message. After which she repeated her, "...but it is something Republicans will defend" line. I guess someone was bound to bring these points up, but I can't imagine it will play all that well. I suppose today is the day the Republicans appeal to their base. And I'd certainly rather this message be delivered by a non-threatening, harmless personage like Dole rather than, for instance, Pat Buchanan.

The "...Republicans will defend," hookline doesn't do it for me either. It's a bit of a contortion of a phrase, and doesn't roll off the tongue. Plus, her delivery is far too reminiscent of a 2nd grade teacher reading Curious George to her students.

Update: I've heard a lot of criticism from liberals about the Republicans not giving a genuine representation of their party at this convention (e.g. Andrew Sullivan). Their complaint is that the biggest headliners--McCain, Giuliani, and Schwartzenegger--are moderates, but the party's platform is much more conservative. Two things: first of all, Dole just laid out every single piece of social conservatism in the platform. It's there, for all the world to see now. I suspect will be hearing plenty more of that tonight as well. Second, the entire DNC was about being pro-war, and no one will seriously convince me that the Democratic Party base is a gung-ho, pro-war, political party. The half-million people (or 120,000 depending on who you talk to) marching in New York on Sunday demonstrated that amply.

Written by: Beck

Mark Shields makes an interesting observation: the perception and the reality of Arnold Schwarzenegger are completely different. People think of his political views as being somehow reflective of his movie persona, which isn't necessarily the case.

Evidently there's some concern that Schwarzenegger will draw a bigger crowd tonight than Bush will on Thursday. Somehow I have a hard time thinking that will come true, but at the same time, the very fact that people could contemplate the possibility speaks volumes. Meantime, there's a looming fiscal disaster in California, and he's running a bigger deficit than recalled Governor Gray Davis.

In other news, yesterday was the day I learned how to spell "Giuliani." Today, I've finally learned "Schwarzenegger."

Written by: Beck

Seems like the only possible logical conclusion to me.

Written by: Beck

A little something to whet your appetite.

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, last chance to place your bets.

Written by: Goemagog

In a fit of frenchness, Bush says that the war probably can't be won.

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

The problem here is that from the start the administration and most of it's critics have talked about terrorism and a war on terrorists. This is not about terrorism and never was. Declaring a war on "terrorism" would be akin to declaring WW2 to be a war against naval aviation. The terrorists are not random loonies acting on whim or on orders from their neighbors dog, they're mercenaries in the employ of foreign powers.

They hate us because we're not, as a society, submissive to their religious beliefs. This hatred would never extend past marches and protests without the mercenary organizations who hire fanatics for attacks. Those organizations are employed by nations. Two of those countries have been invaded and their government toppled, but a number remain untouched and unthreatened. How can we win a war against the mercenary organizations that use terrorism when we refuse to make war on most of their employers. The most well-known leader of a mercenary "terrorist" organization is Arafat, not bin Laden, but Arafat hides behind U.S. protection as he terrorizes his neighbors and tyrannizes his own people.

Lebanon, a puppet-state of Syria, is home to a great many camps used by mercenaries but remains free of even the threat of American military action. All of the other countries paying mercenaries to attack us know that we haven't the capability or national desire to strike at our enemies. They hope that by prolonging the fighting in Iraq, Michael Moore will make us give up attacking our enemies. They were suprised that we went after Afghanistan and Iraq and are hoping that our fury is spent so when we're attacked next, there will be a great public outcry to increase our security but not strike at our enemies.

They have the time to find holes in whatever security we devise, but there is nothing they can do to stop an infantry division. They would rather we hid in ours homes and talked about the futility of sending troops abroad, but if we don't want to cower in our homes waiting for them to come kill us then we HAVE to strike out at them. Afghanistan and Iraq were a start, but both our enemies and our current administration are hoping that it goes no further, that everybody just stays home. If we stay home then they will come and force us to submit or die, giving them the islamic-only planet that is their sole measure of victory. If we are to live free then we must hunt them down and kill them. Only then can we have peace. A lasting peace will not come from trying to befriend those who would slit our throats as we slept. As long as there are people, there will be bad people. If we wish to live in peace, free from their attacks, then no doubt must be left in their minds, or the minds of those they know, that any attack will result in their death, the deaths of their loved ones, the destruction of their homes, the burning of their crops, the poisoning of their wells, and the plowing of salt into their lands.

Peace through compromise is not peace, but a lull while both sides recoup and reorganize. This is the peace that Bush wants, a false peace where we sit around waiting for the war to re-ignite He doesn't believe the war can be won because he has no desire to win it.

It is depressing that we have a war-time election where two pacifists argue over who will fight hardest so that we can surrender to our enemies on better terms, both knowing that our enemies would never abide by those terms.


UPDATE: Bush now says that we can win, but not while he's president. He says that winning the war won't happen for a very long time, no matter who wins the election. I think they need to develop a new plan.


Goe, will not be voting for Bush or Kerry.

Written by: Beck

Interview with John McCain by Jim Lehrer, David Brooks, and Mark Shields:

McCain: I was surprised at the reception of my speech. I hadn't expected such a huge positive reception.

McCain: Democrats are not our enemies. They may be our adversaries, but they're not our enemies.

Interesting bit of nuance there.

Asked if this is the most bitter campaign in history, McCain responds, "Well, I wasn't around for all of history, but this is the most bitter campaign I can remember."

"There's going to be a time next January when we're all going to have to work together on a lot of issues [no matter who's better]"

Lehrer: "How's your relationship with Bush right now?"

McCain: "It's fine, but it's been fine since 2000... we have a very friendly relationship, and we always have." On common interests with Bush, "You know... friends... sports..."

McCain: "John Kerry and I are good friends, and he has my respect."

Update: Lehrer: Is Iraq going to be the deciding issue?

McCain: Yes, I think this is a very tenuous time, and if I were the bad guys, I'd try to inflict as many casualties as I could on Americans... I think it would weaken American resolve.

OK, unless something unexpected happens, I'm done blogging for the evening. See you all here tomorrow as things warm up for day 2 of the RNC.

Written by: Beck

For some reason, Sinatra's "New York, New York" is playing. I take that back. They're rebroadcasting an old Sinatra performance from a concert. You know, I never realized before how much Sinatra looks like Phil Hartman.

OK, so I don't have a hard time understanding the reason they're playing it, especially coming right after Giuliani's speech.

Since I would seem to have some time...

A great line ripped from the pages of Captain's Quarters, in an interview with Ari Fleisher from Blogger corner (where I wish I were right now):

Q: What's President Bush like to work for?

A: I thought President Bush was the most uplifting, warm boss that you can ever imagine having. His pat on the back is as hard as his kick in the butt. You don't ever want to let him down, because he treats his staff so well, he is so good to be around. He has the greatest sense of humor, good nature, and when you're the President, you really want to work hard on someone's behalf because there's nothing more important. He's a wonderful man who works well.

I think that's why you see such longetivity among his top staff, which is unusual for the White House staff to work as long as they have. [unintelligible] You don't find that in a modern presidency any more. Karl Rove, Jan Bartlett, Scott McClelland, Judge Gonzalez, Harriet Myers, Josh Bolton. You don't find this much anymore in a presidency. It's a tribute to the person at the top. It doesn't matter what party you are, it's human nature. He's a wonderful boss and a wonderful man.

Written by: Beck

One thing this convention has done for me--I know now for certain how to spell, "Giuliani."

Updates to follow. Crowd going nuts. Networks providing no coverage. Business as usual.

Update: Giuliani has likened Bush to Washington (who took his oath of office in NYC). Bush said to the terrorists, "You will hear from us." Well they've heard from us.

"They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot, Quadafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction." Yeah, I've blogged on that a time or three.

"So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us?"

Update: "NYC and America are open for business, and they are stronger than ever." Followed by leading the crowd in a chant of "New York!" and an ad-lib about the Yankees. What a great speaker to be able to improvise like that.

"Our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world." That's a good point, considering that the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln.

"These are times when leadership is the most important." I don't think it's necessary to play up leadership to such a great extent at the expense of other things. It's not like Bush doesn't have other strong points. Right?

Update: Giuliani just expressed something a lot of people felt on 9/11. What he said to his police chief, spontaneously and without thought, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

Update: "Terrorism didn't start on September 11th... The world created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israelis at the Olympics was in 1972... The three surviving terrorists were arrested, and then in just 3 months, the terrorists were released by the German government [booing], Set free!, action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn that they could attack, slaughter innocent people, and not face any consequences." Why aren't more people making this point?

"Terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community, and too often the response, particularly in Europe, would be accommodation, appeasement, and compromise. And worse. They also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously almost in direct proportion to the horror of their attacks... Terrorism became a bargaining chip... How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize?"

I don't know how well that will play in the media, but I'm 100% glad he said it. Principle has to take the place of pragmatism in such things. There are certain absolutes that cannot be danced around.

Update: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists!" That's gonna piss off a few Democrats. Tee-hee.

"[The media] ridiculed Winston Churchill, they belittled Ronald Reagan..." another point which should be dug up more. Maybe I'm the one who needs to learn something. The media has always been liberal, and they have always gotten away with it. Or, just maybe, I should use that as motivation to redouble my efforts at blogging. After all, I take great pride in serving as an alternative outlet of information.

Update: It's kinda funny. During the DNC, speakers repeatedly tried to draw comparisons between Kerry and JFK and FDR. Rudy is drawing repeated comparisons between Bush and Reagan and Churchill. I must say, Bush is in much better company out of those two comparisons. At the same time, it's kind of sad that American politics have reached the point where people like Kerry and Bush can seriously be compared to Churchill and JFK.

Update: Rudy is now tallying past John Kerry flip-flops. Coming from most people, this would seem petty, but Rudy is pulling it off. "With two months left in the campaign, he still has time to change his position 4 or 5 more times!" More Rudy: "I quote John Kerry, 'I acutally did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.'" I can't believe he just said that. Hilarious. "Maybe that explains John Edwards' need for two Americas. One where John Kerry can vote for something, and one where he can vote against the exact same thing." Again, Rudy can get away with this. Something about that New York attitude leads you to expect it. It's really a crying shame that this isn't being televized on the main channels.

Now Rudy's taking Kerry to task on a flip-flop on the Israeli security wall. I still wonder why it is that most Jewish-Americans support Kerry. I've never understood that.

"Under President Bush, you can be certain America will lead, not follow." I think Giuliani is starting to wrap things up. Of course, every time I start thinking that, he goes into a new part of his speech. "...I remember the days following September 11 when we were no longer Republicans or Democrats, but we were Americans..." You know how much I would give to have a McCain-Giuliani presidential ticket?

Update: Rudy's doing comedy now. Talking about construction workers talking to Bush on September 14th. Bear hugs are involved. It's actually really funny. Rudy's delivery is completely natural. Now onto the serious stuff. Forget that. He's talking about the Boston Red Sox.

Now thanking the nation for its support after 9/11. "Let's make sure that we rekindle that spirit that we had. That we're one America." "In any effort to remove the pillars of support of terrorism, Saddam Hussein had to be removed." "[Saddam] was himself a weapon of mass destruction." "Removing a pillar of support for terrorism [Iraq] is nothing to be defensive about." Amen!

Update: "Governments that are free and accountable... are the long term way to defeat terrorism."

"The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no key surrender. There will be no dramatic crumbling of a wall."

"...and God bless America." That's that.

Written by: Beck

Now for speeches from some family members of 9/11 victims. Deena Barrett up now, whose husband was on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He called her from the plane. He told her he was putting together a plan to take back the cockpit.

"What they did was a testament to courage and the American spirit." She's having a hard time making it through her speech. Very moving. If I hear anyone bitching about, "Exploiting 9/11 for political gain," I'll likely have to punch them in the face.

Her message is that it's our responsibility as citizens to "do something" whether serving in the military or in the community, to help out our fellow Americans. This isn't about politics, it's about remembering what it means to be an American.

Update: Debra Burlingame speaking now. Her husband was pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon. It's worth noting that these people aren't talking about Bush, Republicans, or anything else partisan.

Written by: Beck

John McCain is up to bat. Updates to follow. Crowd is going wild.

Update: "I'm truly grateful for the privilege of addressing you."

Quoting FDR, "There's a mysterious cycle in human events. Of some generations much is given. Of others generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

McCain's speech is rather poetic. His use of language is the best I've heard yet from either convention. He has that precious knack to use a large, broad vocabulary effortlessly and naturally.

Update: "Only the most deluded of us can doubt the necessity of this war... We must fight. We must."

"All Americans must share a resolve to see this war through to a just end. We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair at set backs." It goes on. I can't type fast enough. Everything in this speech thus far has been quotable.

Update: "We were attacked not for something we'd done, but for who we are... the notion that the people are sovereign. Not the army, not the government, not kings, mullahs, or tyrants, but the people."

"In that moment we were not rich or poor, we were not liberal or conservative, we were not two different countries, we were Americans."

Literally, every line from this speech is quote-worthy. This is great stuff. It's really a tragedy that it's not being carried by the networks.

In other news, what's up with his left cheek? He looks like he must've had his jaw broken at some point. He looks like he perpetually has a chaw in. Sorry, got distracted there. I won't let it happen again.

"And as we've been a friend to other countries in moments of their perils, so we have reason to expect their solidarity with us in this moment of struggle." Take that France."

"I do not doubt the sincerity of our Democratic friends, and they should not doubt ours."

"Our president is willing to work will all nations who are willing to help us defeat this scourge that confronts us all."

"There is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly."

Blogger has stopped responding. Great timing. Hopefully this is getting out.

Evidently everyone on the planet suddenly feels compelled to post a blog post. Blogger isn't responding. So I'll just keep typing.

Update: McCain is now going over how the European nations and UN continued to do business with Saddam and how Saddam continued to defy inspections and to shoot at American planes until the last day he was in office.

"... and certainly not [take the word of/trust] a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe [Camera is on Michael Moore now. He's shrugging. Now the audience is chanting 4 more years. McCain can't go on. He's having to ask for silence] That line was so good I'll use it again. Certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves, and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children inside their walls."

Update: Blogger back up. Looks like a server reboot.

"We have to love our country."

"No American will ever forget what happened on September 11th... It shook us from our complacency from the belief that the end of the Cold War had ushered in an era of security and tranquility."

Update: "We are Americans first, Americans last, and Americans always." "Let us argue our differences, but remember, we are not enemies, we are comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by our ideals and our incomperable love for them."

"They fight for hatred of humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice."

"We're Americans, and we'll never surrender." Why couldn't this guy be our president?

Written by: Beck

A burka wearing Shia Muslim woman who heads the American Islamic Council is speaking now. Interesting tactic. The DNC, as far as I recall, didn't have any outreach to the "religion of peace."

She's evidently an expatriate Iraqi. She's one of those people who actually remembers the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died under Saddam's rule. "There has been a war in Iraq raging for the last 3 decades... A war was waged by Saddam against his own people... I lived through it... Today, I come to tell you, Iraq enjoys a new day."

She's right, you know. Things are pretty messy there now, but so long as Iraqi civilians are willing to seize the opportunity, the chances to thrive in a secular, stable, and wealthy nation is uniquely theirs.

"I tell you proudly that your noble sacrifice was not in vain."

"I promise you, we will never forget what your sons and daughters did for us. Thank you."

Written by: Beck

Some "Former Assistant Attorney General," is now delivering a speech explaining why the Patriot Act isn't a terrible thing. "Critics argue... the fact is..." Etc. This is a mistake, and the speech is unconvincing. All it does is serve to remind people about the association between the Patriot Act (which received bipartisan support originally) and the Bush Justice Department. Furthermore, his attempts to refute "what critics say" comes across as defensive and it sounds like he's just playing tricks with semantics. Come on Karl Rove, you know better than this.

Written by: Beck

Former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik is speaking now. Not exactly a political heavyweight, but he was certainly the man for his time a few years ago. Can't go wrong with the NYPD/FD. This follows on the heals of a pretty cool film & music tribute to the armed forces.

"We didn't ask for this war, but faced with an evil whose only mission was to destroy this country, we had to respond. We had to fight this war abroad, and we have to fight this war at home." Followed by comments about the DHS and the increases of funding its received. Very lukewarm applause.

"Saddam will be held accountable." More applause there. I'd be happier to hear, "Osama bin Lauden will be held accountable."

"The fight takes decisiveness, not contradiction... not votes against spending to support our first responders and troops."

Not a bad speech for a cop.

Written by: Beck

Heather Wilson of New Mexico is speaking now.

She's telling stories about dead New Mexican soldiers. It's actually quite eloquent, and she seemed choked up for a second. "Jason Cunningham died for a cause worth fighting for," after a reference to the damage to the Pentagon after 9/11.

I think this is the proper way to go about remembering the events of September 11th. "Where does the courage come from? Where do we find men and women like this?" She's reminding people that the people serving in the military have a specific motivation--they're not just there because Bush sent them there. They're there because they believe in their mission.



Hat tip to My Pet Jawa for the photo.

Written by: Beck

Well, the brief (and random) President Ford tribute is over, as is the musical act which followed--Dexter Freebish. Because, why not? Evidently we have Ford to thank for starting the trend of deregulation. I did not know that.

George Bush 41 has entered the floor now. The background music: Jump by Van Halen. Lim Lehrer, "...he just turned 80, and these days, every time he has a birthday, he jumps out of an airplane." I can respect that. For what it's worth, he doesn't look 80 at all.

Worth noting: Bush Jr. has repudiated a lot of the policies of Bush Sr. Bush Jr. said, "We can no longer support oppresive dictators in the name of stability," while that very policy was central to Bush Sr.'s foreign policy. Furthermore, Bush Jr. made a point that "This time, we won't cut and run," about Iraq, something his father was guilty of.

And now Ron Silver makes his appearance. Evidently he's here to orchestrate the pep-rally. He just lead the audience in a chant of "Four more years!" And there you have it.

Written by: Beck

Dick Cheney just entered the building. They're making a big deal about his entrance. Evidently they're planning big entrances like this the whole time (i.e. he's not going to speak now). Every time I see this guy in public, I keep waiting for him to have a stroke or a heart attack or something.

David Brooks (paraphrasing): This is a unified party, but it's a very unstable party... Four years ago, this was all about compassionate conservatism, now that's all gone. Now it's about the war... For decades, this party was held together by the belief that they had to reduce the size of the government... they haven't done that... so now they have to find something else to unify this party.

I agree 100%, and I think once the War on Terror has lost momentum, the Republican party could severely splinter. Is it really so much to ask for less government involvement in my daily life?

Written by: Beck

Denny Hastert is up to bat now. Not sure why he wasn't listed on CNN's speaker schedule. Whatever.

I can tell already that this guy has roughly as much charisma as Ted Kennedy (i.e. scant).

"The economy grows when the private sector grows, not when the government grows."

Already floated an attack on John Kerry, using his name (at the DNC, Bush's name was only used twice the entire time, once by Al Sharpton, once by John Kerry)--listing all the things he's on "the wrong side" of. Regulation, taxation, etc. "John Kerry, at his Boston tax party, promised to raise taxes on the job creators. Instead of throwing tea in the Boston harbor, John Kerry wants to throw the tax payers overboard." I mean, I agree with the general message here, but this rhetoric goes over like a week old dead fish. The crowd is not responding at all.

First response line: "Does anybody know where John Kerry stands on the war?" Audience: "NO!"

Jim Lehrer is surprised that Hastert used Kerry's name and adds, "That's all he spoke about the whole time."

Shields: The speech was only 6 paragraphs long, and he went after Kerry from the get-go.

Written by: Beck

Looking at the speaker line up for tonight, I can begin to understand why the networks aren't carrying tonight at all. Apart from the last couple of speakers--Senator McCain and former Mayor Giuliani--the list is fantastically uninteresting. From CNN.com: Speakers to include actor Ron Silver, New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson; former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Ron Silver? Do you know who in hell Ron Silver is? I didn't until I looked him up. It would appear that his most significant roll involved a part on two seasons worth of Veronica's Closet, a serious contender in the running for worst sitcom ever.

