winning the war - two competing notions

In the past few days, Don Rumsfeld and GW Bush have both compared the current war on terrorism to the ideological struggle against the Nazi's and post WW2 Communists, and, for once, they are right. Rumsfeld mouthed off about opponents of the administrations policies being likened to Neville Chamberlain and those that attempted to deny the looming Nazi threat, a day later his boss echoed the theme comparing this struggle to the cold war clash with the communist threat.

The guys are right.

No doubt about it.

This is the issue that will define the world for decades or even centuries to come, and we cannot afford to be on the losing, or quitting side.

In my opinion though, this administration has not the first idea of how to attack this menace, and how to win this war. Smart bombs, ICBMs, cruise missiles, stealth technology, submarines, aircraft carriers and hundreds of thousands of troops are not going to cut it.

Let's cut now to Iraq, and the emerging social fabric in that war-torn country.

I do not know how the average Joe Iraqi feels about too many things, or how to guage the depth of the insurgency that we are fighting in that country, however, this past week, a report in the Washington Post reported on what they called a "worrisome parallel" between the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with the al-Sadr sect becoming a state within the state, acting according to their own policies and directives and to hell (in a figurative and literal sense) with the 'established' government.

al-Sadr has cultivated his following by waging peace on the needs of the indigenous Iraqi's who have been displaced, hurt or otherwise affected by the larger 'political' war. His strategy has been to feed the hungry, house the homeless and treat the sick and wounded and bury the dead behind the front lines of the war that we are seeing on TV and in the headlines. His influence now controls the Ministry of Health as well as other portions of the government.

Cutting now, back to the chase, al-Sadr is waging peace on his own constituency, who, not biting the hand that is helping to feed them, is vocally loyal, and may care not one iota that he is being financed by Iranian interests, or is undermining the social order by supporting terrorist attacks on those that seemingly have caused the misery to begin with. He has, borrowing an old catch-phrase, captured the hearts and minds of his people; wresting it away will be a formidable, if not impossible task.

This is the way to win these wars. Iraq may be lost now, it is not clear that any sort of victory is possible, let alone one that is secured through munitions and lives. The United States needs to be first in to take care of the people, and work, through them, to secure the desired changes.

Our guys in Washington (of either party),will never, ever, understand this.

taking the diplomatic initiative

see this report from ABC News.

Well, I have to give him points for panache anyway. President Amadinejad of Iran wants to debate President Bush on television. This is eerie, it is almost like he is running for something.

Truth is, maybe he is running for the hearts and minds of the world, maybe not to convince or convert anyone. just enough to sow the seed of doubt, to produce some hesitation in the global community before they may or may not commit to some sort of action pertaining his country or the region at large.

This guy is good. I'll bet Karl Rove wants to be like him, (it is a sure thing that neither he, nor his boss is a match for him, rhetorically anyway).

Wonder what W. will say in response?

what's this?

A report on the ABC News website mentions, almost casually, in a story about missile defense, that there is a plan to remove nuclear warheads from Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles and replace them with conventional heavy-hitters, (my term), for use in a short-notice strike against terrorist targets.

Bad idea. Very, very, very bad idea.

Up to this moment, I did not believe that the administration had planned, (though it really wants to), strike at Iran. Does the president believe that we have the moxie to pull something like that off right now? It is an undisputed fact that our miltary is stretched very thin right now, and the thought that our salvation might be the use of vehicles previously associated with our own deterrent force is reflective of true desperation in the seat of federal power.

For any nation to adapt ICBM's for conventional use risks escalating any conflict to a nuclear holocaust; how might Russia or China know for sure that the warhead on the Trident lifting off is nuclear or conventional? And what if it strays just a few degrees off course, making it a threat to nations that we currently have no complaint with. It will move us one step closer to making this behavior acceptable.

In ugly, real terms, use of such a device would lower our standing in the world a bit further than using such a vehicle with a nuke attached. There really is not a lot of difference when one is talking ICBM's. If you are gonna use 'em, make it count, and that means make it nuclear.

The chilling aspect of this, (to me), is how easy it is to make those logical steps or leaps when one is seated in a secure environment, drinking ones coffee, and wondering what can be done to make a difference in things today.

How easy must it be for the President and his assistants to reach such a simple and clear solution?

