Rusted Sky

In the wake of Sen. Reid's statements earlier this year about how we've totally, completely, and irrevocably lost in Iraq due to that bungling incompetent Bush, this must seem like a very bad dream.

Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq

Of course, this is an interpretation of the latest Bin Laden speech. Looking at the latest numbers and news from Iraq, however, one can't help but note that Al Quaeda's not making much headway there, and neither is it making friends.

Michael Yon has more on it - Iraqi Islamic Party says, “Al Qaeda is Defeated.”

The insistence on death and destruction for it's own sake has really, really hurt the legitimacy of Al Quaeda. A lot of groups in Iraq got what they thought they wanted - and have finally realized the cost was way too high. They're not stupid - and they're not locked into supporting an ideology because their politics force them.

Reid, Pelosi, and others, however, don't have that excuse.

J.

You know, I hate to think of myself as being something of a technoluddite, but there's some areas that we need to be REALLY careful when we're tweaking the parameters a bit. And this is kind of why...

The mouse that shook the world - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech

It can run for hours at 20 metres per minute without getting tired.It lives longer, has more sex, and eats more without gaining weight. Could the science that created this supermouse be applied to humans?

I hate to say it, but I'm thinking this needs to be closed down, and fast. There's far more potential for ecological catastrophe here than might be caused by any of the so-called 'frankenfoods'... unless of course they're meaty and tasty, in which case chicken wings might have a competitor on the horizon...

J.

One of the great things about having kids is watching them grow. One of the sad things about having kids... is watching them grow.

Day before yesterday, the little guy lost a tooth. I didn't say anything about the Tooth Fairy - I figured since he's over 9 he would think it would be a bit babyish. Yesterday when he got home, he asked "Daddy, are you the Tooth Fairy?" I tried to evade - "What makes you think I'm the Tooth Fairy?"

"Well, I know fairies aren't real... except on TV, and I know that's not real. But something's happened to my teeth. I put them under the pillow, and I get a Tooth Fairy Dollar."

I just nodded.

"But how?"

"Must be magic, sir." I then changed the subject.

But he was not so easily deterred. Later on he brought it up again - and I told him it WAS magic. A very special kind of magic. That the Tooth Fairy was based on love.

He got a big grin at that, and then was thoughtful. And I - I was a bit sad.

It's one thing for things like Santa Claus to go by the wayside. We do want our kids to be as innocent as possible as long as possible, after all, and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Soul Cake Duck are useful to make a big, scary, confusing and uncaring world just a bit smaller and more kid friendly and fun. (Never mind that Santa's presents seem to arrive in boxes labeled "Amazon"...)

But the Tooth Fairy? Again, a harmless bit of fun. That the little guy is getting too old for...

Later on, he wanted to know what happened to his teeth. When I tried to tell him the Tooth Fairy kept them in a special place, he said he knew I was the Tooth Fairy. Pointing at my back I said "Do you see any wings there?" He shook his head and laughed. This went on a while.

Finally, I relented. I showed him the drawer in my dresser where I've been keeping his teeth. And he pulled them out, fingering them in their plastic bags. (The Tooth Fairy has a much easier time finding a plastic bag under a pillow than a loose tooth.) He looked at them a moment and then looked up at me and asked...

"You've been keeping all these? All this time?"

"Yes, sir. I have."

"Why?"

"Because I love you."

His eyes started to water then. Must be allergies or something...

But - the Tooth Fairy did NOT show the little guy where the stash of Tooth Fairy dollars are...

(Hey, he's got to have SOME secrets!)

J.

'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site' | Jerusalem Post

The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a suspected nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes.

The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed.

Nukes are terribly destructive. (Okay, that's an understatement.) They aren't used in situations where other conventional weapons (Like MOABs) would suffice.

But it does go to show one thing - there's people out there who will believe anything they see in print, and the wilder the story the more likey it is they'll believe it.

J.