Don't be too surprised if convention blogging is light until the two heavy weights at the end.

Written by: Beck

Time for the political analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks.

Shields: Iraq defines this election.

Brooks (paraphrased): The number of radicals participating in that march was striking. I don't know how much people can choose who they march with, but I know I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a march that had a large contingent of fascists, for example. I think people seeing people like Michael Moore and others in that march will cause something of a backlash.

Shields: Giuliani was the closest thing we had in America to Winston Churchill after 9/11... John McCain holds a unique position in American politics. He's the only person to have lost an election and gone on to shape the next election. Both parties wanted him for a running mate.

McCain will be interviewed by Lehrer and company at the end of tonight's events.

Written by: Beck

Watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer now.

Great quote from Kerry Baker, a Florida delegate who served in Iraq, on the convention floor: "al-Sadr is kind of like President Bush's opponent. He says one thing one day and then does something else the next."

Update: Note to Republicans being interviewed: for the love of god, quit using the phrase, "Stay the course." It's reminiscent of Bush Sr., and we all know how well he did when seeking reelection. Furthermore, it constitutes a tacit acknowledgement of criticism that things aren't going well at the moment, which serves as an endorsement of the media-presented view of Iraq as a nightmarish quagmire. Instead, don't cede the high ground--don't simply cave to the NYT view of the world. Rather, respond that things ARE going well in Iraq. al-Sadr has been disarmed, Falujah has been pacified, schools are going up, elections are moving forward, Iraqi police and soldiers are being trained, basic services have returned. Furthermore, mass-murders, ethnic cleansing, and widespread government sponsored torture have been shut down. Think people!

Update: PBS is now interviewing various presidential historians. The topic: war-time reelection campaigns. "Stay the course" count: 2

Quoting Giuliani: "Conducting this convention without mentioning 9/11 would be like Abraham Lincoln not mentioning the Civil War."

Written by: Beck

Former New York City mayor Ed Koch:

One of the first speakers was former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who asked rhetorically what was he doing at the Republican National Convention, when he'd been a Democrat his entire career.

"I'm here to convert you, but that's for the next election. This year I'm voting for the re-election of President George W. Bush!" Koch told the crowd, which cheered with approval.

Koch told CNN that he remains a Democrat but strongly supports Bush's actions in the war on terrorism.

More pre-prime time news here.

Written by: Beck

Over at Right Thinking Girl. I hardly think this constitutes the "free expression of 1st amendment rights:"

Protesters have decided to exercise their "free speech" rights by filling bags and balloons with urine and lobbing them at policemen. This disgusting practice is going on westbound on 35th and Broadway. Stay clear.

In other protester news, the Bike Bloc is heading back to Union Station to regroup while a group calling themselves, "NO POLICE STATE" is knocking down barricades and attempting to penetrate the frozen zone around MSG.

In addition, there are groups that are passing out baskets of wirecutters and razor blades to cut the plastic Flexicuffs the police use to handcuff suspects under arrest. The subversive behavior is bad enough but when you equip thousands of protesters who refuse to police themselves with razor blades, that's a bad scene just waiting to happen.

Be sure to read through all the updates as well.

In other news, I'll be blogging the RNC for the next 4 days (and by live blogging, I mean watching TV and posting my comments--I'm not in New York). Be sure to check in during the prime-time hours to see what I have to say.

Written by: Dave

In a recent article (see link at bottom) supposedly focused on Laura Bush's comments about the Swift Boat Veterans, CNN finds plenty of opportunities to make its opinions on the issue clear. Note this paragraph for instance:

"Several statements by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth directly contradict the Navy record of events and in some cases their own previous statements. Other statements are more opinion than fact based."

Of course there is no mention of the fact that some of Kerry's comments now seem to "directly contradict" the actual record of events, such as his infamous Christmas in Cambodia.

Read the article and see how much bias they sneak in there, all the way up to the last sentence. I don't know why I am still shocked by the media's incredible bias, I really should be resigned to it now. I guess I would feel a lot better if CNN would register itself as a 527 Group supporting Kerry.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/29/kerry.firstlady/index.html

Written by: Beck

Looks like we won.

USA brings in 103 medals total, including 35 golds. The only nations even close on the total medal count was Russia with 92 medals (27 gold) and China with 32 golds (but only 63 medals overall).

Written by: Beck

Shouldn't the anti-GOP protesters in New York City wait until the convention has actually started? I mean, 4 days is a long time to spend all day partying protesting, and you'll be exhausted by the end if you don't pace yourself a bit. And now, the sarcastic potshots:

Tens of thousands of demonstrators carrying signs and chanting "No More Bush" marched Sunday past Madison Square Garden, the site of this week's Republican National Convention.

The march was sponsored by United for Peace and Justice, a group opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Organizers had predicted as many as 250,000 demonstrators would take part.

I swear, protest/march leaders must have a special school they go to where they learn how to predict event turnout using some sort of... what's the word? Fantasy. That's it.

Many participants said they hoped a large crowd at Sunday's protest would send a message to the rest of the country.

Yes, that message being two-fold. 1) Stay the hell out of NYC for the next week, and 2) opposing Bush involves moonbats.

New York police have made "about 50" arrests, according to a law enforcement source.

Why do I get the feeling that number's going to go up in the next few days?

"We are the majority," filmmaker Michael Moore told the crowd.

Actually, Michael, you're large (and rich) enough to constitute a majority of one all on your own.

Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, said the message revolves around the word no.

"We are saying 'no' to the Bush agenda, 'no' to the war in Iraq, 'no' to the regime change by our government, 'no' to preemptive war, 'no' to the economic policies," Cagan said.

This should ring a bell for any & all parents out there. If there's one thing infants (and the infantile) master early on, it's angrily shouting, "No!" until they get their way.

One final question: why is it that there's never an anti-war protest where there isn't some no-tallent clownass playing bongos?

Written by: Dave

What Myers-Briggs personality type do you think Kerry is? If you aren't familiar with Myers-Briggs you can go here http://www.myersbriggs.org/about_mbti/preferences.cfm

I would guess that he is an ESTP or an ISTP.

Why?

1. I don't really have a guess as to whether he is an E or an I.

2. I would say he is Sensing not Intuitive, because all his views seem to be a mish-mash of what he perceives to be most advantageous at the moment, and don't seem to be a big-picture, holistic, view. Then again, maybe he is just hiding his big-picture views.

3. I would say he is Thinking not Feeling, because all his actions seem so calculated, and he doesn't seem to understand the depths of feeling people may have for his actions (i.e. the Swift Boat Veterans).

4. I would say he is Percieving, not Judging, because he can't seem to make a firm decision and stick with it. He always seems to want to gather more information before coming out with a conclusive view.

I am most surprised by this last one though, because Kerry was in the military, and if the military should have left him with one stong Myers-Briggs trait, it would be Judging. From the very beginning in the military you are taught to quickly and decisively make decisions.

Maybe he's a natural P and the twenty-odd years dithering around in the Senate let him slide back into the P-mode.

I don't know, I am just guessing. What do you all think?

Written by: Beck

One presumes the Spanish thought they were buying protection from terrorists by voting into office the socialist anti-war candidate after the 3/11 Madrid train bombing. It must've been rather disillusioning then, when a further string of attempted terrorist attacks proceeded to transpire across the nation. At least this time, the terrorist were caught in time, and only a few policemen died.

One further presumes that France thought much the same thing--that their citizens would be immune to the various kidnappings & execution threats endemic to Iraq these days. Indeed, I recall one case very early on of a Frenchman being kidnapped who secured his freedom by convincing his captors he was French.

The French have made one fatal misunderstanding--while home-grown Iraqi nationalists may only care about ridding themselves of foreign occupation (i.e. the sort of people a Frenchman genuinely needn't fear), Islamofascists are not simply content that a nation's foreign policy be pro-Saddam and anti-Israel.

The Islamists will not be happy with getting rid of the foreign occupiers of Iraq. They will not be happy with driving all the infidels out of the holy land (which seems to constitute pretty much anywhere on the planet with > 50% Muslim population, regardless of how those Muslims feel about the West). They will not be happy with the destruction of Israel. They will not be happy with unfettered access to nuclear technology. Are you starting to detect a theme? Islamists--as exemplified by everyone from the xenophobic al-Qaeda of Osama, to the Islamofascist Iranian Ayatollahs, to the Saudi-backed Wahabi sect of Islam--will not be happy until the entire globe is covered by one world-girdling Islamic state.

That state, incidentally, will look like Taliban controlled Afghanistan. The technology will be the sort of bizarre combination of left over 20th century manufactured left-overs and stone age improvisations seen in post-apocalyptic movies like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Women will be neither seen nor heard, and life expectancies will be somewhere in the 30s.

No, I don't actually think this world will come to pass. I don't think we'll ever get close, since I'm fairly certain people will come to their senses sometime around the time that Tehran nukes Tel Aviv.

My whole point was that the French (though they're definitely not the only ones--they're just the worst) completely and utterly fail to realize what it is the Western world confronts. An ominous portent of what's to follow:

An Iraqi militant group has kidnapped two Frenchmen and given the French government 48 hours to end a ban on Muslim headscarves, Arabic television station Al Jazeera said on Saturday.

The channel aired a brief video showing two men standing in front of a black banner bearing the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq. One man told the camera: "I would like to tell my family that everything is OK."

Yep. Headscarves. Real macro there. Sorry, France, but they won't be satisfied no matter what you do. They will only be happy when you nullify the French Republic and declare strict Sharia law. And expel or kill your Jews of course. And anyone who's not a monotheist. Oh, and everyone else too. To borrow from an Egyptian proverb (which I may have mentioned before), once our enemy knew that they could steal our goose, they knew they did not need to fear us at all. OK, it sounds silly out of context, but trust me, it's stunningly apt. Direct your thanks to Spain and the Philippines.

Written by: Beck

Today, we play the newest game at INCITE: What small furry scavenger does Iraqi "cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr most closely resemble?



Feel free to use the following NYT excerpt for inspiration:

It was near midnight Thursday, and the 50-odd reporters following the fighting here were hustled from their hotel by the local police and gathered for a press conference in the courtyard of a home where the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country most powerful Shiite leader, was staying.

Just as one of Ayatollah Sistani's aides stood to announce that a peace deal had been struck, Mr. Sadr, the man most responsible for the bloodshed, scurried out the front door, across the lawn and into the street.

And then he was gone.

And now, for the choices:

A) a rat
B) mouse
C) ferret
D) weasel
E) aquatic marmot (for the Big Lebowski fans in the audience)
F) badger

Once again the question is "What small furry scavenger does Iraqi "cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr most closely resemble?" Try not to be distracted by the fact that his followers all so clearly resemble lemmings.

And the answer? There is no correct answer. Or rather, all the answers are correct in their own way. The guy's a shithead. A total hammer-pickle. And we haven't heard the last of him either.

(Hat tip: The Politburo Diktat)

Written by: Beck

Reuters headline: Now It's Official: Economy Shrunk

Story: "U.S. gross domestic product -- which measures total output within the nation's borders -- expanded at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the second quarter to $10.8 trillion, down from the 3.0 percent pace estimated last month by the Commerce Department."

Translation: the economy is still growing, just not as fast as last month, therefore we will say that it shrunk, because in Reuters-land, growing=shrunk.

Proposed new motto: Reuters, making the case for stricter drug laws with each new day.

(Hat tip: Wizbang)

Written by: Beck

The phrase "Libertarian foreign policy" should be recognized, but generally is not, as an oxymoron. As a regular reader of the libertarian blog Samizdata, I've been consistently (and pleasantly) surprised at the extent to which they seem to support the American & British invasion of Iraq.

Strict Libertarian (both big 'L' and small) orthodoxy opposes all forms of initiating force against others, whether internal to the state or externally. The only form of war justified under strict libertarianism is the defensive variety.

The problem is that libertarianism is basically an abstraction derived from idealistic first principles about individuality and human behavior. One could fairly accurately sum up Libertarian philosophy as, "No one has the right to infringe the free exercise & pursuit of life, liberty, and property of another individual." In other words, do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with anyone else's rights, those rights being life, liberty, and property.

The problem here is two fold. First of all, it fails to recognize the extent to which human nature is brutish and nasty. Still, I believe you can make a strong case for a libertarian-leaning state which takes into account people's innate inclination to take "short cuts." That's a discussion for another time.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, there is really very little that Libertarian idealism can do to instruct, guide, define, or explain international relations or interactions. States and their leaders, quite simply, do not behave like individuals interacting in an anarcho-capitalist marketplace. A strictly Libertarian foreign policy consists of strict isolationism. Many Libertarians would argue that the United States should never have become involved in either WWI or WWII (the assumption being that had the USA never embargoed Japanese oil imports, Pearl Harbor never would have happened). I won't bother to take the time to explain why those arguments are exceptionally foolish.

Now, back to where I started--Samizdata has frequently surprised me with their pro-war outlook. This strikes me as the proper and rational way to apply libertarian basic principles to a real life understanding of human nature. Jonathan Pearce has a post in which he discusses this very topic, which is the entire reason I've written the preceding paragraphs. That's right, you slogged through all the above so that I could say, "I agree with Jonathan Pearce." And now, what he says that I find so agreeable:

A smart and thought-provoking blogger I have recently come across, Perry Metzger, who seems to hail from the anarcho-capitalist bit of the libertarian intellectual universe, does not like the way this blog has supported the military ouster of Saddam Hussein...

Metzger asks how it is that folk who are so ardently opposed to the State can possibly countenance the use of force, including appropriation of wealth via taxation, to topple another regime deemed to be dangerous. Well, it is actually quite easy to answer that question in my view. First of all, not all libertarians believe a free society can exist without a minimal state, including one with the ability to provide external and internal security, which may include the need to take out violent and hostile foreign regimes.

Second, the supposedly sacred libertarian principle that thou shalt not initiate force against another is not very useful when it comes to judging whether regime X or Y poses your country a particular threat or not, and whether action of a Bush-style pre-emptive sort is justified and perhaps even more important, whether it is prudent. Good people will and do differ a lot about that.

Such disagreements cannot in my view be arbitrated solely by referring to abstract moral principles--although principles are of course crucial--but have to be also judged on events, by weighing up the possible consequences of an action or taking no action. In fact, taking no action and adopting a purely reactive approach to defense will also have consequences, not all of them necessarily good ones...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Written by: Beck

There are one of two possible conclusions you can draw from this story.

1) The people at Harper's Magazine can see the future, or
2) Any self-respecting human being should cancel their subscription to Harper's.

Unless, of course, you just enjoy having your intelligence insulted, in which case, buy yourself a second subscription to really drive the point home.

Written by: Dave

Do you remember the Pace Picante Sauce commercials where the cowboys would be sitting around the campfire eating their dinner and would start complaining about the picante? After one cowboy discovers that Cook has fed them picante sauce bottled in New York, they would all shout out in shock and disbelief - "New York City?!!".

Well if you do remember those commercials, that's sort of how I felt when I first learned that the RNC planned to have its convention in NYC.

Now don't get me wrong. I LOVE New York City. Some of my best memories are from the city. I also understand the tremendous symbolic value of staging the RNC in the city that suffered the most from the terror attacks.

On the other hand, I don't think conventions should be risky affairs. By holding the convention in New York City, the GOP has:

a) picked the city with the largest home grown base of violent protesters
b) picked a city located in the middle of the largest regional concentration of Bush haters (in close competition with the Left Coast)
c) picked a city whose compact nature makes it difficult to cordon off the convention and its related activities from the remainder of the city

It seems like the GOP is begging for a large scale violent confrontation. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing politically. It might be good for the American people to be reminded of the violence, hatred, and anti-Americanism of those who hate Bush the most. This might be especially true when it would be the anti-Bush protesters versus the admired NYPD. But I still don't think the GOP should pick a location that almost assures large scale violence, especially if it means some of those NYPD officers are going to get hurt also.

Now some might say that the GOP shouldn't let themselves be cowed by the violence of the protesters. There is definitely a good deal of truth in that. But as I said earlier, conventions shouldn't be risky affairs, and by having the convention in New York, the GOP has assured that the success of the convention will be partially determined by events outside of their control. It has also picked a location where the general populace just won't be that welcoming. That doesn't seem smart, regardless of the principles involved.

Hopefully it will turn out for the best, but as far as I am concerned, it would have made a lot more sense to play it safe and have the convention in Ohio or Florida.

Written by: Beck

Not that stories like this seem to make a lick of difference, but it would appear that John "I volunteered for service because it was the right thing to do" Kerry actually attempted to defer service in Vietnam with the draft board prior to enlisting.

For those not old enough to remember Vietnam (like myself), let me explain to you how things worked back then. Through reading history books and conversations with my father who went through a similar process as Kerry, I have a pretty good grasp on the way things operated at the time.

For starters, if you were the right age & physically qualified, you could virtually count on being drafted. As such, you had several options. First, you could attempt an outright dodge--anything from getting braces to finding a doctor who would lie about your physical condition to render you 4-F (i.e. physically unfit to serve). Second, you could seek a deferment--the most common excuse being the pursuit of further education (the route my father unsuccessfully attempted, along with, it appears, Kerry). Third, you could just enlist, thereby securing the privilege of choosing your field (which, ultimately, my father, and also Kerry, chose). Fourth, you could do nothing and just get drafted.

Kerry's repeated argument as to his quality as an American relative to Bush was that he enlisted outright, without being coerced into serving via the draft. Bush, on the other hand, opted for a risky form of dodging by going into the national guard. Now, assuming this article in The Telegraph is accurate, it would seem that Kerry in fact first opted for a deferment.

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

As stories like this continue to not receive mainstream reporting, I can't help but think of the little Dutch boy trying to plug holes in the dike. At some point, Big Media will realize that so many holes have been punched in Kerry's finely-cultivated image that they can no longer damn the onrush of factual evidence. I personally haven't read the 1970 back issues of the Harvard Crimson, but I have no reason to believe that the story is false. It just adds to the pile of contradictions that make up the man John Kerry.

(Hat tip: Ace-o-Spades)

Written by: Beck

I share the concerns about the precedents set in the negotiated withdrawal from the Imam Ali mosque of the Mehdi army & al-Sadr expressed by Dave in an earlier post. My misgivings only increased upon reading the latest headline at CNN.com: Al-Sadr militiamen swap prisoners with Iraq.

The thing is, under the negotiated settlement with the Mehdi Army & al-Sadr, the insurgents have given up their arms in exchange for political recognition. As such, it logically follows that the two sides would release their prisoners. Just because a former militiaman had the poor judgment to be captured and imprisoned doesn't make him any less a member of the militia. And if the militia has morphed into a political party, keeping them behind bars would be a form of political imprisonment. Releasing them, thus, is the next logical step.

So why does that one little step make me so damned nervous?

Written by: Beck

It's important to learn from history. History is in the past, it's important to move on. Both of these statements hold true. It all makes sense once put in perspective over at man-sized target.

While the extreme leftist position, which held the American soldiers, government, and the country as a whole jointly responsible for the war faded in recent years, a replacement view that the soldiers fought honorably in a hopeless cause replaced it. This latter view permitted reconciliation between veterans and their society, without requiring an endless debate on the hypothetical prospects of victory. Even so, competing views of the nobility of the cause existed up to the present that did not mesh directly along political lines. Especially those not alive at the time, maintained the war was winnable and was lost for lack of will. Others said it should never have been fought. But the recriminations of veterans largely disappeared . . . to our collective benefit.

History is not a linear thing. Old wounds can reemerge years, decades, even centuries later at the slightest provocation. For Serbs, the 14th Century Battle of Kosovo might have easily happened yesterday. For blacks, the sins of slavery remain more prominent today, even though no slaves are present within living memory and institutionalized racism of "Jim Crow" largely disappeared in the mid-1960s.