There seems to have been a subtle shift in the general mood of the blogsphere, (subtracting all the "hey ho! I'm with the President" & "hey ho! the President is evil and incompetent" stuff), that the war has been focused on the wrong target. I think that the fact of the war is wearing on the public, and that many now see 'total' victory as the cheapest and quickest way out.

If that is the case, the war is lost, and I am not talking about the battles for Iraq and Afghanistan. The notion that the wisdom of opening up this war to begin with was faulty seems to have slipped, it is shifting to the notion that we hit the wrong country.

Uh-oh.

I know not what the administration plans today, I just know that I don't have any confidence in them, the planners, advisers or strategists.

Repent. The end is real near.

Don Rumsfeld & Katherine Harris

It was reported today that Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld met with, and took questions from family members of Army personnel, whose tour in the mideast has been 'extended'. Secretary Rumsfeld is to be congratulated on having the stones to meet with the families face to face, but his comments, (those that were recorded), leave something to be desired. He noted that he saw no reason for the families to be angry with the situation or with him over the extension of the tour of duty.

Does NASA know about this guy? What planet is he from anyway?

The tone that the Secretary presented here is typical of his style, which can be summarized as "well the fact is I am right, and I am to be applauded for not bitchslappin these morons for thinking otherwise". It also illustrates another side of the issue. The morale of our troops is dropping, the Marines are even reactivating members of the reserve, (a move that has been called a 'backdoor draft'), in order to maintain force levels in the mideast.

This is a crisis of confidence, first in the administration, and (far) secondly in the mission itself.

If the mission will ever be successful, (and I doubt it), the first thing that needs fixing is the leadership in D.C.



Then there is Florida.

Katherine Harris, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, is running into some gastric problems resulting from eating her words and frequently putting her foot in her mouth.

Without comment on her qualifications, her resume, or party affiliation, this is what happens when a facile, political hack is able to capitalize on media exposure, (hence 'name recognition') to further his or her career past the point that it would normally reach if not for the aforementioned exposure.

Ms. Harris has been riding the media exposure she got during the Florida recount in the 2000 election for six years now, into the Congress and by being the occasional mouthpiece for the assinine wing of the party in power. Aside from those 'accomplishments', she hasn't been able to do much with it.

One might think that she would get the message after six years, and simply shut up.

check this out

Here is a link to some classic video clips featuring the inimitable Mr. Bob Dylan.

Worth your time.

Have a Nice Day!

the way I see things

For your (in)convenience, here is a quick summary of the truths of many of the situations that we are presented with:

1) The diplomatic corps of Iran and its fascist President Ahmadinejad must really be rolling on the floors of Tehran right now, offering to 'negotiate', (a word meaning obfuscate and draw out a debate) over its nuclear program, knowing that it is buying itself some time before having to face the still nebulous 'consequences' of its actions.

Iran is after an A-Bomb, and has no intention of stopping or slowing its pursuits. The world ought to get used to the notion and face up to it. Talk of sanctions and consequences is the moral equivalent of doing nothing.

Want to hurt Iran? There are two ways to do it. The first is for every nation in the world to stop all trade with Iran, (yes, I am talking about oil). Will that happen? Most likely not. Even our staunchest allies will look the other way when it comes to choosing between taking a principled stand or shutting down a lot of their respective economies. And our staunchest allies are not Iran's big customers. The second method is not usually talked about, (but may be the secret desire of many folks), is to take the country down and seize the oil fields. The logistics and long term ramifications of this are enormous, (even discounting the fact that we would necessarily have to kill most or all of the citizenry of that country). Will that happen? Probably not.

The only readily acceptable solution is to get used to the idea, and begin to undercut the Iranian powerbase, (fossil fuels). When/if Iran becomes a nuclear power, they will have chained themselves to the same rock that quite a few other countries have camped on, and be slave to the same drain of resources, the same responsibilities, (to put up or shut up in diplomatic issues), and the same quasi-paranoid view of the world military equation that skews the rest of us. We need to do in the energy arena what Japan did in manufacturing following WW2, and what China and India are doing today.


update: Bill Emmott in the Washington Post made this very astute observation.


2) The dangers of a nuclear armed North Korea and/or Iran are not measured in the tragedies of megadeaths, they are measured in the relative complexity of all other transactions, social, political and economic in the world. Were one of these countries (or a few other unnamed states) to actually use such a weapon, the issue would be settled, likely in days, if not hours, by the rest of the nuclear armed world. All the diplomatic hand wringing and press conferences and stern toned warnings amount to simply ignoring the problem, and therefore, exacerbating it.