It's funny to think now that ten years ago I was pretty dubious about bing a dad. Twenty years back, I was seriously thinking about having something snipped so I wouldn't be able to procreate. Thirty years back, I was sure that I'd never want kids.

Thirty-five years back, I was in that miserable hell called High School. High school and a moderately depressive personality aren't a great combo. But I survived, some way or another. And as time went by, my attitudes changed. Marrying the most wonderful woman in the world didn't hurt matters, either.

And I have... a son. Something I wouldn't have imagined would ever have happened...

This last weekend we went up to a local Corps of Engineers campground on Lakebed Allatoona. John and Betty B and Juanita and Jessie E came to see our campsite (Betty is a trifle intrigued by the idea of camping with the equivalent of a mobile house, and got a kick out of the pop-up trailer we have) and it was good to see them... but what I got the biggest kick out of was just being with the little guy.

We walked for about half a mile along the lakebed, and I showed him how to skip stones across the water. I also showed him how to whittle - he is, after all, working on getting his Whittling Chip card. We talked about this and that, and I remembered my own father... a good man, but not really sure how to be a father. Tentative, whenever he tried to reach out to me, and when you added in his own problems, compounded by my mother's problems, and when we moved to St. Louis when I was about eleven for me it all went downhill.

But that is the past. What good is the past if you refuse to learn from it? Being a father isn't easy, and let's be honest and say that most depictions of fatherhood on TV aren't exactly good role models. Then again, the old TV series like "Father Knows Best" aren't exactly realistic. The balance between the two involves a lot of variability, and there's a LOT of possibilities for a 'right' course between the two boundaries. So I've got some latitude.

What doesn't work is avoiding the child. Or ignoring it. Or treating it like a trendy accessory. (Which seems to be something celebrities do.) You've got a little human being there - CHERISH it! Protect it! Care for it, love it, talk to it! Feed it, change the diaper, cuddle and sing to it! (Thankfully, there exist no recordings of the songs I'd make up when warming the little guy's bottle in the middle of the night. Oh, they were all fit for tender ears, except maybe the Baby Stew song. And no, it wasn't about cannabalism - just what went into the vat to make baby formula. Old socks, used motor oil, catbox scrapings, dirt and worms and the like...) Be a parent! Make that child the center of your life - because you're sure his!

And as it grows - protect the child. Give it the best education you can get and it can handle. But again, the balancing act comes in, you've also got to let the child have time to be a kid. Overscheduling doesn't do anyone any good...

Anyway. Enough on that. It's getting late - I'd better close this out.

I'm thinking that the best model, the best simile for parenthood is that of the multi-stage rocket. The rocket launches - and the first stage isn't going to get all that far, but it gives the next stage a considerable boost while providing guidance. Then it detaches (though there are some parents who are hard to detatch...) and the next stage goes on further and higher. In due time, that stage launches the next one - and so on and so on.

Each stage is dependent on the previous one for a good start and guidance. There's plenty of cases where rotten guidance caused a failure, and cases where others were able to provide self-correction guidance algorithms. Some get their gyros misaligned at birth, some manage to sucessfully align them and get onto a decent course after going off.

What we're trying to do is give the little guy a good start, and make sure he can guide himself once he cuts free and fires his own jets. So far, I'm thinking we're doing the right things.

But the real test will be when he takes off on his own. Crash and burn? Soar high? Tune back in 20 years - I'll let you know what progress he's made...

And in the mean time, we're enjoying the trip.

J.

Not a good performance...

Top Breaking News Headlines - Examiner.com

On today's "The Situation Room," Sen. Hillary Clinton opened up about her widely-discussed performance during last week's MSNBC debate. (You can watch the video here on Breitbart.tv)

"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton told CNN's Candy Crowley. "We have had a bunch of debates, and you know, I wouldn't rank that up in my very top list." Following the debate, Clinton's opponents for the 2008 Democratic nomination (as well as Hillary detractors generally) criticized the New York senator for being dishonest and evasive, and for flip-flopping on several issues.