The problem with certain "lessons of history," is that they become an albatross for contemporaries, preventing reconciliation and progress, requiring old fights to be refought under the logic of the vendetta. The lives of Palestinians and Israelis, most prominently, remain intertwined by these kinds of equally vital conceptions of history, which fuel an identity of victimhood.

Read it all, as a man says.

Written by: Beck

It's nothing ground breaking, but here it is if you're curious to see the third entry into their series of anti-Kerry ads.

Written by: Beck

Looks like the heat got to be too much for Iraq stationed American soldier/blogger CB over at Fear & Loathing in Iraq. Which really sucks. Another addition to the elephant graveyard. He even seems to have felt compelled to delete his archives.

I got a capture of the cache from google if anyone would like it.

Written by: Dave

I am afraid that the peace deals brokered in Fallujah and now in Najaf have set a very bad precedent for Iraq, one that could have very negative consequences for our overall efforts in the country. Indeed, I believe that our enemies' tactical defeats have been transformed into moral victories.

Consider the situation in Najaf. Al Sadr knew exactly what he was doing when he agreed to this peace deal. He is now the "liberator" of Najaf, Kufa, and the Shrine. Despite the tremendous damage done to the Mehdi Army, al Sadr can now claim to have driven out the Americans from the holy sites. The tremendous scope of this accomplishment will certainly impress Iraqis, including even the large majority of Iraqis who despise him and would much rather be "occupied" by the U.S. Army than the Mehdi Army.

Hopefully the Mehdi Army and al Sadr have been crushed both mentally and physically by the fighting. But now that we have created this tremendous incentive to attack U.S. and Iraqi security forces, how long will it be before al Sadr or some other miscreant tries to "liberate" another area of Iraq?

In the Shiite south, I think the answer largely depends on how fast Iran can build up a new credible insurgent force. In the Sunni triangle, it may come sooner. I have heard reports that the terrorists and insurgents there are planning to replicate Fallujah in Ramadi. I have also noticed that many of the casualties lately are coming from the Anbar province, where Ramadi is located. Al Sadr's moral victory might be just the incentive they need to force another big showdown.

If that is true, I hope that the Iraqi government can stand their ground the next time. It might be easier for them to do that in the Sunni Triangle because there is no figure with the prestige of al Sistani who could force the Iraqi government into accepting another unfavorable settlement. But if the Iraqi government doesn't stand their ground, and instead forces coalition soldiers to leave an Iraqi city for the third time, then we will truly be in trouble.

Written by: Goemagog

Transnistria has brought the wrath of American and EU officials upon itself by violating the International Accord on the Proliferation of Silly Names. Well, that and it's started a Russian-backed ethnic cleansing program. No word on a potential alliance with South Ossetia.

Goe, thinks geopolitics has entered the land of make-believe.

Written by: Speculator

At 8PM EDT tonight, C-SPAN will run, in its entirety and without interruption, Kerry's testimony before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Watch and listen as the cabeza de grande spews forth such claptrap as

"I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability
to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate
threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and
that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus,
totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take
over our McDonald hamburger stands."

Written by: Beck

You remember the Saturday Night Life skit, right?

Anyway, the Kerry campaign, not to be mistaken for the Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players despite numerous similarities, have engaged in a vicious... letter delivery. Things have reached such a level of high farce that I just have to laugh, despite how sad it all is.

I wonder how the strategy session went. I mean, at some point, someone actually said, "Hey, let's try to make Bush look bad by writing a nasty letter to him demanding he stop being such a rat bastard. We can have that one armed guy deliver it personally." And then someone presumably said, "Hey, that's a great idea. Let's go with that."

Sadly, Cleland was unable to accomplish his mission--which was presumably anticipated--so instead he just put on an entertaining show for the gathered media. They just love his Adam Sandler homage, "I'm Crazy One-limbed Veteran Man, now won't you give me some candy?" routine.

Patterson said Bush had asked him to accept the letter from Cleland. But the Georgia Democrat refused to hand it over. Instead, he said he wanted to deliver the letter personally to Bush or, barring that, to a member of the Secret Service. When he succeeded at neither, Cleland took the message to the news media.

"These scurrilous attacks on John Kerry's credibility in war, courage and valor are false and George Bush is behind it," he said. "That's why I tried to deliver a letter to the president's home and hand it either to him or one of his aides."

The letter was signed by nine members of the U.S. Senate, all of them veterans, including a Medal of Honor recipient.

The full text of the letter can be found here.

Update: Evidently I'm not the only one who finds this entire pathetic episode vastly entertaining. More laugh-until-you-cry-until-you-laugh-again material here, here, here, here, and here. For a more serious take on the whole matter, see Soxblog.

Written by: Beck

Virtual porn to appear in October's edition of Playboy. I guess Heff has decided it's time to reach a different demographic. Either that, or he had the sudden realization that there's a correlation between video game playing and pornography consumption. Not that I would know. And no, Lara Croft will not be featured. Sorry to disappoint.

Written by: Beck

First, ask yourself this question: who are the two most popular Republican politicians right now? If you answered, "John McCain and Rudy Giuliani," you get a gold star!

Now, ask yourself another question: what two speakers at the upcoming Republican National Convention are the three major networks not planning on televising? If you gave the same answer, you win not only a gold star, but also the coveted Smiley Face Sticker of Achievement!

I feared something like this when the networks didn't carry Day 2 of the DNC. Thanks to equal time rules, the networks must carry the same amount of coverage for both political conventions. By jettisoning what was expected to be the least interesting day of the DNC (no one had anticipated the fantastic keynote speech by Barack Obama), the networks can now selectively pick & choose which RNC speakers they'll cover. What a surprise--it now falls to bloggers to provide coverage of the speeches. Well, bloggers, and cable news. But who watches cable news?

(Hat tip: Aaron's Rantblog)

Written by: Beck

One of the best SF writers working today, Neil Stephenson, was recently interviewed by Locus. You can read the interview here. He tends to be somewhat reclusive and went into virtual hiding while working on the Baroque Cycle (the third book of which comes out, I believe, in September. He has some intriguing ideas on writing, and the interview is definitely worth perusal. And don't worry--the article is spoiler-free.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Written by: Beck

Commenting on Greco-Roman wrestling, and I paraphrase, "Well, good for [American wrestler] Rulan. But what's with a sport where the referee where's a coat and tie? Did he get lost on the way to the dog show? [Looks off stage, looks back at the camera]. I'm just asking."

Written by: Goemagog

China thinks we're bad people.

The article said the judicial system in the U.S. is extremely unfair, with the death penalty exercised in 38 states.

China executes people for being against corruption.

The article said that U.S. democracy and elections are "a rich man's game," as money in the bank often translates into victory at the polls.

Unlike China, where the winners are selected by the party before the elections are even announced.

Under the pretext of safeguarding this kind of democracy, the United States continues to make rash criticisms of other countries and interferes in their internal affairs.

China may consider starving millions of people to death to be a human right, but I think I'm going to have to just disagree.

Goe, still hates France.

Written by: Goemagog

Two planes disappear at almost the same time.


UPDATE: (everybody else does updates, why can't I?)
Reports that first plane exploded before hitting the ground. The second "broke up in the air". second plane sent signal indicating attack (read "hijacking").


Goe, thinks this will cause problems for Putin.

Written by: Goemagog

North Korea blows a bunch of hot air before negotiations.

"Now that the U.S. has clearly revealed its true intention, the DPRK can no longer pin any hope on the six-party talks and there is a question as to whether there is any need for it to negotiate with the U.S. any more," KCNA said.

They might be on to something. What exactly are we negotiating for? A return of the Daffy Duck collection?

Supposedly, we're trying to talk them out of acquiring nuclear weapons, which would be akin to talking Sauron out of wanting the one ring back, or talking Beck out of free online porn. It's just not going to happen, they'll just stall us for time while trying to get their respective 'precious'. The really stupid part is that we believe North Korea already has nuclear weapons, maybe a few dozen of them. So we're trying to talk North Korea into not making something it already has. We've been offering them other stuff to try to distract them ("Look at the way Daffy's eyes bug out!") and they've accepted this. Then they told us that they were lying and that they will nuke us if we don't keep giving them money, oil, and food. So we ask for more negotiations so we can talk them out of trying to get nukes.

We haven't anything to discuss with North Korea. They are a miserable little shithole with nuclear weapons and we're a wealthy superpower with nuclear weapons and abundant online porn. A conversation with them could be polite but North Korea has made it clear that they will continue to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. This means that any discussion, polite or not, will be meaningless to our stated goals.

The obvious conclusion would be that we're wasting our time. I believe that the stated goals are not the actual goals of our current administration. We've begun offering them the same things we were giving them when they were deceiving us. It would seem that North Korea is using it's nuclear arsenal to extort money, oil, and food. Mutually-assured destruction won't deter anybody while our president is afraid that our enemies might get hurt.

Barring mushroom clouds or Chinese intervention, it's likely that North Korea's offensive capability will continue to outgrow out defensive capability. The Chinese will do nothing to hinder North Korea so long as North Korea remains obedient. A "rogue" nuclear state threatening the U.S. and several allies will be a useful thing to have when China invades Taiwan.

Goe, thinks the future doesn't bode well for the free-world.

Written by: Beck

I just had a business school flashback. And I have a point to make. A good one. Really. But you're going to have to bear with me. Hopefully you can keep up. Trust me--it's worth it.

One of the single most important works ever in modern management literature is a paper titled "Marketing Myopia," by Theodore Levitt. He had an amazing revelation--revolutionary at the time. Put quite simply, most companies have no idea what business they're in.

His classic example is the railroad industry. The railroads revolutionized the world when they began crisscrossing industrialized nations in the 19th century. Without them, the industrial revolution wouldn't have been possible. Today, railroads are an anachronism. They still exist, but it's mostly inertia that keeps them alive. You see, the railroad companies made the fatal mistake of thinking they were in the railroad business. The fools! They should have realized that they're in the transportation business. So when a combination of trucking and air transport began to transform the way people travel and ship goods in the 20th century, the railroads were left behind. They could have kept up, but they didn't. There are still nations on earth where the railroads carry the lion's share of the transportation work. But in the United States, they became dinosaurs--because they didn't realize what business they were in.

Anyway, a random bit of web surfing lead me to the blog Final Protective Fire, who observed that the blog Captain's Quarters has had the best coverage on politics to be found anywhere on the planet these days (not exactly his words, but those were thoughts I'd been having, and Robin's commentary helped me pull it all together). And he's right. No one has covered the stories which mainstream media refuses to touch with a ten foot pole more closely than Captain Ed. He's had at least 20 posts on the Swift Boat Vets alone, and none of them are of the passionate-empty-rhetoric variety. It's all hard facts and calm, intelligent analysis.

And that's what made me think of that old paper from the Harvard Business Review. Marketing Myopia has assaulted the Democratic party.

The New York Times, Time Magazine, NBC, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Captain's Quarters... they're not in the news paper business, the magazine business, the broadcast news business, the cable news business, the talk radio business, or the blog business. They're in the information business. Only most of them don't seem to realize it.

Think about the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. It couldn't have happened without Rush Limbaugh. You see, most people don't have a subscription to National Review magazine. Fox News didn't exist back then. The internet existed, but it was just a hint--a twinkle in ARPANET's eyes--and you had to use Mosaic or Lynx to surf it. You could still get news-a-plenty, but you had to turn to one of the majors. You had to read the New York Times, or subscribe to Newsweek, or watch CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather. And people had a growing awareness that those sources weren't presenting unbiased information; instead, they were presenting events as they wished to perceive them--they sought to force reality to bend to their will. They had an agenda, and the means to achieve it.

So people turned on their radios. And they heard Rush Limbaugh. He's far from an ideal person. He doesn't have a college degree. He's an obnoxious fat blow hard. But he was the only alternative to the mainstream media establishment when it came to obtaining information. He hammered on the stories no one else would cover, he brought up themes that people were thinking but hadn't heard expressed, he rejuvenated debate in America, and that fat dumb man changed the modern face of politics.

Ten years later, the Democrats have finally found a talk-radio outlet of their own: Air America. And it's a joke. Its ratings are horrific. It's most famous anchors, while (allegedly) funny at some point in their careers, are inexperienced and unpolished when it comes to the talk radio format. And they're doomed to failure. Why are they doomed to failure? Because of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Because Democrats can't do funny? Because only rednecks and conservative nuts listen to radios anymore? No. They're doomed to failure because they think they're in the talk radio business. They're not. They're in the information business. And until they find a way to effectively and intelligently provide Americans with logically organized information with well reasoned analysis, they're going to continue to get the crap beaten out of them.

Which brings us to Captain's Quarters. It started out as just another humble blog. It's still the same blog it was six months ago, the only difference is that its readership requires five digits to express. It's not because blogs are the wave of the future. It's not because the internet is the next big thing. It's because they (Captain Ed and the First Mate) provide a necessary service in one of the oldest businesses out there--information. And they're very, very good at it.

Anyone can be good at it. Take oil companies. They're not in the oil business. They're in the energy business. Conoco recognizes this. They're involved in crude exploration, production, shipping, and refining. They're involved in natural gas extraction and marketing. They're involved in electricity generation and distribution. They're an energy company, and they're very, very good at it. Because they know what business they're in. If we wake up tomorrow to learn that some new scientific discovery has rendered gasoline obsolete, Conoco will be involved in whatever that new technology is, because while the world might not need gasoline to survive, the very heart of an industrialized civiliazation is energy.

The New York Times will be a footnote of journalistic history in twenty years if they don't figure out what business they're in. The same goes for magazines, television news shows, radio programs, and yes, web sites, unless they understand what value it is they provide--what business it is they're really in. And right now, most of them clearly haven't got a clue.

Written by: Beck

When the mainstream media fails to cover a story, it falls to amateur sleuths (also known as bloggers) to uncover the real story. Internet detective work is nothing especially new, but I must say, I didn't think it was possible to assemble eight pages worth of source material and analysis over a single military event. But it doesn't surprise me that if someone could do it, it would be GT of Bastard Sword.

The event in question is the event which lead to Kerry receiving his third purple heart & his bronze star. Here, I'll give you just a taste:

They say that the burden of proof is on the accuser, but I'd say the burden of proof is on the one with the wildly improbable account. And the shame of this whole thing is that if Kerry hadn't been out trumpeting his heroism nobody would've said a thing. About this or any other incident he could've easily said "I have no idea why they gave me the Bronze Star, never did. They were handing them out like lollipops over there, and I think that's wrong. I never felt I deserved the Silver Star, but apparently the Navy did, and so I guess I have to accept that." He'd still have his medals, the full credit that such medals normally come with, and people would've thought even more of him for minimizing his heroism, showing what a true hero he must've been off in those jungles. But no… That's not the John Kerry we're stuck with.

For the rest, you'll have to go there and read it yourself.

Written by: Beck

Bush has received a fair amount of criticism for alleged ties to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 527 group. No attention has been paid to Kerry campaign ties to various 527 organizations. Well now you can see them for yourself.

(Hat tip: B4B)

Written by: Beck

Well, Bush finally gave the Kerry campaign what they asked for. Bush expressed disapproval for the Swift Boat Vets ad. Naturally, things weren't as straightforward as that. Bush called for an end to all 527 ads. And I'm going to have to disagree with him on this one.

I think McCain-Feingold was a big mistake because of the extent to which it limits free speech. Bush opposes 527s for a fairly obvious political reason--the Democrats are beating the pants off of the Republicans when it comes to 527 fund raising. Outlawing all 3rd party political television ads simply serves to outlaw a form of expression. If you have the money (or can raise the money) to put an ad on TV, then so long as the station is willing to carry the ad, there should be no legislation to prevent it. I think that's a pretty straightforward first amendment conclusion to draw.

For a great breakdown of 527 financing, see NZ Bear's analysis of the situation. For the record, Mr. Bear thinks Bush's move is a fantastic one.

Written by: Goemagog

It's very simple and you can see it playing out almost everywhere. They aren't going to run on a platform of "Working to bring death camps to America!" which we all know to be a goal of the left. Their strategy is to make themselves look a little dim-witted. They don't expect that everyone will vote for them, but everytime a non-socialist says something bad about Kerry, Kerry'n'co complain about how mean that person is. They're hoping that if the populace is given a choice between someone who looks a little dim and someone who looks vicious, the dim one will win the election. They believe with all of their heart and soul that it is what happened in the 2000 election. That a large part of the population doesn't want to die in a socialist death camp continues to elude them.

Goe, because socialism brings death, oppression, and suffering, and the democrats want us to have more of it.

Written by: Beck

Kerry needs to hire an all new campaign staff or something. August has not been kind to him. While I was vaguely aware that nothing much good had happened for Kerry since the conclusion of the DNC at the end of July, I hadn't seen it spelled out in a clear, concise fashion. Have a look at the timeline assembled by Chris Lynch. I'm not sure whether to laugh or just quietly shake my head in disbelief. He summarizes:

Now there were many more things that I could have added in but I think you get the idea. Whoever is running the Kerry Campaign has no clue, no strategy and no control over the message that the campaign should be getting out. They pinned their hopes on presenting Kerry as a decorated war veteran and pretty much nothing else. That strategy is coming back to haunt them in a big way.

With the Swift Boat ads doing damage to their candidates credibility - the Kerry Campaign now wants to focus on issues but the questions raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth remain unanswered and claims of wanting to run an issues oriented campaign ring hollow when one considers that the DNC was pretty much issue free.

(Hat tip: B4B)

Written by: Beck

Rafflesia: The world's largest flower, a three foot-wide bloom that smells like rotting flesh.

The battle over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has heated up significantly over the past two days. The Kerry campaign has launched a three pronged attack. First, they're trying to get booksellers to pull copies of the SBVT book Unfit for Command banned. That's right, in the year 2004, a presidential candidate for the United States of Waving the Bill of Rights Around Angrily is attempting to ban a book.

Second, the Kerry campaign is trying to use the FEC to block the SBVT TV ads (this after ordinary coercion failed to yield results). Finally, the campaign has launched accusations that the Bush campaign, via the terrifying (to Democrats) Karl Rove illegally coordinated with the SBVT. The question, "Why on earth would the SBVT need to coordinate with Bush to, you know, write a book and buy TV ad time?" has yet to be asked. Kerry campaign ties to MoveOn.org, naturally, are purely arms-length and non-sinister. Further efforts of the media to discredit the Swift Boat Vets represents a sort of pseudo-forth prong.

Meanwhile, the SBVT has launched a second television ad. In my opinion, this one is more effective than the first one, as it merely quotes Kerry's own Senate testimony from his VVAW days followed by comments from various veterans stating their opinion of how disgusted they are by Kerry.

Kerry, meanwhile, has played his own moving-shell game regarding a MoveOn.org ad. You see, the MoveOn.org advertisements are negative with regard to Bush in the same fashion that the Swift Boat Vet's ads are negative to Kerry. Kerry called for Bush to repudiate the SBVT, and in a show of egalitarianism, he repudiated MoveOn.org's ad. And then he un-repudiated them when no one was looking.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is all over a number of stories critical of various SBVT members, while at the same time completely failing to address the actual issues raised by the vets, or to address Kerry's military record. In unrelated news, there's so much shit on TV these days that scientists are on the brink of a massive breakthrough of using radio waves to fertilize crops. If you want any more links, you can bloody well find them yourself.

(Hat tips (this could take a while): Rambling's Journal, OTB, Ipse Dixit, Blogs for Bush, Wizbang, DGCI X2, ISOU, INDC, Michelle Malkin)

Update: This was posted late Friday and was promtply burried by the weekend fluff. Bumping it back to the top so that it can actualy see the light of day, at least for a while.

Written by: Beck

Alice Cooper talks sense.

In the eyes of Alice Cooper, all the rock stars campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry are guilty of one thing: treason. The shock-rock legend, a staunch Republican who attends NBA games in Phoenix with Arizona Senator John McCain, was disgusted when he learned of plans by Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M. and other bands to hold a series of concerts aimed at unseating U.S. President George W. Bush.