3) On the domestic front, the issue of racial profiling is again at or near center stage. Tough luck pal. The only just answer to this burning security issue is to treat everybody equally badly. Keep in mind that this is an effort of monumental scale, and it will be expensive---your taxes will go up.

There. Wasn't hard to reach a decision after all.

On the same line, we need to be visiting the issue of persons living in the U.S. but holding citizenship in those parts of the world that are in turmoil. Some, not all, but many, of these persons actually hold citizenship in two countries, the U.S., where they principally reside and do business, and in one of several (mainly middle eastern) countries that allow them to exploit certain lagalities in the tax codes of the two nations to their own advantage.

4) George W. Bush has been a bad President, possibly the worst ever, but it is not all his fault.

He was elected by a population that likes to see things in simple terms, and to hear a simple explanation of a solution to the problems that they perceive, (not actually experience). That kind of situation is ripe for a despot to come in and take the reins of power, manipulating society as others have done through the centuries. The difference is that George is not that guy. He is as dumb as the next guy, as are most of his influential advisers, common bozo's, like the voting public.

Truth is, I am no genius either. It will be hard to find a good candidate to back in '08, from either party.



5) It has been reported that scientists are able to extract human stem cells without actually destroying an embryo. It appears that the method for this is something similar to a procedure used in fertility clinics to check for/guard against genetic damage in embryo's that were fertilized in vitro.

OK. This may neutralize one of the strongest arguments against this line of endeavor, but I have to note that this may be a lot of smoke and mirrors as well. It is not clear to me that this procedure can be done in utero, (forgive me if the spelling or use of that term is wrong), or if it is necessary to be in a lab environment. If the latter is true, is the embryo then implanted into a/the mother? Was it actually extracted or fertilized in vitro? These questions need to be asked, and forthcoming answers delivered. Whatever one thinks about the value of this science, it deserves to be in the cold light of the whole truth. I hope that this is not an end-run around what is perceived to be a political stance by a special interest group.

I firmly believe that, one way or another, this research will go forward and be exploited commercially, there is just too much revenue potential for it not to be. The question is of its value, to individuals who need, or have no other recourse for treatment of illness, and to us all, as the body of humanity.


update: it appears that the wording of the original press release may have been imprecise.
see this article from technocrat.net

Joe Lieberman is really creating a splash

And for Joe Lieberman, that is saying something.

There is all sorts of buzz in the media regarding the effect that Mr Lieberman's campaign is having on the Democratic Party, and whether he will, (if elected), be entitled to keep his seniority in the Senate, as well as the prerogatives that accompany his standing.

What's the big deal here?

Mr. Lieberman seems to be a victim of some rather ugly, if not extreme, ostracism from his own party over the fact that he has broken ranks with the ideological line on one issue, (granted, it is a very important and significant issue), that being the ongoing prosecution of the war in Iraq.

Senators and Congressmen routinely break ranks with their parties over lots of issues, it seems that this one is the one that the party in opposition will propel them back into power, and they will simply not tolerate any deviation from the party line.

bullshit.

The Dem's need to apply a little of the political finesse that they are known for in looking at this issue. As I see it, the war was a mistake, but it is now a fact of life and needs to be dealt with.
For the party to punish any member who does not at least appear to toe the line of immediate withdrawal illustrates a serious disconnect with mainstream America. That course of action may well be the correct one, but it is not clear to me as a voter that that is really the case. Much time, money, lives and national prestige and reputation have been invested in this effort, to simply walk away and leave Iraq to become another suburb of Iran, (along with Syria and Afghanistan), is unthinkable. Like I said, we may have to, but that is not yet clear.

The Democratic Party needs to learn a few things from this experience. One is that a Democrat who is a pragmatic centrist has a lot of appeal, even to registered Republicans; another is that this conflict, though similar, is not Vietnam, and needs to be seen, and talked about, in a clear, non-ideological light. The party that does this best, (or, simply does it), will win. In the absence of any clear illumination of the issue(s), the party that is best seen as promoting national security, (even though it is the preservation of their own interests), will take the prize.