The job of President is an absolute killer. You're basically shoving yourself into a position where you are in the hot seat, 24/7, and must respond appropriately to any crisis which might come up. And respond right the FIRST time - you'll get no 'do overs'. Or bad hair days. Or days where 'you weren't at your best'.

What's the right response to every crisis? You figure it out - I've got enough trouble just figuring out the right response to problems at work. But if you're running for President, the people who you want to elect you should have the idea that you've got a clue about the job, and can actually take a position and stick to it.

But Hillary's pandered so long to so many different groups that it's impossible to figure out just what her core beliefs are in regards to running the country - aside from the core belief that SHE should be running the country.

And I see in her no reason to assume she'd be good at the job. She's autocratic, overbearing, and unfriendly. Her attitude is that she knows better than anyone else what the country needs, and you do not question what she says, what she stands for, or what she believes. She is royalty, and you do not question your betters.

You want to know one of MY core beliefs? That I'd rather see Presidential candidates who passionately believe something - even if I don't agree with them - than a Presidential candidate who won't release records, evades questions, and tries to be everything to everybody, and apparently sees herself as a queen in all but name. You'll have a good idea what the former will do as President, but you'll never have a clue what the latter will do in any given situation.

I will not vote for a Presidential candidate of that type.

Before I voted in 2000 I read what I could find on both major candidates. (Sorry, but I'm not going to do a 'protest' vote for a third party candidate, even if I find one that's palatable. And that hasn't happened yet.) Gore had done pretty much nothing over 8 years as VP, and accomplished precious little before that. No notable failures, no notable successes. He was inoffensive, a non-entity. A blank slate to balance out Clinton's colorful behavior. His convictions, as such, seemed to be that he'd continue the policies of Clinton... maybe. Personally, I felt he'd be a sock puppet for Clinton or Kennedy. If it came down to a choice between Party and Country in his loyalties, I'm sure Country would have been a really close second.

Bush - had failed at business. And succeeded pretty well as the Governor of Texas. He'd made mistakes in his personal life, and admitted to them, and done his best to correct them. He wouldn't be a sparkling President, a party animal like Clinton - but he'd be respectable and competent in the job. He had learned what he didn't know, and was sure of what he did know and who he was. So he's who I voted for and less than a year later I found out where his priorities were. I was glad he was in office.

In 2004, faced with the choice of Kerry or Bush, again I based my vote on what would be best for the country. Kerry was a spectacular zero who seemed to feel he deserved the position. He ducked out of a position of leadership in the Navy to be an anti-war figurehead. Bush had performed ably during a very nasty time - and he still wanted to do the job.

Personally, if I'd been Bush I'd have been more than willing to hand the job to someone else. But if a man learns anything over the years, it should be what he's capable of doing... and what he will give of himself to do the job that he feels needs to be done. A lot of people learn to lie to themselves, to persuade themselves they're much more capable than they really are. I believe a lot of our politicians do that - they KNOW that what they do or want to do is the right thing, and the thought of their own fallibility or possible error doesn't enter into the equation.

I believe that was also a major problem with the old Communist system, by the way - there was an assumption of inevitability and rightness because of their belief, and the assumption of systemic competence was reinforced because of the belief of inevitability and rightness of their cause. The feedback loop generated by such thinking led to disasters like Chernobyl and the Aral Sea, not to mention the Ukrainian famine and other lovely acts. When you can convince yourself you're utterly right, you can do some pretty horrific and stupid things. When you refuse to learn from your mistakes - again, you can do some pretty horrific and stupid things.

Bush, I felt, had sufficient insight into himself to do the job of President well. Kerry was all bluster, and when he'd had the chance to really lead in a difficult situation, he'd found an excuse to bail. This didn't exactly inspire me with confidence in his leadership abilities.

Why am I rehashing old elections? It's to establish what I feel are the necessary qualifications for the job. It's not something easy to get into, OR get out of.