"To me, that's treason. I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics," says the 56-year-old Cooper, who begins a 15-city Canadian tour on Aug. 20 in Thunder Bay, Ont.

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

I get sick of listening to celebrities talking politics. The vast majority of the time, they don't have a clue what they're talking about--from either side of the political spectrum. To paraphrase Kid Rock (again--who knew?) speaking on the Iraq war, "George Bush doesn't tell me how to do my job, I hardly think I'm qualified to tell him how to do his."

Yeah, I don't have much of a point to make. Mostly I just wanted to quote the Alice Cooper interview.

(Hat tip: Aaron's Rantblog)

Written by: Beck

Yeah, that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

(insert masturbation joke here)

(Hat tip: ISOU)

Written by: Beck

Kerry let a golden opportunity slip past him. Bob Dole, who's been strikingly quiet thus far in the campaign, stepped forward, said some nice things about Kerry, and suggested he apologize for some of the things he's said in the past--things which have driven a lot of otherwise sympathetic veterans away from his campaign.

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," Dole said he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.'

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

The response of the Kerry campaign was at once dismissive and disrespectful.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth."

It's called looking a gift horse in the mouth. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth latest TV spot where former POWs talk about how crushed they were when Kerry dismissed all their pain and suffering in sweeping criticism of American soldiers--something which he says today was intended to criticize American policy makers in government, not the soldiers themselves, yet which flatly contradicts his actual statements at the time--is having an impact, especially amongst undecided voters. Then you get things like this:

"Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said on ABC's "This Week."

So when Bob Dole--a real military hero--criticizes Kerry, it's dismissed as "disappointing," but when fucking John Podesta wants to hyperbolically criticize Bush's TANG service, well, all's fair in love and partisanship. Politics make me sick.

Written by: Beck

American hostage in Iraq freed, head still firmly attached to neck.

French-American journalist Micah Garen was released in Nasiriya and was in U.S. hands late Sunday after being kidnapped by insurgents in the southern Iraq city more than a week ago.

Garen, 36, was kidnapped August 13 along with his Iraqi translator, Amir Doshe, in a busy Nasiriya market. Doshe also was released, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

In an interview Sunday on the Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera, Garen said he had been treated well during his captivity.

A group calling itself the Martyrs Brigade had threatened to kill him within 48 hours if Americans did not leave Najaf.

It would also seem al-Sadr was instrumental in securing Garen's release. Another 2,000 lives saved or so, and Sadr's karma might be close to being back to break-even.

Written by: Beck

Gee, what are the odds, al-Sadr didn't really mean it when he said he'd disband the Mehdi Army milita and cease using the Imam Ali mosque as a military fortress. Gee, I didn't see that one coming. Money quote:

"Bring those Americans here to fight hand to hand," said one Sadr follower. "They stay thousands of feet away in their airplanes. They are scared, they know we will slaughter them."

Works for me. Everyone on both sides leaves their guns at home and we settle this with knives. Hint: safe money is not on the untrained undernourished street hoodlums. Remember this one?

Written by: Beck

Politicians have long understood that influencing the mindset and opinions of the masses requires careful use and control of language. Use of language, thus, exposes bias.

New rules governing overtime pay have been put into effect. According to the Labor Department, the new rules strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million workers. According to the AFL-CIO, the rules weaken overtime rights for 6 million people. In other words, this is just another debate, and the facts and impact should be relatively straightforward and easily determinable.

So how is the headline for this story over at CNN worded?

CNN: Is Your OT a Thing of the Past?

Technically, it's not a misrepresentation. Their headline captures the essence of one crucial side of the debate. But it's cleverly phrased to create fear and insinuate that there's really only one side to the debate. It's kind of like if Bush pushed a new law strengthening anti-pedophilia rules, but some people opposed it on a civil liberties basis, and the headline read, "Bush denies wanting to rape babies."

OK, sure, I'm exaggerating, but if your reaction to that last sentence was, "Hey, that's not at all a fair analogy or characterization," then you're starting to see my point about control of language.

Written by: Beck

Random musings while driving down the road the other day...

You know that first, visceral thought that goes through your head when you see someone pulled over on the side of the freeway for speeding...?

• Social Conservative: Good for him (the police officer).


• Social Libertarian: Poor bastard (the speeder). Wasn't hurting anybody.


• Social Liberal: Depends. If he's rich, he had it coming. Lawyers assumed to be involved eventually to beat the system. If he's poor, it's just the man trying to keep the people down. Profiling assumed to be involved, and it's the system doing the beating.

For those who think that's an oversimplification, see the title of this post.

Written by: Goemagog

The CIA is dead, long live the CIA.

A GOP senator wants to abolish the CIA and replace it with a person. That person would have a $40 billion dollar budget, the CIA's former staff, and all intelligence resources currently controlled by the Pentagon. The person would have a title, but his support staff would be listed as three agencies so that people don't get confused and think the CIA has gotten bigger. It'll be like the CIA in that it will be a centralized agency for intelligence but it will be unlike the CIA in that it will have more people, a bigger budget, and the power to boss around FBI agents.

This change will do nothing to remove the FBI administrators who impeded all of the investigations that could have tipped us off to the WTC attacks. It won't do anything to stop the French from trying to sell us out. It probably won't get Osama bin Laden's head any closer to a pike. Fucktards like Pat Roberts are going to get me killed for a press-clipping and I don't like it.

Goe, using the Robert C. Byrd Memorial Sig.

Written by: Beck

Don't bother clicking this link unless quantum physics intersts you.

Becuase, you know, it'd be uninteresting otherwise.

Written by: Beck

IOC bars Athletes, coaches, support personnel, and other officials from blogging during the Olympics. Yep. That's right. To paraphrase the Soup Nazi, "No blog for you, two weeks!"

I really don't understand why international officialdom is so terrified of bloggers. I can kind of understand the rational when I see some lame big-media anti-blog attack piece (and there have been more than a few). After all, these people perceive a threat to their livelihoods. But I really don't understand this one.

The International Olympic Committee is barring competitors, as well as coaches, support personnel and other officials, from writing firsthand accounts for news and other Web sites.

An exception is if an athlete has a personal Web site that they did not set up specifically for the Games.

The IOC's rationale for the restrictions is that athletes and their coaches should not serve as journalists -- and that the interests of broadcast rightsholders and accredited media come first.

Participants in the games may respond to written questions from reporters or participate in online chat sessions -- akin to a face-to-face or telephone interview -- but they may not post journals or online diaries, blogs in Internet parlance, until the Games end August 29.

To protect lucrative broadcast contracts, athletes and other participants are also prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the games, unless they get permission ahead of time. (Photos taken by accredited journalists are allowed on the personal sites.)

Since this isn't taking place in the United States, I can't make any broad points about censorship or the first amendment. Instead, allow me to simply observe that this is really quite pathetic. The IOC feels the need to protect their juicy broadcast contracts by banning blog posts? Are you kidding me? You'll not hear me say this often, but the incestuous worlds of bureaucracy, NGOs, and big-media could learn a lesson from American politics--embrace bloggers, 'cuz we ain't goin' away.

Written by: Beck

The text & picture that follow are from an email sent to me by a family member. I don't know who to credit for the original--if anyone would like to lay claim or has knowledge, just drop it in the comments or fire me an email.

Imagine that you are a South African bush pilot.

You fly in some critical medical supplies and enjoy a quick lunch at the hospital. It's a stifling 100 degrees in the shade and you're eager to get back up to the cool, high blue yonder.

On the way back to your plane, you discover that the only bit of shade within a mile has become very popular. You start calculating the distance to the plane door... and wonder, "Do I feel lucky today?"

Well do you?

Written by: Beck

Naturally, after a devestating loss to Puerto Rico and a slim victory over Greece, the USA Olympic basketball team responds by sucking in rare form.

Final score:

Lithuania - 94
USA - 90

Update: He went to my alma mater. He was the same year as I. I've defended him before. But I've run out of sympathy.

Hi. My name is Allen Iverson...



And I suck ass.

Written by: Dave

I just read an AP article on the Fox news site which reported on a flyer for the Swift Boat Veterans found in a county GOP office in Florida.

Imagine that, in a pile of fliers and bumper stickers found in a Florida locale where a bunch of volunteers opposed to Kerry congregate, a flyer supporting the Swift Boat Veterans was found. Yes, this definitely proves that the whole thing is financed and coordinated by Bush and Rove themselves!

At least that's what the article would have you believe. This is so incredibly unnewsworthy that I find it astounding that it was even reported. Even the slightest modicum of neutrality should prevent something like that from becoming a news story. Imagine if a flyer from Moveon was found in a local Democratic campaign office, would we hear about it on the national news?

Besides being another sickening example of the media's active opposition to Bush, it also adds ammunition to something I plan to write on later - Fox's inability to present a truly conservative media message. Their reliance on the mainstream media for the content and focus of their news cycle just means they mostly report the same liberal crap the others report, with some conservative commentary interspersed. It doesn't really help the cause much, especially since it legitimizes reporting like this.

Written by: Dave

I honestly don't know what to think about the charges made against Kerry's service in Vietnam. If I had to guess, I would say that while in Vietnam he served courageously and that the memories of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have been somewhat affected by their sense of betrayal.

On the other hand, I am starting to suspect that Kerry's service in Vietnam, while courageous, was motivated by political ambitions from the very beginning. The following questions keep popping into my mind.

Why would Kerry volunteer for a tour in Vietnam, and then immediately begin using band aid wounds to rack up enough Purple Hearts to get an early return home? It makes he suspect that he was not passionate about the cause, but that he was passionate about putting a deployment on his political resume and then being done with it as soon as possible.

Why would someone who claims to have been so horrified and turned off by the war have been so careful to document his scenes of glory with film, to the point of even reenacting the events? It would seem that if these events were so scarring that they turned Kerry against the war, that reliving them for reenactments would be the last thing he would want to do.

Why would someone who claims to have built such close bonds with his fellow servicemen, after returning home, immediately begin accusing his comrades of war crimes he knew they didn't commit, if it wasn't for the fact that it was such a politically profitable thing to do at the time?


The reason I find all this worrying is not because I think it was wrong for Kerry to have early political ambitions, but in the lack of values these specific choices seem to reveal. You must really lack moral convictions if you can volunteer to fight and kill to satisfy your own political ambitions, and then betray the people you fought with after you are safe at home. Considering Kerry's lack of acheivement in the Senate, it appears as if he might just be an empty, convictionless man interested in doing only what is necessary to satisfy his political glory lust.

Then again, I may be wrong. And as someone who deployed to two foreign conflicts, I know that four months is not a short time, and that even the most committed are beset by a terrible homesickness. Maybe Kerry passionately believed in the justness of the war when he first volunteered, became jaded by his experiences, and after returning to America, decided that the best thing he could do for his former comrades is work to get them back home through protesting the war, even if he had to spread some lies he knew were untrue. If that is the case, then Kerry's service should still be a credit to him (although not the centerpiece of his campaign it has been made into).

Unfortunately though, I don't think we will ever really know the truth.

Written by: Beck

Michelle Malkin's post on her on-air ambush by Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball has thus far received 82 trackbacks, which I'm pretty positive is some sort of blogosphere world record. So I figure, what the heck? Might as well jump on top of the dog pile. I like to think of it as being a part of history.

As I am seated at the table with Matthews, who I am meeting for the first time, he cracks a joke--and not in a well-meaning way--about how I look. (There are quite a few people who are hung up on this.) "Are you sure you are old enough to be on the show? What are you? 28?" I grit my teeth. He badgers me again with the same question. I politely answer his question and supply my age.

(I wonder how Matthews' wife, the respected TV journalist Kathleen Matthews, who hosts a show about working women, would react if informed about her husband's treatment of a fellow female journalist. I've been in the business a dozen years and would be happy to talk to Mrs. Matthews about my firsthand experience with Neanderthal chauvinism in the workplace.)

Needless to say, things went downhill, fast and loud, from there.

The post is definitely worth the read, if only to get a behind-the-scenes picture of how things work in television journalism.

(Hat tip: Protein-Wisdom)

Written by: Beck

What do you know, I can access Blogger again.

Remember field day back in elementary school? They'd hand out a "sportsmanship award" to the most inept, unathletic students as a sort of consolation prize for being otherwise uncoordinated or inept.

But there really is such a thing as good sportsmanship, and this man exemplifies it.

Michael Phelps is done for the Olympics. Shortly after winning his fifth gold medal and seventh overall, Phelps told U.S. men's coach Eddie Reese that he wanted to give up his spot on the butterfly leg of the 400-meter medley relay team to Ian Crocker.

Phelps, who already swam in the morning preliminaries on the medley relay, earned a right to swim the final by beating Crocker in the 100 fly Friday night by a minuscule four-hundredths of a second. But Phelps said he would cede his coveted spot in the final to Crocker.

"We came into this meet as a team and we're going to leave it as a team," Phelps said. "It's the right thing to do."

I never really thought of swimming as a team sport, but I guess, in a way, it is.

(Hat tip: INDC Journal)

Written by: Beck

Friend and blogger Chris Roach over at man-sized target has a new post about his outlook on the Iraq war. I've neither heard nor considered this particular outlook on the Iraq war before, and it definitely bears consideration. Chris calls it the "flypaper hypothesis," and it can best be described as: "Thank goodness Iraq is such a quagmire!"

I shocked, or tried to shock, a prominent Washington "neoconservative" over lunch the other day by declaring that the Iraqi mission was a complete success. "I hoped the U.S. would get into a quagmire in Iraq, and now they' re in the quagmire. The operation has in fact gone more smoothly than I could have foreseen." This is because, as I went on to explain, simply by being there, and not budging, the U.S. has moved the focus of the international Jihad from the West back to the East.

We thus return to the "flypaper hypothesis" I first expounded a couple of years ago, in which the U.S. hangs out its flypaper far away from home, and also as far from Israel as possible, to collect as many as possible of the world's movable Jihadis in a place where the U.S. has installed the equipment to kill them.

Go read it already.

Written by: Beck

Many of you are likely familiar with "527 groups," institutions able to raise tax-exempt money and engage in political campaigning so long as it is strictly independent from the candidates themselves. The rest of you will be familiar with them by the end of this post.

On the left, by far the most well known 527 is MoveOn.org, a group responsible for a whole host of ads, including one directly comparing Bush & Republicans with Hitler & Nazis (which, I'll have you know, I find extraordinarily offensive). On the right, the best known 527 is the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, the organization which has caused so much controversy of late.

Left leaning 527s are greatly out fundraising and out spending right leaning 527s.

Now, given all these details, which of the following headlines do you think is more likely to pop up on a major news outlet like, say, choosing at random, CNN?

Option 1: Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
Option 2: Bush: Kerry lets attack ads do 'dirty work'

If you picked Option 1, you were right! Yes, it's counterintuitive, but it's the truth.

So what's my point? Just demonstrating another case of liberal media bias. I feel the need to do this because there are actually still people out there--primarily the liberal media themselves--who consider such hallowed institutions as NBC, the New York Times, and Time-Warner, to be moderate and/or unbiased.

Written by: Beck

What do you get when you combine a 100% online company with a business model that doesn't suck balls? You guessed it. Google's founders are all now multi-billionaires. Serves me right for studying economics and finance in school instead of computer science.

Written by: Beck

Those men in marriages/relationships with women now find themselves in a position where they have to make up for 4 years of watching football. You're going to have to watch women's gymnastics. And you're going to have to like it. Fortunately, quasi in rem has assembled a top notch women's gymnastics guide-for-guys. A sampling of sage advice:

You will not be able recognize any of the American female gymnasts, so don't even try. There are about a dozen Courtney's, 8 Carly's and three Brittney's. If you can distinguish betwixt them then you are a better man than I. If you desperately feel the need to drop some knowledge on the spouse for points, one gymnast who can be spotted is Mohini Bhardwaj, who has an Indian parent. On the plus side, it is fun to chant Mohini! Mohini! Mohini!

The biggest threats to the tiny American queens of the gym are the Russian, Rumanian and Chinese teams. The Russian chick to watch is Svetlana Khorkina. She is in her mid twenties, is in her 13th Olympic games and aspires to be Paris Hilton. She has been in the games so long that in every one of her routines she performs at least one move that is named after her. Point this out to the wife while watching. Trust me. Then later, after the broadcast, you can ask your wife if you two can try out a "Khorkina" or two. It should be a grab bag of fun. Most interesting about Khorkina, however, is what she has going on in her pelvic region. This is probably a point best kept to yourself while watching. Now I don't pretend to be an expert at the technology of the women's gymnastics leotard, but I am fairly certain that it should leave a little something to the imagination. Not so with Khorkina, who may have gotten some sort of promotional deal from a waxer in Moscow to sport her skin tight ensemble.

(Hat tip: Imago_Dei)

Written by: Goemagog

Oil goes up, and Iraq is the first reason given. Iraq's been having problems with getting it's oil to markets for over a year, not something that should cause a rapid upswing in prices. Many of the articles on oil prices written last week were blaming the increase on instability in Venezuela, where Chavez was slowing oil production and giving oil to Castro at bargain prices. Last month saw articles blaming increasing oil prices on the problems Yukos was having keeping itself from being destroyed by Putin in his quest to become the next dictator.
The particular article linked provides a tangible reason for the increase, a tremendous growth in demand from China and India. China's slide into fascism and India's abandonment of socialism have given both countries a huge boost in internal development and growth. A question arises though, how long will world oil supplies last if India and China's thirst continues to grow? Do we still have a few centuries, or is this coming up on us much sooner?

Goe, wants one of these.

Written by: Beck

An excellent overview from a_sdf.

Written by: Beck

Too good to be true?

Iraqi Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr agreed that his militia should lay down their arms and quit Najaf's Imam Ali Mosque, acceding to demands from an Iraqi delegation to end an uprising in the city, Reuters reported.

A letter from the cleric's office was read out to delegates at the government-backed Iraqi National Conference in Baghdad, saying that al-Sadr had agreed to their demands to join the country's political process, Reuters said. A spokesman for al- Sadr, Sheikh Mahmoud al-Sudani confirmed the accord to Reuters.

al-Sadr has demonstrated that he is not a man of his word on too many occasions for me to get excited about this news. He seems to interpret the words "cease-fire" as meaning: "Period when American soldiers pull back and give us a chance to reload our RPGs." Still, what if it is true? That'd be one hell of a giant step forward, especially considering how desperate the situation has become in the past two weeks.

Written by: Beck

Amanda Beard

Two words: breast stroke.

For more of the same see here and here.

Written by: Beck

I've already posted my thoughts and reactions to the announcement of the planned US troop redeployment out of Europe (and, to a lesser extent, Asia). The day it was announced, the Kerry campaign understandably was asked for a reaction from reporters everywhere. Well, they finally responded.

Kerry had the opportunity to embrace the plan. It's reasonable, logical, and acknowledges the new realities of 21st century geopolitics. The redeployment is to be spread over 10 years, there's nothing hasty or precipitous about it. Indeed, the plan would seem to be a decade late in coming, and the slow timetable allows for quick reversal with little inconvenience should the plan, in the fullness of time, be shown to have been a mistake.

Kerry did not take advantage of that opportunity.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday criticized President Bush's proposal to recall up to 70,000 foreign troops as a hastily announced plan that raises more doubts about U.S. intentions and commitments than it answers.

"Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars," Kerry said in speech prepared for delivery to the Veterans of Foreign War. "But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way,"

First of all, if he wants to bring those troops home more than Bush, then why does he not, you know, want to bring those troops home? Standard political double-speak, while not surprising coming from any politician, is still just that: double speak. Furthermore, if now is not the time or way to bring troops home, when is the correct time and way? What other way is there to bring troops home than, you know, to bring them home? How much longer after the quiet demise of the cold-war do we have to wait before the correct time? Presumably, Kerry's unspoken answer to that question is: "Right after I'm elected."

John Podhoretz, writing for the Washington Post, elaborates on this theme. Be sure to note the use of Bush criticism-by-proxy.