I hope somebody picks up on this.

update 1:

the Seattle Times see's it a bit differently.

they may be right. the most important point that they make in the article is that a moderate in Connecticutt is not necessarily a moderate in any other state.

lets crank 'er up again

I am trapped in the blogsphere and can't get out.

I have been scanning the online news today, and I noticed first that there was no evidence that the DPRK was about to test a nuke, and now, about five hours later, every news agency in the world is wondering and speculating about a North Korean nuke test.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.

Ignore them.

I know it is the nature of the media t pick up on everything and report it, analyze it, scrutinize it and publicize it to death, but we are creating a story here, to the benefit of Kim Jong Il and nobody else.

Ignore him, let the little f**ker sweat and fret that the world is not paying him his due. If he has a nuke to test, we cannot (or will not) stop it, and we will know, one way or the other, soon enough.

If a test does in fact take place, we ought to park two or three nuclear-armed warships off his coast, just to let him know that we care.

Aside from that, ignore him, give his country zero in the way of aid, and no latitude at all in any arena, not so much as a free ride on parking at the U.N.

so there.

here we go again

The U.N. is now dancing around the notion of actually putting their collective money where their collective mouths are. Everybody thinks sending troops to police the cease fire is a good idea, just as long as they don't have to actually contribute to the effort.

Viva la France!!!!!

Is it any wonder why the U.N. is held in the esteem that it is?

takin' a break

I am worn out.

I am going to pull back from this stuff for a while, too much doom and gloom, I intend to look for something pleasant to muse upon, or at least something with a positive spin on it.

I will be back, probably soon. (Boredom can do that to you).

If either of you semi-regulars has any brilliant ideas, you know where to find me.

In the mean time, try these sites and/or blogs:

Imagining the Tenth Dimension.

This is for those times when you are deeply thoughtful, or hung over and need an "oh wow" moment.

The Zoo.

Click on the link on "The Political Compass", take the test, and see where you fall on this two-dimensional map of the ideological spectrum.

JacksonPollack.org

This brings out the frustrated artist in you, simply drag your mouse across the window, (speed determines how much color you add), click to change colors.

Not real art, but it will kill a few seconds.


Y'all take care now.

can you say "New Hampshire primary"...?

John Kerry, the Cindy Sheehan of professional politics, will campaign for Ned Lamont in Connecticutt.

The guy just can't get over it can he?

How the Lamont / Liebermann thing works out, it is best worked out by the constituents of the seat that is being decided. The Democrats have a genuine opportunity to either help oil a White House win in 2008, or really hose things up.

Guess which way Kerry is going?

There is aninteresting piece in Slate, that speaks of the way the party handles these important issues. If they hose this up, we may be lost forever.

update 1: (next day)

here he goes.

more Social Insecurity

the President has signed new legislation governing lots of things, but particularly 401k accounts.

I am all for saving ones money, but I am a bit irked that it (apparently) will now become compulsory.

You can read about it here.

It is not so much that it will be compulsory, but that I smell decay of a rat in there someplace. I predict, here, in these pages, that before this administration ends, that Social Security will be permanently modified.

That too, was coming, but now is a good time to become educated, decide how you feel about this and all the peripheral issues surrounding it, and then vote for candidates who can articulate a similar vision, (that failing, one that can spell 'articulate'), and how to put it into effect.

Our times are changing, nothing we do, say, or blog will change it. But as things change, even the little people have a shot at putting something for themselves into the framework of whatever comes afterwards. Change is like that. No telling what will really happen next.

As far as the details of this legislation go, well, we will see how it impacts employer contributions, rules for withdrawals, and how much of ones own money is required (on the low end) to be saved, and how much is allowed to be saved (on the high end).

The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details.

Speaking of details.....

Bless his little heart, the President met some degree of defeat in federal court today when a Detroit judge ruled that the President does not have the authority to ignore standing laws in pursuit of terrorists. See it here. The actual ruling is published here.

This again skirts the real issues here.

The first is that we cannot fight barbarism with the civilty of law, just can't do it. (This in itself is a larger question than can be argued here).

The second is trust. I can swallow the need for some extra-legal steps to be taken in a time sensitive race with a shadowy foe. I simply do not trust this President to do it, without also locking in advantage for the privileged classes in the process.

why is this newsworthy? (a head in the sand episode)

OK, the U.N. Security Council, after a month of huffing and puffing has finally agreed upon and actually passed a resolution asking Israel to lay off, and authorizing the deployment of troops to keep things from flaring up. The authority for troop deployment is under section 6 of the U.N. charter, rather than section 7, which the U.S. initially wanted.