There is no way to bail from the Presidency, aside from resigning. (Or being impeached - and for all the blather about impeachment by Kucinich, you see other Democrats retreating from his position at warp speed.) If Kerry had gotten the job, I don't believe he would have lasted long in it. And again, considering his record (or lack thereof) he would have been a sock puppet for the DNC or Kennedy. After you FUBAR the country as President - where do you go? What do you do?

No, we dodged a bullet in the 2004 election.

Now we come to the 2008 election. We've got candidates that range from qualified to laughable on both sides. We've got a year to watch the weeding out, the infighting, to listen to the promises and watch the personalities.

The job of President is arguably one of the most stressful on this planet. It's not a position where you can expect plenty of time to learn on the job, with forgiveness of mistakes and plenty of time to get your act together. Lots of people will be looking to see you fail, both outside enemies and internal political opponents. It's a job where you have to be able to step up, be effective, and be flexible.

And that last is where Hillary fails. She's not, in my humble opinion, capable of flexibility at all. But then when you're the Queen, flexibility is for the commoners who must accommodate your desires, right? All we need to do is understand she should be Queen, and arrange the coronation. And for heaven's sake, stop questioning her.

After all, one does not question royalty.

J.

We were told weren't ready for freedom.

That Reid and Pelosi urged us to abandon.

That soldiers in our military are re-enlisting in record numbers to protect.

That we promised a chance at freedom - if they could get on their feet and help us do the job, if they could learn to work and live together without sectarian violence.

Michael Yon : Online Magazine � Blog Archive � Thanks and Praise

Thanks and Praise: I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

Spread this around. If you've got a blog, go to Michael Yon's blog and get the pic, then put it up on your blog. In a very real way - this is what victory looks like.

And these are the people the Democrats would have abandoned. Let that not be forgotten.

J.

President Bush Impersonation - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner - Google Video

An excerpt from the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner. President Bush’s presentation included an impersonator, Steve Bridges, who "interpreted" the president's remarks for laymen.

I can't. She strikes me as a remarkably humorless person. I'd almost think she'd be willing to outlaw laughter - life should be SERIOUS, damn it!

But then, when you're Royalty, YOU decide what is funny. And the commoners should not even think that you are something that can be made fun of, much less lend yourself to being the butt of jokes.

J.

FOXNews.com - Spanish King Tells Chavez to 'Shut Up' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

SANTIAGO, Chile — The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to "shut up" Saturday during a heated exchange at a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

Chavez, who called President Bush the "devil" on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a "fascist."

It could be the head of Venezuela has reached the tolerance limits of a lot of leaders... and exceeded them.

J.

The Global Warming Test

I wonder how AlGore would do with this test...

J.

Is perhaps understandable.

He is, after all, an apostate. He no longer believes whole-heartedly in the Holy Writ - that "it's all Bush's fault". Instead, he has a view of reality that is far from that of the 'reality-based crowd', and is not at all popular. Although his other views haven't changed, it's the view that we have to actually fight those who would destroy us that's a significant problem for the left. That national defense isn't something that can be left to the State Department. That the good guys are the US military, not the lawyers and activists and the 'freedom fighters' slaughtering Iraqis in an attempt to force us out.

He says things that the Democrats don't want to hear. Well, I can't say I blame them - after all, for all their insistance that they've got a wide-open stance when it comes it ideas, they're probably the most stratified and rigid group of folks to come along since the Marxist dialectic took the Russian peasantry by storm. (And I'm talking Karl, not Groucho. Just so there's no confusion.) Dissent is not allowed, not encouraged, not tolerated. So when Sen. Joeseph Lieberman comes out with this...

Say It's So, Joe

"Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . ."

That the long-term good of the country is NOT dependent on the Democratic Party forcing us out of Iraq, and giving a black eye to Bush. That in less than two years, Bush will be out of office, and the Democratic party had damn well better have something in mind other than the continuation of "Bush=Hitler" chants and passing out pork projects in billion-dollar lots.