Surrogates and spokesmen for the Kerry campaign went ballistic. "Alarming," declared Richard Holbrooke, the foreign-policy guru who will almost certainly be secretary of State if Kerry is elected. Wesley Clark, who was supreme commander of NATO before his disastrous run for the Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year, thundered that the plan would "significantly undermine U.S. national security."

They've got to be kidding. Actually, they probably are kidding. Clark and Holbrooke are intelligent men, and they know perfectly well that the plan is actually quite modest in scope and even more modest when it comes to execution. Fewer than 5 percent of U.S. military personnel will be redeployed. And the 10-year time frame means that, on average, 6,500 troops will be moved per year.

The lion's share of the redeployment will come from U.S. troops stationed in Germany. The presence of an enormous clump of American forces sitting in the center of Europe is an anachronism. The Soviet Union, the enemy they were intended to face down, no longer exists. Since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., the American military has fought in three major conflicts — Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The presence in Europe of 100,000 U.S. troops had little or nothing to do with the U.S. war plans in any of these cases.

Podhoretz goes on to attempt to explain the motivation behind the Kerry campaign's response:

So why are the Kerry people so hysterical in their denunciations? They realize they've been trumped. Kerry clearly believed he had hit upon the perfect way to come at the president both from the right and the left when it came to military matters.

Kerry wants the American people to believe that he will bring soldiers home from Iraq in a year. But he doesn't want to appear weak, so he won't say how he's going to do it other than that he will mystically convince foreign leaders who oppose the U.S. presence there to fight the war for us.

The planned redeployment is a political masterstroke on Bush's part, yes, and no doubt the timing was quite deliberate. Nonetheless, it's a plan whose time has come. Bringing German stationed American soldiers home is long overdue.

(Hat tip: DGCI)

Update: Sir George, writing over at the Rottweiler, presents a gargantuan fisking of the WaPo opinion piece criticizing the withdrawl. George's fisk is actually longer than the original article. Definitely an amusing (and informative) read.

Written by: Beck

Lee Clearnal, writing in the Houston Chronicle, expresses the thoughts many conservative bloggers have been sharing for quite some time now as he asks, "Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?"

The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records--and went over them with a microscope--have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.

Kerry has made his four months and 11 days in Vietnam the central theme of his presidential campaign. This is entirely understandable given his 20 years as the Senate's leading dove. He needs the cover that Vietnam can give him.

It seems self-evident, now, that there are major discrepancies between the many things Kerry has said regarding his time in Vietnam--from anti-war activism in the early 70's through interviews as late as 2003--and the truth.

The Swiftboat vets' ads have drawn attention and heavy criticism from the media and other sources. At the same time, the issues they've raised have received little to no attention. Indeed, the blog world remains one of the few places where Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story has received any attention at all. I have to imagine that were today's campaign occurring 12 years ago, all other things being equal, Kerry would today enjoy a significant lead over Bush exclusively because of the absence of the internet.

Meanwhile, the major media blackout on this story largely continues unabated, and people like myself continue to endure huge doses of frustration over what we perceive as outright discrimination from the press. At least the Chronicle seems to be on board, even if only from their opinion page.

(Hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

Update: For a take on the issue from the other side of the aisle, In Search of Utopia has a different interpretation of conservatives' obsession with the Kerry war record.

What [military records which Kerry] has released so far has made Bush look Bush League in comparisson, so why not? In that sense I agree with my Conservative Bretheren. On the other hand, I find all the frustrated wailing to be as silly as a bunch of bozos who were not on Kerry's boat arguing with the man he saved, over whether he saved him or not, and whether they were under attack when it happened.

My Take... Bush is going to lose. His supporters can smell it in the air. His approval ratings are tanking. His, "turned the corner," speech has been shelved, and the only people that seem to be excited about Bush are his base.

Anderson is definitely on to something, but I still believe the story is being deliberately shunned by a partisan press establishment. Furthermore, since Kerry has made his war record a key aspect of his campaign, the war record deserves more scrutiny than it has received.

Written by: Beck

I can't imagine this will be especially effective. In fact, I have to imagine it will strengthen their resolve. Nonetheless, I find it hilarious that the Israelis are responding to a Palestinian prisoner's hunger strike by grilling meat outside their jail cells.

Israel declared psychological war on hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners today, saying it would barbecue meat outside their cells to try to break their spirit.

The 1,700 inmates, seen by Palestinians as symbols of resistance to Israeli occupation, want wardens to stop strip searches, allow more frequent family visits, improve sanitary conditions and install public telephones, supporters said.

But Israeli officials call the protest launched Sunday a ploy by the prisoners to secure easier communication with militant groups waging an almost 4-year-old uprising, and have vowed to fight their liquids-only fast.

The Prisons Service said it would draw on tactics used in hunger strikes by jailed Northern Irish militants in the 1970s and 1980s, such as withholding basic amenities.

"Among the various methods we plan to employ is holding barbecues outside the walls of the affected prisons," a Prisons Service spokesman said.

(Hat tip: The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

Update: Via Roger Simon, it looks like it didn't take long for the Palestinians to start cheating.

Many cases of strike breaking have been reported on the fourth day of the Palestinian security prisoner hunger strike, including imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and other strike leaders, who have been put together in separate cells, Army Radio reported Wednesday.

The Prison Services released a film Wednesday filmed by a hidden camera that shows a man, apparently Barghouti, eating in his cell with the door and window covered by a cloth.

Marwan Barghouti, the highest ranking Palestinian in Israeli custody, is serving five consecutive life terms after being convicted of involvement in fatal attacks.

I'm sure that'll serve as a great inspiration to his brothers-in-arms.

More: But they'll never take... our freedom!

Written by: Beck

My internet connection has been cutting in and out for several days. It went down completely yesterday, but it's nominally back up. For the moment. Hopefully, I'll have time to get something worth reading up in a bit.

'Cuz I know you all were worried.

Written by: Goemagog

Samizdata.net has an excellent article about a book. It would make a lousy book-review, as it spends little time covering what's in the book, but uses the book to back up the main argument of the article. It's about how leftist historians are trying to hide history (and their complicity in and support of mass murder) from us. You'd think historians would want people to know what happened, but that's not the case, as the article explains. Go read it. Or I'll think bad things about your parentage. Or something.

Goe, hating the french like it's going out of style even though it never will.

Written by: Beck

I've taken my fair share of potshots at the Religion of Peace, and I've had my reasons. None of it has been especially shocking. Is anyone still surprised to hear of fresh beheadings? Even the genocide in Darfur, while ghastly and abominable, doesn't truly surprise me. The latest from Reuters, however, absolutely blows my mind.

The situation in Najaf is... fluid. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that violence is rampant, and that shrines are being used as safe houses. But get a load of this:

Militants had just kidnapped and dragged [the police chief of Najaf's] ailing 80-year-old father through the streets. They also beat his brothers until they collapsed. Forty of his men were killed and several were beheaded.

[...] "They told me that I could go in the place of my father," said Ghalib al-Jezairy, a move that would have had dire consequences for a man high on the militant hit list. As the police chief spoke his father was still being held.

[...] "What they did to my father was inhuman. He is a dying old man. They beat my brothers until they fainted," he told reporters late on Monday night, as the sound of mortars being fired could be heard in a nearby cemetery turned battle zone.

[...] They beheaded one of his relatives and Sadr's Mehdi Army militants have gouged out the eyes of some of his officers and boiled them in hot water, he said.

"Do Iraqi police behead people?," he asked. This is barbaric. They enter people's homes and they kill the relatives of policemen."

"Thirty minutes ago someone else was slaughtered," he said at the bland, cement Najaf police station where a fresh batch of detained men were being processed.

Yes, I realize that Reuters has been doing their utmost to paint the war in Iraq in the worst possible terms for over a year, and as such, they're not exactly the most trustworthy source for balanced commentary on Iraq. There was just something about this particular article which really conjured up images of raw chaos and men who have degraded into sub-human beasts. When life and death become meaningless, men turn into wolves and vultures.

Written by: Beck

Blah, blah, blah, blah, party schools, blah, blah, blah. The Princeton Review ranking for top party schools is vaguely interesting (congrats SUNY-Albany), but that's not why I linked this article. I linked for this interesting tidbit:

Students most likely to vote for President Bush are in the Republican's home state at Texas A&M University; those most likely to vote for Democratic challenger John Kerry attend Warren Wilson College in Asheville, North Carolina.

The TAMU bit doesn't surprise me at all. It's a conservative school to begin with, it's in Bush's home state, and it's home to the George H. W. Bush presidential library. But Warren Wilson College? I must admit, I've never even heard of this school. I don't usually think of North Carolina as a hotbed of liberalism. Anyone else out there heard of them?

No, it's not particularly significant. I just find it amusing for some strange reason.

Written by: Goemagog

"Everybody quits, nobody fights. If you try, I'll kill you myself!" - Chirac's Chevaliers

Goe, posting random thoughts.

Written by: Beck

It has been a fair question for some time as to precisely what the purpose of the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and support personnel are still doing in Germany & other European bases. Their station there made sense during the cold war, but now they would seem to be guarding against an invasion from Poland, which, while the Irony factor would be record setting, isn't exactly likely to happen.

In the past, it would have been a diplomatic mess to realign those troops, since they represent a sizable chunk of the German economy. Now that Germany (and much of the rest of Europe) has made it plain that they want little to do with us militarily, the President finally has the diplomatic wiggle room to return the favor. The timing couldn't be better, what with our overstretched military commitments in Central Asia.

Bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the United States over the next decade. The move would also involve about 100,000 family members and civilian employees, Bush said.

[...] Bush said it makes no sense to continue an armed posture that was forged during the cold war, when the Soviet Union represented the nation's biggest threat. Terrorism, he said, is now the chief threat.

"The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it," Bush said.

It's about time.

Written by: Beck

The socialist Hugo Chavez's rule in Venezuela has been marked by conflict, incompetence, and corruption. The nation had a shot at removing him from power in a California style recall election, but as of right now, it looks like they blew their chance. Chavez is claiming victory, with 58% of the vote going his way. Naturally, the vote could not pass without controversy:

Opposition leaders refused to accept the results and demanded a manual recount, claiming their own exit polls showed almost 60% of citizens voted to oust Mr Chavez.

"We categorically and absolutely reject these results," said Henry Ramos Allup, leader of the Democratic Coordinator coalition of opposition parties. "The national elections council has committed a gigantic fraud."

Time will tell.

Written by: Beck

Conventional wisdom these days assumes more and more that the situation in Iraq is something of a quagmire. While the situation hasn't even been going on long enough to really be called a quagmire, and while I believe you can make a strong argument for why things are substantially better in Iraq than is reported in the mainstream press, one thing is certain (at least in the mind of that nebulous monster Conventional Wisdom): things are going better in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

And in the immediate term, that's entirely true. For now. I can't help but worry, however, that the long term situation in Afghanistan is far more fraught with quagmire-esque perils than Iraq. While many Iraqis choose to exuberantly celebrate their new found freedom from the tyranny of Saddam via shooting at Americans, in the main, Iraqis are better educated, more worldly, and more cosmopolitan than their Afghani counterparts. Meanwhile, Afghanistan remains relatively pacified (certainly more so than Iraq) with a significantly smaller contribution from coalition soldiers.

Yet I can't help but marvel at the news items which periodically creep out of Afghanistan. The opium trade is alive and thriving, something which I have a hard time imagining occurring in Iraq. Groups of surviving Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters pop up every now and then to cause trouble. Then every once in a while, a disgruntled member of the loose alliance of warlords will attack one of his neighbors. Take this recent example:

Forces of the newly trained Afghan National Army took control of an air base in the western province of Herat, where 21 people were killed Friday night after a local commander attacked the base, the president's office announced Sunday. Two more battalions of the new multiethnic army were dispatched to the province on Sunday, forcing back the forces of the governor, Ismail Khan.

Yes, you read that right, the national government is dispatching troops to retake an airport that the local governor saw fit to attack and capture. Again, can you imagine the forces in the US losing control of an air strip?

Despite three bloody wars, the British couldn't keep Afghanistan subjugated. The Soviet Union, with all its resources & its reputation on the line, along with a compliant socialist puppet government, couldn't keep Afghanistan subjugated. The Taliban never even managed to completely conquer the entire nation, as rebel war lords continued to occupy and rule private chunks of the mountainous nation. In Afghanistan's entire history, the only successful uniters have been of the ruthless warlord variety, a long legacy of rule from the sword dating back to Ghengis Kahn, though even counting the Mongols' exploits, the country was never fully unified until 1747.

Perhaps more than any other nation on Earth, Afghanistan is a land of anarchy and chaos. The United States and her allies have managed to impose a sort of calm on the scene for now, but I can't imagine the peace lasting forever, especially when American troops ultimately withdraw from the country.

Written by: Beck

I think you could make a strong argument that the Olympic sport which the United States has raised to levels of proficiency unmatched by any other nation in any other Olympic sport is basketball.

I'm watching the US play their first basketball game of the Olympics right now against Puerto Rico. You know, the small island which is a protectorate of the US. The island well in the lead for running for 51st state of the United States. An island with a population just over 1% of the United States'. And, as the game approaches half time, the US is getting their asses whooped.

I don't even want to think about the average salary of the US team members. I'd feel pretty comfortable guessing that it's well in excess of $5 million per year. That's money they're paid to do nothing else in life but play basketball and play it well. And right now, they're getting beaten by a team that isn't even considered a medal contender.

The United States has never lost an Olympic basketball game since professional players first began playing in the Olympics (1992) with the fabled Dream Team. I'm starting to think we're about to see an Olympic first of the most ignoble sort.

At half time, now, the US team is down by 22 points. It's embarrassing and humiliating. Kudos to Puerto Rico, they're kicking our butts.

Update: Final score Puerto Rico 92 United States 73

Update: The official coverage from NBC.

For the first time since NBA players were allowed to compete in the Olympics in 1992 -- and for just the third time in Olympic history -- the American men were defeated on the hardwood as the tiny U.S. commonwealth shocked its superpower neighbor by a 92-73 score.

The key for Puerto Rico was the second period, in which they outscored the Americans 28-7 and turned a one-point lead into the largest deficit for a U.S. team since that summer in Barcelona. During the second, the Americans managed just three field goals and were outscored 14-3 in the final four minutes.

Once behind, the perimeter shooting weakness that many predicted for this team became evident. With Puerto Rico backed up into a zone defense, the Americans could not get the ball in to their best player, center Tim Duncan.

Forced to the perimeter, the Americans hit just 3 of their 25 attempts from 3-point range. [ed: The Olympic 3 point line is three feet closer than the NBA regulation 3 point line, making this pathetic performance even more astonishing]

Written by: Beck

The first gold medal of the 2004 Olympic games goes to... an American. And he broke the world record (set by himself) in the process.

Written by: Goemagog

Guide to unit patches from WWII.

Goe, waiting again.

Written by: Beck

How's that for a controversial assertion?

I'm on a mailing list from the senate's Joint Economic Committee, and today they have a doozy. At some point, I'm probably going to have to start paying those guys royalties, I reprint so much of their info. Anyway... (emphasis added by me)

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report produced at the request of Congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners while decreasing the tax share of lower- and middle-income groups. The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, with the top 5 percent of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes.

Highlights:

• As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts.


• While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.


• The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pays 31.6% of all income taxes, the top 5% pays 51.4%, the top 10% pays 63.5%, and the top 20% of income earners pays 78.4% of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.


• Some analysts cite total effective federal tax rates, as opposed to effective income tax rates, as the best measure of the effects of the tax cuts across income groups. This method can be misleading because it measures the burden of payroll taxes without accounting for the highly progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits to which payroll taxes are linked.

Now, this is not to say that the average amount paid by the wealthiest segment of the population didn't decrease by more than the amount paid by the average middle- or lower-class household. What this is says is that the percentage of the tax burden shouldered by the wealthiest actually increased as a result of the tax cuts made since 2001.

For more on the tax cut benefit/overall tax burden issue, Wizbang has done some research of their own, showing precisely the same effect.

I hope my reporting of this story from the JEC and the CBO meets with your approval, as I can assure you, you're not going to hear about it from any established media outlets. I mean, can you imagine the NYT running anything like the title of this post as a headline?

Written by: Beck

It looks like the military finally managed to get close. al-Sadr seems to have played catch with some shrapnel.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suffered shrapnel wounds to his arm and chest during Friday fighting in Najaf, according to spokesman Sayed Hazim al-Arajy in Baghdad.

[...] al-Sadr was treated at the Imam Ali Mosque and is expected to make a full recovery, al-Arajy said.

Next issue, from the same article: how can you tell when members of a religious sect no longer regard that sect's holiest shrine as being especially holy or sacred? Hint: it involves land mines.

The mosque is a holy Shiite Muslim site. Thousands of al-Sadr loyalists are holed up there, Iraqi authorities say, and have been attacking their forces with mortars and laying land mines in the sacred compound.

Naturally, domestic and allied forces recognize the importance of not stepping on anyone's feelings, so Americans won't be doing any actual fighting inside the shrine.

Iraqi forces and not foreigners would be engaged near the shrine, officials said.

Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib echoed that statement, saying, "We will not allow for any foreign forces to enter the shrine of Imam Ali."

Which is good, since I have to imagine there's a step somewhere in the Mehdi Army's defense plans that call for a last stand that turns them into martyrs and the shrine into a smoking crater. The US will be blamed, of course, but at least it won't be our soldiers inside the place when it goes up in one hell of a memorable fireball.

And finally, some good old fashioned UN bashing for you:

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Thursday to extend the U.N. mission in Iraq for a year, The Associated Press reported. Secretary-General Kofi Annan indicated the number of U.N. staff allowed in the country will be limited due to security concerns, the AP said.

Um, guys, before you extend your mission in Iraq, shouldn't you first, you know, be in Iraq?

Written by: Dave

I have a question I would like to hear your feedback on.

Have the 90's ruined America?

This is why I wonder:

It seems that the 90's created some unrealistic expections. For many Americans Normality is now defined as 4.0% unemployment, a world where no external threats are percieved to exist, and a stock market where you can expect 20% returns each year.

Of course most readers to this blog realize that the 90's economy benefited from a bubble and that the terrorist threat grew exponentially during these years. But I'm afraid this isn't a widely shared view. It seems many Americans won't be satisfied until we return to the carefree easy days of the past decade.

So why do I think this will "ruin" the country.

Success usually requires hardship and strength of will. If our citizens won't tolerate the hardship required to win the war on Islamic terrorism, and our business leaders don't have the strength of conviction to expand their businesses without near perfect geo-political stability, I don't see how we can defeat the terrorists or sustain a continued economic expansion.

If we can't accomplish either of those things, well, we just might be ruined.

Written by: Goemagog

We are not a democracy. The United States is a republic. It annoys me when people talk about our government, it's powers and structures, yet fail to grasp this important detail. We could have had a democracy and let everybody vote on everything, but just the safety regulations for housing construction would make that impossible. We instead, and rather wisely, leave the formulation of such regulations to people who know about those matters.

A dishonest press would also skew elections, as would Madison Avenue. There wouldn't be any accountability, since everything was voter approved. Those in favor of bad policies would claim it was a different policy that causing problems, or scapegoat population segments as being manipulative of the process.

We don't have a democracy though, we have a republic, which means that the public doesn't necessarily endorse any particular platform or issue. Politicians are elected based on the whole of their impact, not just a few key issues. If something goes wrong, the person takes the blame, not a policy, since almost all of the policies of that time are those of that person.

So why do we keep talking about bringing democracy to other parts of the world? If the people talking about doing that knew what they were talking about, it wouldn't be the establishment of democracies but of republics. Even genocidal fucktard commies try to play off of both, sticking them into the names of their many tyrannies (People's Democratic Republic of Deathcamps). But here, in the most prosperous republic (or even country) that ever was, it gets no respect.