Gee, I am glad they got that all cleared up. The difference in the two sections puts some sort of a legal twist to the rules of engagement and the actual mission of the peacekeepers, it sounds as though section 7 would put the troops in to actually engage combatants, while section 6 merely puts troops in there as a 'security measure'.

What they really mean is that the world has done its part to diffuse this terrible situation and we can all rest easier, and wash our hands of the mess before we watch it on TV.

What is required here, on a national level, is first a definition of the threat to the stability of the region, an understanding of the how's and why's of how the threat works, (indeed, how it sees the world in general), and an agreement, amongst ourselves of how it should be combatted, and where the oft-spoken of 'line in the sand' really is, and what we will do when it is crossed.

That could be any day now.

something different

Just to show you that I am not all doom & gloom, I offer the following links:

1) this from NPR, a 45 minute (or thereabouts) radio program featuring Bruce Hornsby and his band. worth a listen. on the same page is a link to a concert by Mr. Hornsby that runs about 90 minutes or so. also worth your time.

2) this link to nugs.net and some tasty (streamed) Grateful Dead from years past, (as well as some downloads, though you have to use their client to do it). if your tastes run that way give it a listen, if not, listen anyway and broaden your horizons. the page was put up to commemorate the 11th anniversary of the passing of Jerry Garcia.

3) this site, highlighting a festival in Maine, featuring (streamed) performances by Al Stewart, Tom Rush and others.

try em.

and yet another

Friday.

Good time for a few paranoia induced conspiracy raves.

Ready? Begin.

1) I filled the tank of my gas-guzzler today, fearful (at first), that I had missed the usual weekend price-hike deadline, and that i would be out an additional ten to fifteen cents per gallon. Imagine my surprise when I noted that the price at the pump had dropped!!

Lemme see here, the price of oil has gone up this past week, the Alaskan North Slope fields will be at half capacity for about six months and the war in the mideast rages on while the U.N. and all its pompous ambassadors grope themselves in an impure manner; factors that, for the past several months, have driven the price of gas up-up-UP!!

So what gives?

I remember now, it is an election year, and the powers that be don't want us too pissed off from having to walk to the polls because we cannot afford to drive.

NEXT!!

2) see this link, or possibly this one.

Apparently this terrorist crap is out-of-control. (see the post just prior to this one). The Department of Homeland Security has emerged from their marathon "Dungeons and bin Laden" sessions to announce that your PC, ( YES!! yours ), may very well be the vehicle of the next attack, and urges all Windows users to patch the secuirty threats that endanger us all.

Am I the only one who even thought that these patches might make it a bit easier for someone, Big Brother, W, the big Dick (Cheney), to watch us? I mean, it usually takes the feds about a century to spot a threat, and longer to act on it, (can you say 'Katrina'?), but they did this one in a week. They are either on meth or were ready for this 'opportunity'.

3) and FINALLY!

It has been noted that the uncovering of and (apparent) foiling of the most recent terrorist plot will benefit the party in power this election cycle.

see it here and here.

In my most deranged moments, I wonder about the timing of these events, and whether or not they are intended to nudge the American electorate one way or the other. Given that this development may give the party in power an advantage, could it be that Hezbollah, Al Quaida and the pope of terrorism, Osama, is endorsing this particular direction of thought, and if so, why? What do the bad guys have to gain by keeping the alarmists in power. Truthfully, I don't know, but I am sure that the thought will fester....


OK, I am taking my medications now, and will forget all about this stuff....

and then another

Well, we are back on a high alert for terrorist strikes against the U.S., specifically airliners. Great Britain is at what they term a critical alert, meaning that actual attacks have been detected, and, (we hope), stopped. We will see about that...

This should be no surprise to any of us, it is something that we will have to live with, probably for the rest of our lives.

For all the talk that we hear on radio and TV, in the tabloids and newspapers, (and in blogs of the well known and not so well-known), how do we define the threat that is before us, and do we have an idea of what it will take to eliminate that threat? I suspect that some do, but the answer or answers are not to be spoken aloud.