The first thing they can do is drop the anti-war rhetoric. There's a good bit of evidence that anti-war sentiment isn't precisely popular. (If you'll recall the latest round of anti-war demonstrations, there was a notable lack of participants.) You might also notice the current crop of anti-war films aren't terribly popular. (Okay, they're tanking. And hard.) Why would this be so if there's so much anti-war fevor?

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand that there's quite a few Americans who get the idea that Islam doesn't equal '"Peace", instead, the concept behind it is "Submission". And that submission to the tenents of Islam isn't something they're wanting to do. So, since as a nation we're not willing to give Islamic fundamentalism a try, and since the Islamic fundamentalists see it as their job to kill the unbelievers and apostates - it might be a good idea to actually take them at their word when they say they want to destroy the West.

Pelosi and Reid don't get that. Lieberman does.

If Hillary (God help us) should actually win the Democratic horse-race, the ONLY way I could see voting for her would be if she would have Lieberman as the VP. That's about as likely as me winning the lottery, I realize. Conversely, since Lieberman's an independent, I'd have little trouble voting for any Republican ticket with him in the VP slot.

But Joe gets it. In order to survive as a Party - whether Democrat or Republican - you have to ensure the survival of the country first. And the current heads of the Democratic Party haven't got that idea down. Indeed, they may be utterly unable to grasp it.

J.

From Wizbang..

I know there's those out there who don't see the war as something that needed to be fought in the first place. I, oddly enough, agree with them. Our enemies didn't need to bring us the fight, didn't need to bring death and destruction upon themselves. They chose to act - they chose to hate, they chose to force upon a country that didn't want it a fight that, for the good of all countries, needs to be won against an ideology that promises nothing but death and destruction. The war didn't need to start - but it needs to end. And that end has to be through winning - not surrender as Reid and Pelosi would like.

And we are winning it. Slowly. But day by day we're making progress. Al Quaeda in Iraq is being pushed back, sliced apart, and slaughtered. The people of Iraq have seen their 'Islamic Brothers' come to help 'drive out the infidel' for what they are - murderous henchmen of Iran, intolerant Islamist fundamentalists who believe in killing to expiate supposed sins, or simply in love with the idea of destruction for it's own sake. And they will accept no more of it, and are taking the fight to the enemy... even refusing US help in their anger.

What does winning look like in Iraq? You tell me. But on this Veterans' Day in 2007, I believe we're seeing it. And it's our military - it's the military forces of the free world, who have broght us along the road to victory.

Thank you.

J.
USAF - 1974-1984
USAFR 1989-2003

FOXNews.com - Clinton Campaign Accused for the Second Time of Planting a Question at a Public Appearance - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances, FOX News has learned.

In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

That she's planting sock puppets in the audience doesn't mean she won't be a good President, able to deal with criticism and difficult exchanges with other world leaders! That she refuses to answer definitively on anything simply means she's trying to see both sides of all issues, not that she's evasive or indecisive without massive input from the polls and her handlers.

After all, when you've already been anointed Queen you're supposed to be above such petty questioning. This simply should not be happening! And the sooner you peons realize it and force the media to cut out questioning of her actions, no matter how dubious, the better!

All sarcasm aside (and if you couldn't recognize the above as sarcasm, hie thee hence to Dr. Sanity and make an appointment) the thing that disqualifies Hillary (and a good number of other politicians running for the office) is that they don't care about anyone or anything BUT getting into that office. Step on the truth while doing so? Who cares! Twist their record to the point it resembles a rubber band on a balsa airplane? So what? Say one thing and do another? It's politics as usual! They're in charge, and things BETTER go the way they want or heads will roll!

I would hope that the 'reality-based' crowd would actually be able to respond to reality instead of the fantasies that they've been busy writing for the last 8 years. (You know the ones - the imminent implementation of a Christian theocracy here in the US, how the good guys in Iraq are really the ones setting off roadside bombs and killing people because we're stealing all of Iraq's oil, and that all we've got to do is leave the ME and peace will magically break out and the like...) I see no indication of that, however. Which leaves me to wonder - if they're that disconnected from big-R Reality, why in the hell should I vote for any candidate that they support... even marginally?