It's all about the issues. The press, the most ignorant, dishonest, and misleading idiots that have ever soiled our planet (and yes, I do hold them to be more worthy of loathing than lawyers) keep complaining about the issues. They complain daily that politicians spend all their time muckracking instead of talking issues, and then the pundits spend the rest of their day facilitating the muckracking.

But what are the issues? They are everything. Water purity, correct spacing on wall studs, tensil strength of the rivets used in airplane manufacture, the best tax rates for government funding, the best tax rates for the public, how much federal money needs to be spent on earthworm studies, how much needs to be spent on city parks, etc., etc., etc. Everything is an issue, because our government deals with everything. Nothing is safe from regulation or meddling.

Why does it matter if one candidate is against puppy-blending and the other supports it? Would either position make them more or less likely to keep the streets clean and safe or stop a plague? How many different issues are the press going to ignore while they cover the pro's and con's of drinking blended puppies? Is a policy difference of one part per bajillion of a nasty substance in the water going to make you vote for the other candidate? How many parts per bajillion would it take to make you change your mind?

What they don't want politicians to talk about is their philosophy of governing. If we knew that, we could make an educated guess about the policies that they'd enact, without having to hear the mindnumbing details of each and every policy. The problem here is that they don't have philosophies of governing. Very few people do these days.

Public service is no longer a public trust. Everybody I know who isn't worried about their next rent or mortgage payment is a civil servant who doesn't serve, but makes neverending demands for the time, money, and energies of others. I want a politician who sincerely believes that public service is not a private fiefdom for civil servants to tyrannize the public, but instead I get a choice between drinking blended puppies or kittens.

The press believes that the whole public has to decide whether or not puppies are preferably to kittens as an afternoon beverage, because they believe 'democracy' is the solution to our problems. So long as they are honest and sincere in their philosophy, I'll leave others to their own choice of beverage, and stand by the republic.

Goe, not so much ranting as raving.

Written by: Goemagog

Libya wants reparations for Reagan bitchslapping them. The winner makes the rules, and Libya didn't win, so they're whining instead. Instead of taking a shower, they're going to throw temper tantrums about having had to face consequences for their actions. Libya is like France, except the people aren't intimidated by German accents.

U.S. troops moves 50 miles south of Seoul so that we can avoid actually having to fight should North Korea invade. South Korea agrees to this, after years of complaining that we were antagonizing the North Koreans to attack. Now, the South Korean government wants to move 100 miles south, putting it fifty miles further from the North Koreans than our soldiers will be. The timeframe? Move completed by 2020, one of the years given by China's military as a good time for a war with the United States. China controls the North Koreans, so a joint attack against both South Korean and Taiwan would be beneficial to them. They'll kick our ass, and if we've got a good president at the time, we'll then kick theirs. Then they'll want reparations.

"Anybody but Bush". Another thing terrorists have in common with genocidal fucktards.

Try to kill Americans in a war zone, get a slap on the wrist. Good thing he didn't try to kill Libyans, they'd probably sue.

"Eat your vegetables, damnit!" - Your tax dollars at work.

This guy only has state-funded health coverage. So how the fuck did he afford that much food?

Goe, not being asked for reparations, yet.

Written by: Beck

It took three decades for the slow grinding of the judicial system to catch up with one of the gravest injustices inflicted upon American soldiers serving in Vietnam, but finally, justice is served.

Just hours after Lupo's announcement was made, Cpt. H.M. "Howlin' Mad" Murdock, the A-Team's pilot, resurfaced to speak with journalist Amy Allen, who often reported on the mercenaries' charitable acts.

"For decades, we've been forced to live in the shadows," Murdock said. "Somehow, we always found a way to help people who had nowhere else to turn, but we operated under the constant threat of recapture. Finally, the nightmare is over."

Added Murdock: "Owooohh, I'm a little doggie! Ow ow owooohhhh!"

(Hat tip: Undercaffeinated)

Written by: Beck

Heroism.

Written by: Beck

The Iranian government, speaking about Iraq:

Iran's supreme leader Wednesday denounced U.S. actions in Najaf as a crime against humanity and urged the international community to stop the violence, according to Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency. "In the name of liberal democracy, one of the worst crimes against humanity is taking place in Iraq, especially in the holy city of Najaf," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly said.

The Iranian government, speaking about Darfur:

In a joint press conference here with his Sudanese counterpart Mustafa Ismail, Kharrazi considered the Darfur crisis as a domestic issue that should best be left to Sudanese authorities without outside intervention. He expressed his country`s readiness to assist Sudan with humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of those displaced in Darfur.

I have precisely zero interest in ever becoming a government employee in any capacity--to quote a famous philosopher, "My hypocrisy only goes so far." However, should the chance to be the US ambassador to the UN come along, I think I would take it... so that every time the Iranian ambassador rose to speak, I could shout, "Shut the fuck up and sit the hell down!" This to be followed by something legal experts term "assault."

To summarize:

• Hundreds of armed insurgents, many of them foreign fighters, gunned down because US soldiers have the temerity to shoot back = crime against humanity.


• Government sponsored genocide killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians including women and children, to say nothing of rape and torture = purely an internal affair.


• Iranian government = motherfuckers.

Written by: Beck

The Senate's Joint Economic Committee in their latest report, concludes that the current economic "soft patch" is temporary. I'm not sure how one bad jobs number constitutes a "soft patch," but I guess it was enough to spook a few people in econoland.

The economic expansion continues to be vibrant, but growth in employment and gross domestic product (GDP) moderated this summer. Much of the moderation in GDP growth was from slower consumer spending after rapid spending earlier this year. The recent economic soft patch is attributed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) "importantly to the substantial rise in energy prices." Many, including the Fed, believe that the economy is poised to resume sustained robust growth in jobs and output. Consistent with that belief, recent indicators show rising consumer confidence, vigorous activity in manufacturing and service industries, still-vibrant housing markets, strong business investment, and continued low inflation.

Written by: Beck

I get a lot of email as a result of INCITE. Most of it is amazingly helpful, providing me with such things as opportunities to help politically oppressed widows of central African oil moguls get millions of dollars out of frozen bank accounts. Others are kind enough to provide me with an array of options to refinance my home (I always feel guilty about those, as they're so clearly trying to be helpful, but I live in an apartment), and some even provide--at a perfectly reasonable cost--all natural male enhancement. Fortunately, my maleness has no need of enhancing, but if it ever does, I'll know where to turn.

But more than anything else, I get emails from readers asking, "John, where can I find an excellent, thorough, and honest appraisal of issues facing race relations, with special emphasis on the motivations of conservatives who are minorities, and with arguments from both a conservative and liberal point of view?" In the past, my response has always been, "How did you find out my first name?" As of now, however, I'm happy to report that I can give a better answer.

Bloggers David Anderson of In Search of Utopia and Bo of Bo Knows have an enormous amount to say on the issue.

There's way too much to summarize without doing the debate a grave injustice, so I'll just point you to the three relevant posts at Anderson's site. First, Bo presents his conservative thoughts on the issue in an email to Anderson which can be found here.

Next, Anderson responds with his own thoughts in this post and then adds more in this post. There's probably 5000 words between the two of them all told, so go check it out when you've got some time to actually give the issue the consideration it deserves. Finally, a couple money quotes for you, just to give a flavor of why I think this discussion is important enough to link...

From conservative Bo:

Which brings me down to my original thought. Americans of all colors, races, creeds, etc., are in desperate need of a wake-up call. We've all gotten so used to the government being the answer to society's ills, we have forgotten how to fix things ourselves. Consider the runaway lawsuits as folks shirk off personal responsibility. Consider the government-mandated safety regulations and warning labels. Consider the fact that the public looks at guns as a cause of crime, rather than criminals. I think that's the root at which the black conservative voices are striking, but the way they do it leaves much to be desired. Respect isn't dependent upon skin color, but upon actions. Nobody of any color can act disrespectful of another person and expect to be respected in return. When we learn to behave respectfully towards all, we'll be able to respect each other, regardless of race. And government can't legislate respect.

And from liberal David Anderson:

The issue of race in America is not a simple one. And in fact it is one most people would rather not have. But it must be had... If we are ever to make any real progress on the issue it needs to be discussed, frankly, honestly and yes in some cases angrily. One of the things I learned since getting married is that issues are not solved by ignoring them or tiptoeing around them. Black people have some legitimate grievances with our country. And no I am not talking about Sharpton's, "40 Acres and a Mule." I am talking about inferior schools. I am talking about abuse by law enforcement that often creates a siege mentality in our neighborhoods. I am talking about a media that glorifies the gangsta while ignoring the successful business person. I am talking about a sense of despair and hopelessness that drives people to the easy solutions. I am talking about a Hollywood that provides little insight into the real lives of black people, while presenting us with the dual and equally odious stereotypes of the Supper Niggah or the Stepin Fettchit Sidekick.

Indeed.

Written by: Beck

Tragedy ensues.

Written by: Beck

Question: How can you tell when the security at your airport isn't necessarily up to snuff?

Answer: When a drunken 21 year old celebrating his birthday can break into your airport, root through the hangers, steal one airplane, taxi around for a while, steal another airplane, take off, crash it, and walk away, all of this despite having no training in how to fly a plane.

Not that it could ever happen.

Written by: Beck

The Democrats at the Democratic National Convention repeatedly made the point that after September 11, the nation was completely united in a way it hadn't experienced since the attack on Pearl Harbor. And they were right. They then made the further argument that the nation is now strongly divided in a way not seen since... well, opinions differed on that score. Regardless, they were again right.

The (mostly) unspoken subtext here was that the nation is now divided because of the manner in which Bush handled events from that day forward. This assumption has gone largely unchallenged in today's political environment. It's about time someone did challenge those assumptions, however, and Ace of the Ace-o-Spades blog has done a magnificent job of putting the change from 9/12 to today in perspective. A brief excerpt for you:

That doesn't jibe very well with my recollection. I remember one reporter or liberal after another announcing that "we all now understood" that the passivity and "carefully calibrated counter-attacks" of the Clinton years would have to be discarded. I remember Howard Finemann saying specifically on Hardball that the ACLU and Muslim advocacy groups "understood" that there would have to be more aggressive, and sometimes more intrusive, law-enforcement scrutiny of potential Muslim terrorists, and that racial profiling was definitely on the table as a possibility at the very least.

In short, I remember the liberals crossing the ideological aisle to agree with, and acquiesce to, conservatives. I don't remember conservatives becoming more liberal in order to achieve a compromise. My memory is that liberals became hawkish on both law-enforcement and foreign policy -- or at least posed as being such -- and thus joined with conservatives, who had as rule been hawkish on both for years.

We did reach an Original Understanding, all right -- one that was almost completely conservative in outlook.

We did not come to an understanding that was more liberal. Nor even somewhat liberal. We came to an understanding that was decidedly conservative -- even arguably authoritarian and belligerent in some respects -- in those seminal weeks and months.

Since those early weeks and months, we have seen liberals become increasingly dovish in their anti-war impulses, and increasingly strident in their demands that we be more "sensitive" as regards civil rights in combating terrorism inside the US.

So: Who walked away from that Grand Original Understanding we all forged after 9-11?

It is the liberals who have reconsidered; it is the liberals who have decided that their immediate reaction was too driven by emotion, anger, and fear; it is the liberals who have walked back the cat from their post-9/11 acceptance of a conservative -- yes, conservative -- law-enforcement policy and foreign policy.

At the time, it didn't fully register, but now I realize that subconsciously I had perceived a shift in affairs at one specific point. That point was when President Bush made his speech at Ground Zero, addressing crowds of rescue workers from atop a pile of rubble using a megaphone so that he could be heard. Most Americans applauded the speech he delivered that day as loudly as they could. They clapped until their hands hurt. But there was an undertone in the press, a quiet note that you could make out on the boundaries of sensation. The left realized that Bush was going to handle this situation in a manner which was virtually guaranteed to garner support from nearly everyone in America. In other words, President Bush planned to pick a fight. And he planned to win it. And there were people in this world who, primarily for political reasons, couldn't bear the thought of Bush succeeding at something so important. Call it the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy if you will. It has been down hill ever since.

If there is justice in this world--and there isn't--Ace will get linked by Instapundit & every other major source of web traffic on the planet. Regardless, the least anyone can do is go over and read everything he has to say, as he has a very important point to make.

Written by: Beck

A friend informs me that he has received a slew of emails from my incite@gmail.com account which his company's email system has diverted as containing viruses. This is troubling, to say the least. As such, I have a question for anyone out there who might also be using GMail. Have any of you had similar experiences? GMail is still a beta product, and unlike Hotmail or Yahoo email, it doesn't contain built in virus filters of its own (that I know of). So I could see this happening. Still, it surprises me. My own computer is fully patched for Microsoft security updates, and I have up to date McAfee anti-virus software which runs daily. Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?

Written by: Beck

Sorry. I really just couldn't resist. I mean, how can you pass up an opportunity like that?

Donald Trump--good at real estate, but not a very good gambler it would seem.

Donald Trump's Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts -- owner of three casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey -- yesterday announced that it would voluntarily enter bankruptcy.

And as part of the deal, Mr Trump, star of the hit TV show The Apprentice, would relinquish the chief executive's role and majority control of his only publicly listed investment.

I've actually been to the Atlantic City Trump Taj. Nice place. Also, it's just about the only casino where I've walked away significantly up from an evening of black jack. Perhaps I should have seen this coming. HA!

Written by: Speculator

Greenspan and Company, which should actually just read Greenspan, as dissents within the FOMC meetings are apparently taboo, meet today to discuss their next move on the craps table. To fashion an analogy that captures the current conditions facing the committee - let's say that the point is FIVE and our shooter has found a favoring for the Horn (11, 12, 2, 3). Now, while I understand that each roll of the dice is independent of the one previous, we are due a 7.

Here's the setup: Job creation for July was far weaker than expected. We added 32K jobs, where the expectation was 240K. Interestingly enough, and this is an element of the report that escaped mainstream media, no doubt due to the fact that it was not in the first paragraph of the report, the unemployment rate dipped 10 bps to 5.5% - the expectation was a maintenance of 5.6%.

Yeah, we got Tom from Tucson on the line - yah go Tom...

"How do we lose 10 bps on the rate, which was unexpected, when we build only 13% of expectations?"

Great question Tom. About twice a year, at, apparently the discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Feds will make a "birth/death" adjustment to the denominator. I have looked, but have been completely unable to find any literature describing this mechanism in detail. In essence, it works like a plug, and fancied up the headline number.

So, there are those out there in the fin-press that believe we actually lost on the order of 70,000 jobs in July, sans plug. (Again, I find this to be difficult to back out as well)

The short end of this, Tom and others, is that the economy, as Alan put, is in the middle of a "soft patch" (his words, not mine - rather unsophisticated language for a man with such command).

Is there a possibility that the Feds, in the next 18 months, would actually have to raise rates? It is far too early to attach any confidence to that thought, but, with additional econ numbers printing very softly as of late (Chicago PMI and National PMI all indicated greater production than consumption - we should note an increase in inventories for Aug) there is growing concern that this recovery really was liquidity fueled and that assumptions of tightening, followed by an actual rise in the Fed Funds, has resulted in a pretty impressive, recent abatement in activity.

So, what does this all mean - means we might actually be witnessing the fact that our addiction to the debt crack pipe is reaching its maturity stage. It has long been held that since 1987 - the inaugural year of Captain Alan - we have attempted to extract the down portion of the economic cycle with liquidity injections. It has worked, actually, quite well. But there is a piper to be paid, and as interest piles on top of interest, and our governments debt service requirements sky rocket, it now takes around 6X the amount of debt to generate one unit of GDP as it did 20 years ago.

A great deal of this missive is soft, I avow. But there is one thing that is absolutely understood and is absent even a modicum of uncertainty: the piper must be paid.

Thanks to Tom for the call.

Written by: Beck

Islamist terrorists would have done well to learn a lesson from WWII era Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, who observed after his successful attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear that all we have accomplished today is to awaken a sleeping giant."

Written by: Beck

Written by: Beck

Tom of Undercaffeinated lets some air out of an environmentalism sacred cow: recycling. Yeah, so that metaphor doesn't really work. It's probably best to keep the air inside sacred cows. But you know what I mean.

First, Tom addresses the fact that for most products, recycling is not actually economical, despite environmentalists' frequent assertions to the contrary.

Then, in a follow-up post, Tom argues that recycling for most products also doesn't have a significant impact on the environment either, which rather defeats the entire purpose of recycling.

So what are you waiting for? Go read it already.

Written by: Beck

At first I read this article, and I thought maybe it wasn't true. After all, who the heck is WorldNetDaily? This seemed like the kind of thing which could easily be a mere shaky construction out of a few misconstrued quotes and a healthy dose of wishful thinking.

Now CNN.com has picked up the story, and the last lair of denial has been stripped away. The United States State Department, in concert with the White House, at the encouragement of roughly a dozen fringe law makers, has invited international election observers to monitor the 2004 US presidential election. This is a terrible idea, and it is offensive to every single person who calls themselves an American citizen, regardless of political affiliation. I am shocked.

First of all, as frequent mention of the 2000 Florida recount makes amply apparent, this constitutes a tacit acknowledgement that the system failed in 2000. I disagree. The courts exist to resolve disputes like what emerged in 2000, and they resolved them. While you might not agree with their conclusions, nonetheless, the courts performed the function they exist to perform, the nation abided by the court's ruling, and we had a president.

Now, it seems, we're saying that rather than having a system which functions as intended, rather even than saying that there were problems with the Florida ballots--evidently paper is too stiff for all the elderly folks their to successfully punch holes in it--we're saying that we can't even successfully manage an election on our own. We aspire to be the world's most powerful nation--we tell the rest of the world to behave, to follow the rules, and threaten them with violence should they not fall in line. And yet we can't even run an election on our own soil.

How is our foreign policy, much of which hinges on encouraging democracy abroad, be taken seriously if we can't even run elections at home? And of course we can run elections at home without help from a gaggle of Europeans. It's a fairly simple procedure, we've been doing it for over 200 years now. As such, one can only conclude that the motives behind introducing international observers is some sort of political pandering or maneuvering of the worst kind.

The game of politics reaches a point where it completely leaves behind principle, and instead, every action and every word are scripted in an attempt to garner a few more votes and outmaneuver political opponents. We have finally reached the point where no thought is given to whether something is right or wrong, and all thought is given to how a particular scheme will play with the press.

And one final note--I'm sick of hearing criticism of Republican behavior during the recount, and I'm sick of hearing that it was an attempt to disenfranchise minorities. Gore only called for recounts in counties which were heavily populated by minorities because he knew he stood to gain the most there. The Bush camp opposed them straight up, and did not call for recounts in counties full of counties full of conservative retirees. Had the entire state been recounted, then based on the way un-recounted counties had leaned, the most likely outcome is that Bush would have actually gained votes. It was Gore who tried to lean on the politics of race to steal the election, not Bush. Furthermore, the Gore camp tried to obstruct thousands of legitimately cast absentee ballots from soldiers stationed abroad. In other words, Bush opposed a ludicrously biased recount process, while Gore opposed legitimately cast ballots. So enough with the "Republicans stole the election," whining--you're convincing everyone new, and you're causing those who've paid attention to the actual facts to lose respect for you.

As for a few of the details from the CNN article:

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was invited to monitor the election by the State Department. The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

It will be the first time such a team has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

"The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir said. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections."

The facts: there are 55 signatories to the OSCE, but only 30 nations in 10 years have had OSCE observers. In other words, the OSCE is needed in places where interference with the democratic process is expected. They are not needed in nations where elections are handled in a routine and peaceful manner.

The United States of America is the home and heart of that nebulous principle known as democracy. Anything which suggests or implies that we are not qualified or capable of successfully executing the democratic process strikes a blow to US legitimacy and is an insult to US citizens. I cannot believe that the State Department, in league with the White House, has bent to pressure and acceded to election monitoring.

(Hat tip: The Rottweiler & Spatula City)

Written by: Beck

War is hell. This guy knows it. This is the single most riveting account of a combat encounter I have ever read.