If either of you reading this have an opinion, please share it, in a comment or email. This may be the defining issue of our age.

Ask yourself these questions:

1) what is the nature of an enemy who wages war in this way?
2) can they be neutralized, or defeated?
3) how have other cultures deal with similar situations?


Here I go:

1) We are faced with an enemy whose philosophy and rationale extends beyond this mortal realm. They see themselves as the very real hand of God in this world. (The underlying ideology may be much more familiar----greed and thirst for power----and is simply riding the coattails of the fanatic movement). We in the U.S. have some experience with this in the religious far-right, at least with that particular vein of thinking, but not too many of these "zealots" have been willing to kill themselves and many innocents just to prove a point. The closest we have been in this country to that level of dedication is the Jonestown colony, whose actions were directed inward, and Tim McVeigh, whose beliefs compelled him to act against the government in Oklahoma City. I am no expert, but the mindset in the mideast seems to completely discount the value of the individual, in the pursuit of some form of ideological purity, (and it is not clear that there is a single widely accepted version of this ideology), thus eliminating the horror/remorse/shame that westerners sometimes feel over what is called collateral damage.

2) If that proposition is true, then one has to ask how one neutralizes or defeats such an enemy? Is it possible to kill enough of them to call a battle or war actually won? That is an ugly thought, and the numerous permutations of consequences are not lost on me right now. Is a negotiated settlement possible, or more likely a gradually wilting of a nations (or peoples) desire to wage war? I do not know. Some Islamic regimes have liberalized, politically, (liberalized being a relative term here), but there is still much fundamentalist inflamed unrest in those countries. It may or may not be axiomatic that those regimes are among the more prosperous non-oil producing nations. A well fed and better educated population may be a key to some movement towards a resolution, but in the back of my ind, I doubt it. (That s not to say that those are not laudable goals, or that efforts towards achieving them should be curtailed). As I postulated earlier, for these people, the war is not in this life, what we are seeing is an effort to move the battle to grounds where they believe they will be victorious-----in other words, in the presence of God.

3) How do we deal with this kind of thinking? The only case we have to go by in recent history is the case of Israel. When attacked with a fist, Israel strikes back with a gun, when attacked with mortars, Israel strikes back with air strikes. They deal with this by always being prepared to hammer the opposition and proportionality be damned. I do not believe that the western cultures could do that, (not right now anyway), it is not in their blood. (Remember that the nation of Israel is a closed culture in itself, they may look, talk, and dress western, but they are, on a very basic level, a closed community). That may also be a key in this struggle, antithetical though it is to Americans and much of the rest of the world.

We seem to be fighting different wars, from our view, we go in, kick ass, (well, we hope), and then leave. The other side wants to destabilize the opposition, and keep doing so, until it simply crumbles under its own weight and inability to deal with all the other things a society must deal with.

Is it out of line to suggest that, to 'win' this war, we have to outdo the other side in that arena?

As for other solutions, they have not become apparent to me as yet, (not that I expect them to).

I fear a new Holocaust, possibly in my lifetime, most certainly in my childrens. It seems that the likely targets will be the semitic peoples of the world, (yes, Jew and Muslim), but it may be different, it may be the western cultures that become isolated and closed in upon. Were it not so tragic and frightening, it would be an interesting excercise to see. What political entities would be split off first, and which ones last? The peoples of the far east and subcontinent are not often figured into the stiuations of the mideast, but the very gravity of their presence plays a big, big role.

"May you live in interesting times", indeed!

just another day

Senator Joe Lieberman has apparently failed to win his parties nomination for the Senate race this autumn. Pundits everywhere are weighing in with analysis upon analysis as to the 'why' of this happening. The Senator has said that he will run in November as an independent.

I hope that he makes it, if for no other reason that it would be nice to see an independent elected outside the usual party machinations.

That being said, he is not from my state, and the fact the voters in his state gave him the boot should not be projected forward as being representative of the way that voters in other states reach conclusions.

Did you get all that?

I know little of the Senators record or positions, but he was a part of the losing ticket in 2004. Maybe his number just came up....

an interesting perspective

I saw this on Google News today.

Afterwards, as I further delved into the depths of journalistic output, I saw this and this.