J.

Hollywood strike underlines bleak outlook for movie business - International Herald Tribune

LOS ANGELES: As Hollywood digs in for a second week of a strike, the screenwriters might want to send a few angry picketers over to Will Smith's place. Or Steven Spielberg's.

And maybe the studio executives should think about joining them on the line.

As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry's biggest talent.

That is the conclusion of a surprisingly bleak new assessment of financial dynamics in the movie industry titled "Do Movies Make Money?" The researchers' answer: not any more.

Lousy stories?

High prices in the theaters?

Actors who, um, can't ACT?

A growing feeling that the folks in in Hollywood don't have a clue when it comes to flyover country?

Tell you what, Hollywood. Try dropping ticket prices by half at the theaters. That alone will boost your viewing dramatically. Dump half of the 'stars' you depend on. Bring in new talent - a LOT of new talent. Try appealing to old-fashioned values like patriotism, and make the military unambiguious GOOD guys for a change. Make movies for flyover country - you'll be surprised at how much you'll earn.

But if you keep spending megabucks on anti-American blockbusters in order to garner overseas praise, don't be terribly shocked if your decline continues. There's nobody forcing us to watch what you put out - and the numbers show that very clearly.

You really might want to pay attention to them....

J.

On an article about WHY people aren't going to anti-war movies. (General consensus - they sucketh like an Electro-Lux with a new bag - why waste the money? The movies aren't being made for US audiences - they're being made for overseas critics.)

Hollywood is casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films

The Hollywood elitists will never understand that the average American does not hate his country, does not think her country is evil, and does not believe that their children in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, or Air Force, are killing babies, burning down grasshuts, and the like. There are far too many negative stereotypes being endlessly paraded around by the left-wing. Where are the positive stories? No where to be found, like me at a movie theater for any of the socialist drivel pushed by the Hollywooders

The problem is that for liberals, EVERYTHING is political. I understand that there is a lot of disagreement about the decision to go to war in Iraq, and as someone who supported it from the outset I admit that I was wrong about how difficult it would be . I don’t think that Bush lied about WMD - though I think he and pretty much every western intelligence agency were wrong (there is a difference between being wrong and lying). I guess I don’t care too much about that point, because it seems that Saddam was would have reconstituted his WMD programs as soon as the scrutiny was off - which would have been relatively soon, since there was tremendous pressure to ease off on the sanctions.

However, that decision is in the past - it now belongs to the historians. We are now in Iraq, and what matters is winning and coming home. What also matters is finding a way to debate the war intelligently without bashing the troops - who are doing a very difficult job, one they were ordered to do, and since the start of the surge this year, doing it with increasing success.

How about a movie that just follows a company of troops at a forward operating base, preferably based on a book or screenplay by someone who served there - no high level debate, no presidential politics, but just a group of young Americans doing their job - their triumphs, fears, losses and good times? If the production values were halfway decent, this would be a guaranteed success for the studio that made it.

As far as the Bush=Hitler equivalency thinking... Well - WE don't believe that. I don't. None of my friends do. I'm really surprised at the vocal minority of folks on-line to whom Bush DOES equal Hitler, and Guantanamo is worse than the Gulags.

I know it's simple rhetoric - I know that what they're trying to do is take control of the dialog and turn it to THEIR concepts. The important thing is winning the argument.

Regardless of the cost.

I've wondered at times just what has impelled the left to go so blasted far in their disagreements with the center and right that they WOULD insist there's no difference between Bush and Hitler. Or why there's such a strident insistance that there's a supposed imminent Christian theocracy about to be imposed on everyone in the US... when the real danger comes from a religion that would eagerly kill them if they didn't convert.

I think, though I'm not at all sure about this, that they'd rather hyperventilate over something that MIGHT happen even though there's virtually no chance of it, than actually pay attention and have to respond in an appropriate manner.