Again, I fired and fired and fired and fired and fired. At everything. We were taking fire from all over. I was just 360ing the 50 cal and shooting at everything. We were taking fire from all over, and every single one of us had our guns blazing. At one time I saw a dog try to run across the street, and somebody shot it[...] My roommate (Sgt from Idaho) tapped my arm, which startled the hell out of me and I quickly jerked back and looked at him and he yelled, "Hey!! Get that gun to the 12!!! Let that one go!! Your doing good!!!" He later told me, when he tapped me on the shoulder, and I jerked back to look at him, I had this crazed look in my eyes that kind of freaked him out. Hovering up above we had Army Kiowa and Apache attack helicopters engaging the enemy on rooftops with Hellfire missiles and rockets. At one time I had to reload the 50 with ammo. The ammo was on the outside of the vehicle on the side. Why they fucking they put it there I don't know. So with my hands I did the sign of the cross thing on my chest, said a prayer (Please god, I don't want to fucking die) and as my Plt Sgt layed down some suppressive fire, I got up out of the hatch, got my whole body completely outside of the vehicle and went over to where the extra ammo was, grabbed a full ammo box, and went back to the hatch, as fast as possible. Scared out of my fuckin mind as I did this. RPG's were still whizzing by and non-stop gun shots were being fired all over.

Go read the whole thing already, it's mind blowing.

(Hat tip: man-sized target)

Written by: Goemagog

Exactly who's homeland are they trying to defend?

I don't think it's us.

Anybody else remember when national defense was the job of the Department of Defense, and not a bunch of friggin lawyers?

Goe, against catblogging.

Written by: Beck

While the desertion of America by some of her closest NATO allies doesn't exactly afford much opportunity for getting revenge, every once in a while an opportunity comes along to at least mess with their minds a bit.

Major German media outlets seem to have a fondness for offering online polls giving Germans the chance to "vote" on American electoral politics. As you might imagine, anti-war sentiments tend to dominate such polls. What these media outlets fail to take into consideration before putting their informal polls up is the power of the blog.

So go have a look, see what it's about, read the English instructions, and have some fun at the Germans' expense for once.

(Hat tip: INDC Journal)

Written by: Beck

Q: How do you tell when bureaucratic bloat has spiraled out of control?
A: When there's actually someone whose title is "Chief of Staff to the Assistant Assistant Secretary." And no, the double assistants is not a typo.

That's to say nothing of the Principal Associate Deputy Under Secretary, the Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, or the Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. Find a more thorough list here.

Written by: Beck

The Senate's Joint Economic Committee (JEC) sent out two news releases today.

In the first one, they observe that job creation for July was less than expected:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced today that during the month of July, employment increased by 32,000 according to the payroll survey. According to the household survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, total employment increased by 629,000. The unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent. Payroll job growth was slower than expected--Wall Street had expected roughly 240,000 new payroll jobs.

In the second news release, the JEC informs us that the budget deficit is now coming in $56 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office predicted back in March.

Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Mid-Session Review, the non-partisan CBO is now projecting a smaller budget deficit for this fiscal year. At $422 billion, the budget deficit is expected to be $56 billion less than what CBO projected in March. OMB is now projecting a deficit of $445 billion, which is $76 billion less than it originally estimated.

Now tell me, which of these two stories do you think will get the most media play? No need to answer. And people whine about Fox News being right leaning. And by "people" I mean "a bunch of assclowns who make me sick." I challenge you to find a major media outlet reporting the decreased deficit numbers.

Written by: Beck

RIP Super Freak.

(Hat tip: INDC Journal)

Written by: Beck

Quoth Ted Kennedy, "All we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush."

I won't even get into all the things wrong with that statement. Instead, simply allow me to direct you to The Dissident Frogman's response. Scroll down to see the brief, yet poignant response he has assembled.

Written by: Beck

August 5, 18:44 GMT: al-Sadr declares the "cease fire" to be ended.

The radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers in Iraq to rise up and fight U.S. troops. The message comes as clashes broke out in at least three cities between his supporters and U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

August 6, 20:21 GMT: Marines declare 300 Mehdi Army to be ended.

About 300 militia fighters have been killed in the south-central Iraqi city of Najaf in fighting since Thursday, U.S. military officials said.

But the Mehdi Army, the militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, disputed the U.S. figures. A spokesman for al-Sadr, Sheikh Raed Al-Kadhim, said 36 fighters had been killed and 70 wounded.

This should not be a challenging lesson to learn. To their credit, the militants did manage to kill 3 Marines and wound another 5. I wonder for how long Al Sadr is prepared to sacrifice the lives of 100 young and untrained Iraqis for each American taken out of the action?

Written by: Beck

The ultimate Catch-22 for environmentalists: acid rain combats global warming. Yeah, you read that right.

Acid rain is the result of industrial pollution, which causes rainwater to carry small quantities of acidic compounds such as sulfuric and nitric acid...

Methane is thought to account for 22 percent of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. And microbes in wetland areas are its biggest producers. They feed off substrates such as hydrogen and acetate in peat and emit methane into the atmosphere.

Global warming itself will only fuel the production of methane as heating up the microbes causes them to produce even more methane. But the new model suggests that sulfur pollution from industry mitigates this.

This is because sulfur-eating bacteria also found in wetland regions outcompete the methane-emitting microbes for substrates. Experiments have shown that sulfur deposits can reduce methane production in small regions by up to 30 per cent by activating the sulfur-eating bacteria.

So raise your voices and spread the world: We The People demand more acid rain now! Yank the sulfur scrubbers out of those smokestacks pronto before any more harm is done! Do it... for the children!

Written by: Beck

P. J. O'Rourke has long been one of my favorite humorists. His eccentric brand of libertarianism strongly tempered with a combination of common sense and hard liquor has always resonated strongly with me. Conversely, I'm not a huge fan of Colin Powell. O'Rourke's interview with Powell in The Atlantic Online, however, shows a side of Powell that I wasn't really aware of. Regardless, the whole interview is definitely worth the read. But since the interview is long and blog readers tend to lean towards short attention spans, I've excerpted some of the choicest morsels for you here.

P. J. O'ROURKE: In terms of non-zero-sum thinking, is our country in the unique historical position of wanting other nations to be as powerful as we are?

Powell looked at me over the top of his glasses.

SECRETARY POWELL: Wanting other nations to be as powerful? No, I wouldn't say that. I think our historical position is we are a superpower that cannot be touched in this generation by anyone in terms of military power, economic power, the strength of our political system and our values system. What we would like to see is a greater understanding of power, of the democratic system, the open market economic system, the rights of men and women to achieve their destiny as God has directed them to do if they are willing to work for it. And we really do not wish to go to war with people. But, by God, we will have the strongest military around. And that's not a bad thing to have. It encourages and champions our friends that are weak and it chills the ambitions of the evil.

[...]

The Secretary recounted a "slip of the tongue" that reportedly had been made by one of the delegates to the European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference on a new EU constitution, which had been held the previous week.

SECRETARY POWELL: They were all in a room arguing, you know, saying things like, "Our system is a multipolar world, and how do we deal with the United States?" And one of them said, "The United States has had over three percent economic growth for nine of the past ten years. We have had over three percent economic growth for one of the past ten years. So we had better start looking at what the United States does right as well as criticizing and screaming at them all the time."

[...]

P. J. O'ROURKE: Are we getting worry fatigue? Are we so worried about Islamicist terrorism that we're not looking at other things we ought to be worried about?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think we are. I don't think the President is. I don't think this Department is. If you were to spend a week with me and saw how much time I spend on economic issues, trade issues ...

P. J. O'ROURKE: I actually meant the public more than you.

SECRETARY POWELL: I think the public is worrying too much about terrorism. It's starting to affect us too much with respect to issues like traveling. I get all kinds of questions from people. Somebody came up to me at church yesterday and asked, "Do you think it's okay for my daughter to go to Singapore?" I said, "I can't think of anywhere on earth she's going to be safer." But they were terrified that their daughter was going to this faraway place and the terrorists were going to get her. I said, "Let her go and enjoy it." And now everybody is running around and saying they're going to be bombing all the shopping centers.

[...]

P. J. O'ROURKE: I was wondering whether we should be concerned about issues like, we've got some countries out there that seem to be trying to decouple the idea of economic freedom from personal liberty and political liberty--something we once would have called Fascism.

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, without naming countries, we're nervous about this trend, but I don't think it works. Because if you are going to be economically successful you can't really constrain your people too much. Your people are the ones who are going to make it happen for you. You have to turn them loose. They may originally start out being robber barons, but so did we.

The society eventually catches up with them and makes something useful. We had robber barons in the last century and we had junk bond dealers and a number of them went to jail. But, man, before they went to jail, did they get something going. The cellular industry, the computer industry--it was junk bond guys who did that in the '80s. We probably wouldn't have advanced as quickly as we did if it had not been for junk bond dealers who went to jail. [ed: this paragraph was by far my favorite]

(Hat tip: Obsidian Wings)

Written by: Beck

A lot has been said lately critical of potential First-lady Teresa Heinz Kerry. The criticism has ranged from attacking her many ill-considered "outspoken" comments to caricaturing some rather unflattering images of her. Defenders of the Kerrys argue that John Kerry is the person running for office, not Teresa Heinz. I think that's a fair point, as Heinz has certainly given no indication that she would be an activist First-lady such as Hillary Clinton sought to be in 1992.

Nonetheless, when you get one, you get the other, and Kerry's choice of a spouse says a lot about Kerry the man, for good or for ill. While many of Heinz's comments (e.g. "shove it," "four more years of hell," and something vague involving Wendy's chili that I don't especially want to get into) have received a lot of media play, the more important things she has said have not. By more important things, I mean the scripted contents of public addresses she has given.

I can't say I honestly blame the woman for telling a reporter to, "Shove it." Sure, it's unprofessional, but I have to imagine she was voicing the words that thousands of people in the political spotlight before her have dreamt of telling the paparazzi. But what of her speech at the DNC and elsewhere? Todd of Clowning Glory, back from more than a month long hiatus, has done the research. The picture he paints is not a pretty one. Not by a long shot.

One can easily understand why an individual like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, whose family prospered on the suffering of so many others, might feel a bit guilty about it [ed: read the whole article to find out what guilt he's talking about]. After all, unlike her parents, Heinz-Kerry was born into the racist culture of colonial Mozambique – she didn't choose it. So, if she'd stopped there in her speech, by simply condemning the brutality of the Salazar-tyranny and praising American democracy, she might have steered clear of la-la land.

But she didn't.

Her clear implication was that she and her family suffered under Salazar when the reverse is true: her wealthy clan prospered in colonial Mozambique at the expense of the black population. To be clear, members of the Simoes-Ferreira family were not prisoners of the regime; they freely chose to immigrate to the East African colony and were free to go anywhere in the world their money would take them (as Heinz-Kerry's Swiss and South African education clearly illustrates). There were small, if well-organized, Portuguese communities actively opposing the fascist dictatorship while living in self-imposed exile in Europe, and the Americas. Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s family was not among these Portuguese pro-democratic patriots fighting for liberty on the Iberian peninsula as well as justice and independence for the colonies.

There's much more to the original article--the character flaws stem well past one minor incident of misrepresentation. So go read the whole thing already.

Written by: Beck

As many will recall, Annie Jacobsen published an account in Women's Wall Street of some very suspicious activities she witnessed on an airline flight. My reaction at the time was disbelief. There were too many details that just didn't seem to mesh. As I put it at the time:

My take on it: it's too far fetched. If something like this really happened, every news outlet in the world would have news on it inside an hour. My guess is it's a hoax. Still, it makes for an interesting read.

Later, as a result of further investigation and reporting by others, most notably Michelle Malkin who originally broke the story (at least in the blogosphere) convinced me that the story was legit. While it seems there is little doubt that the broader facts--that there were 14 Syrians on the flight who spent an awful lot of time milling around and behaving in a manner that is not conducive to making terrorism-conscious Americans comfortable--Time Magazine reports, after interviews with Federal Air Marshals who were aboard the flight, that the story was greatly blown out of proportion.

The FAM, who says for security reasons cannot say exactly where he was sitting, was aware of the group of Middle Eastern men from the beginning of the flight. About 25 minutes after takeoff, a flight attendant discreetly told the FAM that she thought the men were "acting suspiciously" and were congregating near one of the lavatories in the back of the plane. He alerted another marshal on the plane and also told the flight attendant to notify the captain. A short while later, the FAM asked the flight crew member to get physical descriptions of the men and their seat numbers.

He watched the men and saw nothing out of the ordinary. In a long, single aisle plane like the Boeing 757 that was carrying Flight 327, there are often many people standing or moving around. That was the case on this flight, says the FAM, who has flown hundreds of missions in his two and half years on the job. The FAM never saw--nor was he told--of any example of the men interfering with the flight crew (which is a federal crime). He never saw any activity that caused him to ask the pilots to turn on the seat belt sign (which he can request) and keep people in their seats. "Nothing my main partner or I saw on Flight 327 brought us anywhere near a conclusion that we considered breaking our cover or deploying as we've been trained. And we never came close to drawing our weapons."

Furthermore, law enforcement didn't exactly ignore these men after the flight was over.

Upon arrival in Los Angeles, the 14 men were interviewed by FBI agents and Federal Air Marshals, who determined the men were a Syrian band heading to play a casino in San Diego. After being checked through government databases, they were not charged with any crime or detained beyond questioning.

Perhaps my greatest concern, one shared by Malkin and others, was that these men would be treated with kid gloves by law enforcement officials afraid of upsetting racial sensitivities by appearing to be profiling these men simply because they were Middle Eastern in appearance. Now that the story has largely settled out, it would seem that the flight crew and law enforcement reacted reasonably and that there wasn't a genuine threat. It's at least a little reassuring to see that everyone's getting the job done quietly and professionally. And what of Annie Jacobsen? I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't unreasonably drumming up hype for publicity, but I think she was just guilty of some over reaction and exaggeration. But don't get me wrong--I think threats like this are very serious and should be treated very seriously. This particular incident, however, I'm fairly certain we can safely leave in our past.

(Hat tip: The Politburo Diktat -- and no, I don't get all of my stories from the Commissar, it just seems that way lately).

Written by: Beck

Capitol Hill Blue reports that Nancy Reagan refuses to endorse Bush's reelection bid.

The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.

[...] There's more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.

That was published July 30. August 3, CNN had this to report:

Former first lady Nancy Reagan, who opposes President Bush's policy on limiting embryonic stem cell research, is backing the Republican's re-election bid.
[...] Reagan has limited her public appearances since the death of her husband two months ago. She will not attend the Republican National Convention in New York later this month, but the former first lady hasn't ruled out campaigning for Bush, according to [Reagan spokeswoman Joanne] Drake.

"She's taking it one day at a time right now. We'll see," Drake said. "She will certainly want to help but there are no plans right now."

The reality? Well, the truth of the matter seems to be that Capital Hill Blue, which is a left leaning publication, took several off-hand statements, remarks, or what have you, and drew from that unwarranted conclusions.

(Hat tip: The Politburo & UnFairWitness)

Written by: Beck

Remember the 4 Jordanians being held hostage by a group calling itself the "Death Group?" OK, I realize it's getting harder all the time to recall just who or what is being held hostage at any given time, what the demands are, what gruesome fates are threatened, and what groups are perpetrating the crime (and while I give Death Group points for a scary, to the point name, they lose major marks for lack of creativity).

Well, they're free now. One thing remains to be determined though. CNN is reporting that they were freed after Iraqi tribal chiefs negotiated their release.

Four Jordanian workers taken hostage for five days in Iraq arrived in Jordan on Wednesday hours after being released by their captors, according to one of the hostage's brothers.

They were released Tuesday night after successful negotiations between two tribal chiefs in Falluja, according to Mohammad Abu Jaffar, whose brother Ahmed, 47, was one of the hostages.

Fox News, however, reports that they were freed after locals found out where the hostages were being kept, and fed up with the situation, raided the place themselves and sprung the captives loose.

Sheik Haj Ibrahim Jassam said he received word on Tuesday evening that the four Jordanians were being held in a house on the edge of the Fallujah.

"I called upon my brothers and tribesmen to free the hostages, so we raided the house last night," Jassam told The Associated Press.

He said the kidnappers fled the house and the four men were brought to his house unharmed.

I'm very curious to learn which story is accurate for one primary reason. If the citizens of Fallujah are rising up to thwart militant terrorists and kidnappers, then the situation in Iraq looks much better than the doomsday forecasters are claiming. Anyone heard anything conclusive on this story?

(Hat tip: DGCI)

Written by: Beck

Damned if you don't.

Some say proposal goes too far; others, not far enough

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Written by: Beck

The bump up in the terror alert level for certain financial institutions in the past few days was merely a result of the Bush campaign attempting to manipulate the mindsets of New Yorkers and incite fear Democrats have alleged, various as they called into question the timing of the announcement. Presumably it would be more fair of Republicans to not announce any terror alerts until after an actual terror event has occurred.

Meanwhile, the timing of the start of Lynndie England's hearings, which commenced today, is nothing but a happy coincidence.

Meanwhile, both sides disputed the nature and timing of last Saturday's blue moon. Democrats are suggesting that Bush timed the blue moon to draw attention away from Kerry's campaign efforts after the close of the Democratic National Convention. Republicans, meanwhile, assert that the Democrats deliberately timed the blue moon event on a Saturday when the news item was likely to be buried. The moon could not immediately be reached for comment.

Update: More suspicious timing.

Written by: Goemagog

If this is true, then it's not true.

"We are very proud of our Finnish men. Eight-two percent of all Finnish men manage their whole military service," Kivela said.

82 percent finish their whole military service. Finland has the draft. That means that 18 percent of Finnish men are unable to complete the whole length of their military service.

Finland called up 26,500 men in 2003, nine percent of whom were relieved of duty for medical reasons.

Ok, half of the ones who can't complete their military service have a medical reason. The story implies that the other half can't cope with the differences between civilian and military life. They get in, but can't hang in there long enough to complete it.

compulsory six months in the forces

They can't put up with military life for six months. It took me six months to get through Basic and AIT. And how the hell do they have the free time to miss a hobby?

national pride in "sisu," a Finnish quality of being tough and resilient

National pride in being sissies, maybe. It's not like Finland is contributing a lot of troops to peacekeeping in the balkans.

Goe, needs lunch.

Written by: Speculator

It's old. It's archaic in intelligence terms. It's a fucking Incan relic.

What the hell are we doing? We have now, and it seems ostensible to me, as I cannot even enter western Washington DC this morning on US-50, dispatched our full response set to intelligence that pre-dates 9/11. Effectively, we haven't even seen the three-card flop yet, and we just called some Pakistani teenager's all-in.

This is a gross mishandling of our capabilities. Unless there is something that lies below the surface here, unless there is an ulterior motive for this, then I believe it safe to say that our DHS is mismanaged in toto.

This administration had to know the vintage of this information. As such, they have erred egregiously. If it happens that they issued actionable directives without understanding the vintage of this information, then they erred egregiously. Anyway you spin this, this administration, which is our only hope against the poisons of Kerry and co., have flagrantly deviated from the right path.

Simply put, this is a serious miscalculation and leaves one uneasy about the stewardship of our domestic defense.

Written by: Beck

Three big essays in one day--because readers of INCITE deserve a helping of quantity with their quality.

During the DNC, liberal blogger David Anderson of In Search of Utopia decided to respond to some of the attacks on Edwards' speech made from the right. One of the conservative blogs he singled out was INCITE, and in the comments I told him I would give him a response at some time. This post is a combination response to David & a general discussion of why socialized (a.k.a. universal) health care is a bad idea.

First, David excerpts from my original Edwards' speech live blogging:

INCITE
"No, these people have nothing new to offer. All they hope to offer is more handouts. The fact that you can get 16 years of education from the government (a free college education is just a Pell grant away) is insufficient it would seem."

David's comments on my comments:

As for the comments from INCITE... Well I am never shocked at the incredible ignorance of those who have never faced personal despair.