The first article seemed to touch on a sentiment that is not often enunciated, but needs to be addressed. The war in the mideast is simply one of many opening salvo's in what will be a broad multi-cultural conflict that might take decades or centuries to resolve. (I hope so, I do not want to see it....). If the vision of a few comes to fruition, the result will make the ugly chapter of western history sometimes called the holocaust appear to be a weak spasm of nationalist angst. For some, this is an "all or nothing" conflict. Think about that. When you hear extremists say that Israel should be wiped off the map, don't be comforted by the thought that they are speaking of a small piece of land on the eastern Mediterranean, all of us are Israel, indeed whoever is not 'them' is Israel.

In the face of this, the world watches a bunch of old guys at the U.N. paly a high stakes version of bridge to see what should happen next.

well, now we are getting somewhere

the U.N. Security Council has agreed upon, and drafted a resolution calling for a full cessation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah.

see it here, and here.

wow!

what a breakthrough!

Do any of those phreakin idiots believe, for 1 second, that the product of damn near a month of their time is going to produce any sort of result short of a few headlines? The principal players in this rerun of reruns were not involved in these complex negotiations, and do not appear to give much of a damn, (but it is important to see thqt the U.S. and France agree....)

This illustrates the true function of the U.N., a place for academics to argue about who (or whom) is righter, and how the world ought to be, with little or no view to how it is, or what is really happening. Watching the drama that is the U.N. is something that is roughly akin to a Cheech and Chong movie, except these people get paid a whole lot more, and they never, ever seem to run out of, or come down from whatever it is that they are on.

That's just my opinion.

I could be wrong.


update 1: (Aug 11, 2006)

the Security Council has adopted a resolution that will put 15000 U.N. troops into Lebanon to ensure the peace. The national makeup of this force has not yet been announced, and I certainly hope that they are more effective at this mission than the U.N. observers already in place were. (yup, they are firing rockets at Israel. I'll have a turkey club and chips....)

is it simply a coincidence?

We are all used to a lot of screaming and accusations, along this a corresponding number of denials and defensive siloquies regarding the presence of bias in the media. Of course there is, we established it in the constitution and defend it (almost) daily in one way or another. It is call "editorialism" and is present on all sides of any given debate. It is not a crime or a subversive act to avail ones self of the popular media to express, or garner facts and opinions.

Let's get over it.

But I have to wonder about another aspect of this "issue", the use of benign, (that is, unrelated) media to advance an agenda or to establish a group mindset. This type of manipulation, if it exists, is subliminal in its presentation, it is not readily apparent that there is something motivating some manner of presentation.

In this question, I wonder about the timing of the release of a new motion picture about 9/11, titled, "World Trade Center". Released in late August. In an election year. Rekindling (possibly) the flames of passion that gripped the nation in those dark days following the attacks. While the party in power is still, you know, battling the enemy.

I dunno, just a thought, but if one needed any other fodder to make this thought fester, see this article, especially the part noting the support and admiration of Oliver Stone, of all people, by the conservative right.

now that is conspiratorial.

same old election year stuff

What I am about to rant about is not new, nor really an emergency, but it bears witness to my point about 'precision democracy'. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last night that encompassed many items from various wish-lists, and then boldly hit the highways and airports so as not to be called on, (in person anyway), to comment on the bill. the bill contained all manner of 'extensions' of tax credits, cuts and abatements, as well as a much needed raise in the federal minimum wage. This bill, a product of the party in power, now puts the opposition party in a position of having to thumb their noses at their constituency in order to block 'welfare for the rich and for big business', or acquiese to those interests in order to promote the welfare of the working poor.

Helluva choice.

I predict a lot of hullaballoo before the bill passes, as nobody wants to p*ss off a campaign contributor, but nobody wants to look like a whore either, (they worry about that at the oddest times).

Wait and see what happens next.


update 1:

the Senate Democrats held together and managed to defeat this bill today, although it may be voted on again this fall. Like I said, a helluva choice, but I have to think that it is the right one.

update 2:

not that it matters any more than anything else, but I read an interesting factoid about this bill:

the bill ran to a length of 900 typed pages!!!

see it here.

as I sit and type about this stuff, I am arguing about an idea or notion that can be expressed in one or two paragraphs, tops. any new law that runs 900 pages is altogether to bloated and loaded with small and large "gotcha's" and "gimme's", (aside from the ones that we know about), that, not only should it die, the author should be hung with a rope made from the recycled paper in the 900 page bill.....