When you take action to avert a non-existant threat, anything you do is correct. Sure, your actions might not make much sense - but they're demonstrably the RIGHT actions to take because the threat didn't materialize. You can look like a hero, because you've managed to negate the threat.

And in politics - appearance is all that's important. Substance doesn't matter one bit - the important thing is to make your constituency THINK you're doing something constructive. Get that down - and you're assured of a job for life.

However - going up against a REAL threat brings the possibility (the very REAL possibility) of making a mistake in dealing with that threat. And with appearance being all-important, making a mistake can ruin your career quickly. So you waffle, evade, be non-committal as you possibly can - anything to avoid actually taking a position that someone can look at later and say "You were wrong!"

Nobody likes being told they were wrong. And the folks in Hollywood even less so - the concept of 'wrong' doesn't exist, if they think money can be made from it. So they make movies THEY would go see - can't figure out why they're not popular, and figure it's because they weren't anti-war ENOUGH - and the next round gets worse.

Well, they might figure it out some day. Hopefully before the industry goes bust. I'll pay to go see a movie in which our military are the heroes. I'd pay good money to go to movies based on Michael Yon's works. I won't pay to see a movie which details the US military as being evil. I realize it's hard for Hollywood to believe - but they simply aren't in tune with the domestic audience.

J.

I was looking for a KVM switch. I've got a case with a working motherboard and power supply, got a spare drive, might as well set up a Linux box and fiddle with that...

Anyway - I figured I'd check EBay for KVM switches. And found the following...

KVM Switch Boxes -
2 Port & Under(415)
3-4 Ports(273)
5 Ports & Higher(281)

It just seems a trifle redundant...

J.

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006.

They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The Earth has cycles that we're only beginning to understand. The big trick, near as I can tell it, is to figure out what we've got to be READY for.

Not try to determine some artificial set-point on the Earth's thermostat.

J.

Kerry vows to disprove Swift boat claims - Yahoo! News

BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted a Texas oilman's offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

But one thing's puzzling me.

If he's indeed innocent of the charges leveled against him, why does he want to challenge a millionaire with a megabuck to 'prove' his innocence? Or is it a simple "Look at me, look at me!" attention-getting attempt?

Oh, well. Time to go back to ignoring Kerry again.

J.

When looking for a needed tool, there's certain qualities you're looking for. First, the tool has to be appropriate for the job. You're not going to be getting a screwdriver when you're really needing a hammer. Yes, you can use a screwdriver handle as a hammer if need be, but you can't use a hammer as a screwdriver. At least, not expecting to remove the screw...

You expect certain qualities regarding the design of the tool. The material has to be sturdy enough to meet anticipated usage. If you're getting a hammer and chisel, you're going to want both tough enough to do the job, the striking parts forged and tempered so they're hard enough to cut and do the job, but not so hard that metal will shatter upon impact. A chisel that's too soft is useless - it won't keep an edge. A hammer that's too hard will chip and send metal fragments flying. A circular saw blade that sheds teeth is both hazardous and useless. A screwdriver that doesn't fit won't perform properly - it ends up ruining the heads of the screws.

There is no 'one-size-fits-all' tool.

And in politics - there's no 'one-size-fits-all' candidate. Each one brings different things to the table, hoping to get enough people to think he/she is the best to get the job. There are some, however...

Kucinich... well, he's a flat-head screwdriver in a Torx world.

Obama? A power drill, looking for a generator.

McCain? 550 cord. Very useful in certain applications - but useless other than tying things together.

Hillary? A badly tempered chisel, ready to chip when she meets resistance.

A President needs strength to hold the country together, and deal with other nations.

He needs the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. One criticism of Bush I've heard is that pre 9/11, he was adamantly against nation-building, and he changed his mind! I don't want a President who's so locked onto a course of action he simply will not change it when circumstances warrant - I want one that will understand when flexibility is called for as well as rigidity... and will also be able to balance the two.

Toughness... is related to strength, but also to endurance and integrity. The Presidency is arguably one of the toughest jobs in the world, and it's going to be a killer for whoever gets it.