I am one of those people who made it out of the ghetto, and made something of my life, but if you will pardon the pun, the Utopist bullshit most conservatives sell themselves about a glorious America that is above racism or poverty is just that.

I went to a poor inner city school where books in 1971 were talking about man, "one day," walking on the moon. I taught in schools where several hundred students shared ONE computer. And at a time when community colleges are shutting their doors for lack of funding and school programs are being cut, the only thing ABSURD is the argument that ALL IS WELL.

As for handouts, another racist buzzword for welfare. I don&'t believe in the welfare state... I don't believe people should be able to go on the doll for life. But then again I don't believe in HANDOUTS to Halliburton or Enron either.

My father, a poor uneducated man worked for the minimum wage MOST of his life. My mother sold Avon and did odd jobs to help him. A welfare check never crossed the threshold of my parents house, but today, with so many people out of work, without insurance and without hope, these guys offer hope.... And you can slam them all you want but that 92% of Americans you and Kerry are talking about want hope too.

David saves me the trouble of making the argument that indefinite reward welfare doesn't work. If unemployment & welfare benefits lasted as long as a person remained signed up for it, it would create a significant disincentive at the margin for people to work. I can't honestly say that, faced with the choice of flipping burgers for the rest of my life or cashing government checks for the rest of my life, I would choose the burgers. Most reasonable people on the left understand that, having seen the results of that policy at work in the 70's and 80's. Welfare reform--much of it executed under Clinton--was a very needed thing.

After all, people shouldn't be eligible for any kind of social safety net if they're not willing to give back to the society which provides it when they are able. David's own hard work & his father's before him are a testament to the mentality that makes American society productive. In that regard, he's a good conservative, though I'm sure he'd cringe to hear me call him that.

As for David's various accusations of racism (not directed specifically at me, mind you, but at certain aspects of the conservative mindset in general), I don't have an answer. I don't, because those accusations don't make any sense to me. It seems to me that his accusations necessarily imply an association between minorities and the poor, and that policies perceived as intended to "keep the poor poor" are by implication racist. I think that's complete balderdash, and I think conservative minorities would agree with me in that regard.

What then my problem with socialized health care? First of all, it suffers from the same problems as lifetime unemployment & welfare benefits. They create a disincentive at the margin for an individual to provide for himself when the governed will do it for him. People who take pride in their ability to care for their families, regardless of how poor, will always strive to provide for themselves, but they often seem like more the exception than the rule.

Perhaps more importantly, however, socialized health care is an economic disaster waiting to happen, and it flies in the face of common sense. People able to provide themselves with private health insurance will no longer do so, as the government will do it for them.

Furthermore, businesses who once might have offered health care benefits as an enticement to potential employees will no longer feel compelled to make such an offer. The government will find itself picking up the health care tab for vastly more people than their current estimates would predict as small businesses (and even many large corporations who employ large numbers of blue collar workers) will promptly jettison healthcare coverage. At the same time that tax payers find themselves picking up more and more of the tab, employers will largely feel uncompleted to return the saved money to their employees. Universal health care, thus becomes a form of institutionalized corporate welfare.

Furthermore, quality of health care will rapidly deteriorate. Every nation that has implemented universal health care--every single one--has seen the quality of health care provided decline. The reason for this is that with the government providing the insurance policies, it falls to the government to regulate the rates at which they will reimburse medical practitioners. Left with no choice but to lose money or cut corners, hospitals will cut corners. The problems caused by many homos skimpy coverage and draconian cost control measures will promptly infect the entire health care system from top to bottom. While I would hope that the US wouldn't make Canada's mistake of requiring patients to use the public health system, thereby preventing the wealthy "line-jumping" (an idiotic concept rooted in egalitarian notions that everyone should receive the same sub-standard quality of service regardless of what they can pay), the impact on all but the highest-end of health care providers will find itself stuck under government health care cost structuring.

Objections to my previous argument might say that the government would use reasonable prices, thereby preventing corporate greed while maintaining a high level of care, I counter with the example of the long and storied history of Medicare and Medicaid abuse. When abuse happens--i.e. overbilling & false billing--the institution keeps the ill gotten gains. When abuse doesn't happen, the consumer suffers sub-standard care. It's a vicious cycle, and human nature (and the nature of politicians who love being magnanimous in concept and tight-fisted when the rubber meets the road) being what it is, incidents of abuse and fraud will multiply rapidly. Much of it will actually be out of necessity, as hospitals will be faced with the unpleasant choices of cutting services or chisling government health care regulators.

There's a further factor which must not be forgotten. When I was growing up in the 80's, I used to hear that the two highest paying professions--the jobs that the smart kids and the scions of wealthy families always aspired to--were lawyer and doctor. The lawyers can protect themselves, but doctors' lobbying groups tend to be much weaker than those of the pharmaceuticals (who would love socialized health care) & the consumer advocates. Doctors get run over roughshod, and their pay isn't nearly commensurate with what it was in the 80's. With socialized health care, doctor pay will find itself regulated as well. Even if it's not regulated by law, hospitals will regulate it out of necessity. You know what happens when you remove the financial incentive from seeking one of the single most challenging professions in the world? Think about how hard it is to become a doctor--the long years of study and longer years of internship and residency. That's to say nothing of the enormous stress of having people's lives in your hands. These people are heros, they shouldn't be getting paid like low-level bureaucrats. Their reward should be commensurate with their work & ability. The ludicrous rates doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance, thanks to systematic abuse by trial lawyers, doesn't help either, but that's another debate for another time.

There's also the issue of what economists term "moral hazard." Moral hazard, briefly put, is the problem insurers always face in that those most likely to make insurance claims are the most likely to seek out insurance. Furthermore, once insurance is in place, they're more likely to take risks. An uninsured driver, for instance, will drive much more cautiously than an insured one, as he knows full well he can't afford the consequences of a screw up (and no, I'm not advocating an end to auto-insurance, I'm just making an example).

Many of the 44 million uninsured Americans (these were numbers from a speech at the DNC--I don't remember whose exactly--use at your own risk) are uninsured by choice. Healthy people who don't have children take a calculated risk and either save the money saved by forgoing health insurance (in essence creating their own insurance policy out of a savings account) or spend it on comforts they couldn't otherwise afford. As such, when these people become mildly ill--a cold, the flu, a sprained ankle--they don't bother to go see a doctor. They self-medicate as best they can and hope it gets better. If they don't, they suck it up and go to a doctor, dipping into the rainy-day fund, and hope that it doesn't turn out to be something major which will require ongoing expense.

With universal health care in place, these people will suddenly find themselves with no reason to avoid a doctors visit except the threat of long waiting lists and lines (and there will be long waiting lists and lines, believe me). As such, the system will find itself flooded again with far more people than current utilization levels might imply.

Then there's one final point. It's the least compelling argument to liberals, but to a libertarian leaning free-market advocate such as myself, it's one of the most compelling arguments. Any time you force one person at the point of a gun to pay for another person's goods or services, regardless of whether you use the technique of "taxation" to effect this payment, it is theft, plain and simple. Taxation doesn't constitute theft at the point of a gun you say? Try not paying your taxes, and see what happens. In a free society, ones earnings reflect ones productive contribution to society. To deny that reward is immoral. But like I said, liberals don't typically find that argument especially compelling.

So let the flames fly. Doubtlessly many people, assuming any manage to make it through this entire diatribe, will disagree with me. If I think of anything else, I'll toss out an update. Feel free to leave your comments, hostile or otherwise, and I'll try to respond to them as best I can. I belted this out pretty quickly, with virtually no proof reading, so it's bound to have a few errors and oddities. Don't hesitate to point them out and I'll address them as I can.

Update: David's response to this post can be found here, with an especially insightful discussion of the race angle.

Written by: Speculator

Are you looking for an alternative way to scare the shit out of yourself? Is the prospect of a rogue containership or a renegade produce truck just not doing it anymore? Has the exercise of appreciating the nuances of the Homeland Security spectrum left you as you would lay counting sheep?

Looking for a new nail-biter?

How's about China and her gold?

In a post that should make Answerman smile - we are gonna look at the possibilities for a Chinese-led financial maelstrom.

Producers and London Metals Market participants have known for a while now that China's seemingly insatiable demand for commodity goods extends to gold. Some muse that the Central Bank of China is amassing positions in the metal to counter inflationary forces, should their red-hot economy make like a Saturn rocket.

But others suggest that this is a flawed view. China's economy, even though it flirts with double-digit aggregate demand growth (which is insanely high), enjoys an artificial inflation-check: their decision in the late 90's to peg their currency, the Yuan, to the US Dollar, to the tune of ~ 8.5 Y/USD.

In order to do this, China necessarily relinquishes control of their domestic interest rates, which must mimic those of the country they have pegged their currency to (in the world of monetary policy, you can either decide to control interest rates or currency rates, but not both). So, China has an interest rate environment that is quite similar to ours. They have a stronger economy than ours, so these rates are artificially low, allowing Chinese businesses to produce more goods at lower costs than they should be able to.

They sell these competitively-priced goods to world consumers, the largest of which is the United States. The US consumers buy these goods with USD and the Chinese merchants flip their dollars to Yuan with the Chinese government. Now, the Chinese government can do one of two things with their new dollars. They can chose to 1) sell them in the open market, causing the USD to depreciate, which in turn causes US I rates, and per above, Chinese rates, to rise, or they can 2) buy US Treasuries with their new dollars, which delivers incremental demand for US Debt, causing prices to rise and yields, or interest rates, to fall.

Number 2 is a far better choice.

And that is what China has been doing for the better half of a decade. As such, the Central Bank of China (The People's Bank of China) now reports Foreign Exchange Reserves (to be read: our US Treasury book) of around $330 BB. This is up 30% over 12 months. And these are PBOC numbers, an organization not known for its transparency.

So, what's the problem you ask? Well, one reason the 10 yr Treasury has been able to remain below a 4.60% yield, a key level thought to be the line of demarcation for inducing incremental refinancings, is the incredible demand for the paper by the Chinese government, which is a direct result of their businesses selling goods to US consumers.

The process of selling goods to US consumers and keeping the dollars in US Treasuries is analogous to lending money to the US so that they can buy your goods. That's the trade deficit, in a nut shell.

So, as the Chinese build their US Treasury portfolio, they also continue to amass gold. What's the deal?

Some muse that the Chinese can very soon be in a position to revalue the Yuan, that is, unpeg it. Well, that's good news, right? Chinese goods become properly valued on the world stage, and China beings to pay the true cost of financing that is commensurate with their level of economic growth.

But some suggest that China will pull a Shanghai Steamer and back the Yuan with all that gold, creating the world's first "anti-fiat" money in decades. This would result in immediate credibility for the Chinese currency an immediate and decidedly large price appreciation in gold. It would further serve to discredit the assumptions surrounding fiat currency - a real bad day for the USD.

But where does the real terror surface for the US? China then dumps their unknown hundreds billions of dollars worth of US paper onto the market, causing yields to surge, and effectively choking our credit markets. We run out of the ability to monetize government debt, or, make money.

Oops.

The horror comes not from assessing the likelihood of such an event, it is born from the realization that such a play is feasible. It could happen, and would be one of the greatest, if not the greatest of trades in the history of global commerce.

Written by: Goemagog

Beck sent me this, saying it was something I might be interested in. I'm pretty sure he wanted me to comment on it, so I will. (It's his blog, I just post here.)

Paying someone who is in charge of three finance clerks the same as an infantry squad leader makes no sense, either morally or economically.

The military pays on a pay scale. Pay is determined by a table with ranks on one side, and time in the military on the other. More experienced soldiers get paid more than less experienced people of the same rank, and higher ranking soldiers get paid more than lower ranking soldiers. It makes sense, and has been how every army has functioned since forever.

I would agree that the military has a lot of leadership positions created just so higher ranking soldiers (and extremely common for the officers) have a job even when the Army hasn't anything real for them to do. The Army has a number of headquarters units which do nothing, just so they've got someplace to put officers and senior NCO's who would otherwise be kicked out.

Not only do combat arms soldiers, especially infantrymen and special operators, have a much more hazardous, arduous, job but it is one that, until the advent of the use of "contractractors," had no civilian counterpart.

What he's talking about is the use of "contractors" as a substitute for an infantry force. The civilian counterpart previously were mercenaries, something which escaped his comments. He's upset that the military is hiring mercenaries to do it's job, instead of paying infantrymen more to do the job. "Contractors" is just a euphamism for mercenary, like "IT consultant" is for temp. Everybody pretends it's something else, but everybody knows that it is what it is.

He thinks we should pay infantrymen more, to lure these people back into the military to do the same job they're being paid as mercenaries to do. I think this is bullshit.

Even if you go by a purely libertarian economic military model, by not paying mercenaries, we cut into the demand for mercenary labor. Basic supply vs. demand says that this will cut the price paid for mercenaries, thereby making current wages more competitive for the highly trained special forces soldiers he's so worried about.

But the problem runs far deeper than he even bothers to allude to. Civilian contractors, in varying roles, have taken on many of the jobs previously performed by uniformed soldiers. This has been a tremendous mistake.

The Army has people, equipment, and facilities. The people, soldiers, need fed and clothed. Equipment needs maintained, repaired, and sometimes replaced, facilities likewise. The further you send soldiers away from the facilities, the harder it is to get the equipment (such as food, ammo, and spare parts) out to them. The Army has contracted this out to an absurd degree.

We have to contract out to get enough planes to fly our soldiers into and out of Iraq. Instead of having engineers build bases for our soldiers, we've contracted that out to companies who overcharge us for setting up a tent city that our soldiers are trained on how to do themselves.

The bonus pay system Owens recommends is perfectly logical.

The infantrymen in the combat zone get a bonus pay already, just like the mechanics in Iraq, also in harms way.

Even if all the mercenaries were incorporated into the Army, they wouldn't be deployable in the numbers that we've hired them in. That would require a larger logistical train to bring them equipment and supplies, and we're close to our limit there. The military is improvising by using civilian companies and contractors to move supplies, putting these non-mercenary contractors in life-threatening situations (think decapitation) and some of our supplies in terrorist hands. There's been some debate over whether or not we should be performing escort missions for these civilian convoys, but most people dodge the issue of why our military is paying civilians to move our supplies through a war zone.

Many of the units we are sending are being sent to do a job they've only been training for during the three month preperation for deployment. Primarily, they're being trained as RAOC (rear-area operations center) and MP units, with a bit of engineer thrown in. Why aren't we deploying units whose personnel have been training their entire military career for these tasks?

For soldiers to be good at a task, they have to be trained at it. A "Jack of all trades, master of none" soldier is not something the Army used to want. It wanted specialists, masters of their fields, trained in depth and with focus. This is why infantrymen are not taught by default to drive tanks, and tank crews spend most of their training time with the tank, rarely practicing dismounted tactics.

So where are the actual MP and RAOC units? An MP deployed at a roadblock isn't getting experience doing anything else, but while deployed, it's better to keep him at the roadblock, so he gains expert knowledge of his duties there. He doesn't learn any other MP functions, and while deployed he's too busy to be given refresher training in those duties. To keep soldiers adept at all the functions of their jobs, the Army decided to rotate units around. I agree with this part. The problem is, that the Army doesn't have enough units to rotate specialists in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's giving introductory courses on MP and RAOC duties to soldiers who have spent years learning every detail of a howitzer that the Army won't put them within 20 miles of. Tankers are being pulled from their tanks and taught how to run roadblocks, gun crews are being taken from their guns and taught to clear rooms of enemy combatants.

The Army says that this is acceptable, as every soldier is trained in basic infantry skills in basic training. The soldiers they're sending to Iraq are not being asked to act like basic infantrymen though, they're being asked to act like specialists with only introductory training in their new field.

I don't think the basic problem is that infantrymen aren't being paid enough, it's that the Army has chosen to reduce the size of the Army, without addressing how it impacts the functioning of our military in the field.

My suggestion is not a pay raise for infantrymen, or even a pay raise for anybody. I think the basic pay for all ranks should be cut. The allowance for dependents should be expanded considerably (soldiers of all ranks get extra pay to help them feed and clothe their families), as should the pay for being in a combat zone. We also need a few more divisions. Eleven should do it, and that would more than double the size of our current active duty Army, something nobody at the Pentagon wants done no matter how desperate they are for soldiers.

Two more airborne divisions to swap out with the 82nd and the 101st when they need to train up new soldiers and resupply. Six infantry divisions, light on armored units, but with extra engineers, logistic units, MP's, and RAOC training to perform all the mundane REMF jobs that need to be done but don't require knowing how to kill someone with a spatula. These six divisions would not be trained heavily on offense, leaving the taking of ground/cities to the armored and airborne divisions. Deploying four at any given time, meaning that room stateside would only be needed for two at a time. And no soldiers would be transfered into or out of a unit that was overseas. Personnel changes would be made only the first week after a unit enters CONUS, so that the rest of the stateside time is spent training with the exact same people they'll be deploying with. The Army likes to pretend that soldiers are interchangeable, but that hurts morale, and morale is important to keeping units functioning at a high level.

We'd need an eleventh division, of course, so that soldiers could train on basic job skills while waiting for an opening (since replacements would wait until the unit returns to CONUS, this could be a few months). Where would we get enough soldiers for all these divsions? The draft, drafting everyone for four years and sending those not needed for active duty units to their states national guards.

That way we'd have the offensive ability we need (the current military strength, plus two additional airborne divisions), the capacity to do the peacekeeping/nationbuilding/occupation duties we've accrued, while bolstering our national guard with a huge boost in manpower, should the looming threat of war with China make them needed.

Of course, this would mean that our military would have to take it's duties seriously, and not have it's highly trained airborne soldiers building schools instead of killing bad guys.

Goe, ranting and raving, as the title says.

Written by: Beck

Could it be possible? Drudge reports:

A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.

"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday.

Please, let it be so.

(Hat tip: Doc Russia)

Written by: Beck

Mamamontezz has composed an open letter in support of the troops over at her blog. Recent stories about the hit morale has taken in Iraq with the release of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 motivated her to step up and remind our troops that most of us back in the states support them and what they're doing for us.

There is little we can do to take away the pain of what this man and his propaganda have caused you, except to tell you that his movie and his agenda in no way represent the prevailing sentiment of the men and women who remain here at home. We do what is right, we support you and your efforts, and we welcome the day when you can return. We do what we can to counteract the damage he has done over here, and hope that you can do the same where you are, so many thousands of miles away.

A Call to Action: It is up to each of us to counter what this man has done, and to heal those who's hearts and minds bare his bitter wounds. Do what's right. Send your support. However small or insignificant you may think it is, there is no such thing. Tell someone you support them and the job they're doing in your name, in our names.

Right on Mrs. Montezz.

Written by: Beck

When averaging letter grades, if you arrive at C- from the combination of B+, A, and B+, you just might be qualified to be a political analyst! Send resume's to Tucker Carlson.

Written by: Beck

I'm not sure what Barry's politics are, but I have to guess they're not too closely aligned with my own. But I can forgive anyone who writes material like this:

BOSTON -- John Kerry accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday night in a triumphant convention climax marred only slightly by the fact that, because of a mix-up at the security checkpoint, he had to deliver his entire acceptance speech with a police dog clamped to his thigh.

I'm sure you've all heard the hypothetical before--if you could have dinner with any 5 people, who would you pick? Most people's answers tend to be a mix of the Hollywood famous, powerful politicians, and great thinkers. Screw that. If I want to have an enjoyable dinner, Dave Barry's going at the top of the list. Steven Hawking would be next, but only because I think his voice box thing is cool, not because he's one of my idols (though he is that too). The remaining three seats? Two words: porn stars.

Update: In what could turn out to be one of the most devastating turnabouts in political history, the Kerry campaign has lost two key supporters who, up until now, had worked tirelessly for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. George Stephanopoulos and Ben Affleck have both thrown their support behind independent candidate Barry. Don't believe it? The camera don't lie.