Those are baseline qualities. The final quality in the title - brittleness - is one that I most definitely don't want to see in a Presidential candidate. Everyone is brittle to some extent - you hit the right amount of stress, and you crack. Training, time and experience can damp that down - temper you to a point where you'll bend instead of break - and our political process provides that tempering and experience... where the politician is willing to learn.

But Hillary... isn't a politician. She's been a politicial spouse, and been pretty well heated up as First Lady - but simply heating the edge of a chisel doesn't harden it to a useful temper - the process is a bit more complex than that. There's a need for a period of give-and-take, of learning how to compromise and an understanding that just because YOU think something's the greatest idea since the New Deal, others may not and YOU might have to modify your plans to take care of their objections. If you don't please the constiuency, they'll find someone else in the next election. But Hillary didn't go through that. Bill did - and he learned the lessons well. But if you lack that 'training', you can end up hard and brittle.

Unfortunately, Hillary's brittleness is exceedingly noticeable. Hardness is one thing - the edge of a katana is very hard - but that hardness has to have a tough and resilient core backing it, or the first time it hits something remotely tough (which the media has decidedly tried to prevent with their careful stacking of the deck in these preliminary Q&A sessions) it'll quickly become useless.

The media's done this country no favors by anointing Hillary as the Dem front-runner. They're not looking at the big picture - that the COUNTRY is more important than Party, and the ideas pushed by the Democrats aren't necessarily good ones simply because the Democrats are desiring their implementation. (Same thing for Republicans - either side.)

If the idea is a good one, a functional one, one that truely benefits the country, then it'll stand examination and discussion - even dissention. But one thing that's been pretty evident on the left is that discussion of the actual merits of any proposed idea is pretty well discouraged on ideological grounds. If it's from the left, it doesn't need discussion, it's automatically good and wonderful. If it's from the right, then no discussion is needed because it's horrid and evil and really, really bad. (Case in point - Dems said in the Clinton era that Social Security needed revamping. As soon as Bush was in, there wasn't any way in hell they'd even discuss the idea.)

IF Hillary gets elected - what's going to happen the first time that she doesn't get her way? Or the second? What's going to happen to her when she realizes that being President is NOT the same as being Queen? Not every world leader will kneel and cooperate with her, and if she continues her antagonistic way of dealing with Republicans... well, the Dems have shown the way to complete legislative gridlock and the Republicans only have to emulate it - simply refuse to consider passing anything the Democrats put forth. Tit for tat sucks - but it works.

The Democrats have shown their way to the future. Let's hope the future they desire so strongly isn't the one that actually happens. By law, on every tool sold, there has to be safety information. On hammers and chisels, it's warning information suggesting the tool be examined before use, and not used if there are cracks or chips in the striking surfaces...

God knows there's enough chipped psyches in Washington. When struck just right - well, we've seen what happens when they shatter. If only our politicians could Magnafluxed and stress-tested before getting into office. We need tools that can do the job, and make the job easier. Sadly, what we usually seem to end up with after the shine's rubbed off are bargain-basement rejects... weak, brittle, and the wrong shape.

Occasionally, however, a tool that seems wrong for the job ends up performing much better than thought - even though at the time it was reviled. Lincoln comes to mind, and Churchill. Kennedy is remembered better for what might have been than what actually was - and Reagan managed to do incredible things while handicapped with a Democratic Congress. Historians will judge Bush - and it's my belief that his suitability and performance in office, when viewed dispassionately, will show him to have been the right tool at the time.

Of course, tool DOES have different meanings to different people...

J.

(Closed due to spam. Sorry.)

Coffee clash: McDonald's vs. Starbucks - Food Inc.- msnbc.com

CHICAGO - McDonald’s executives came out swinging when they announced their assault on the comfy world of coffee shops.
After the success of its upgraded drip coffee — which even managed to snag a thumbs-up from testers at Consumer Reports earlier this year — the fast food chain known for super-size meals is gearing up for a massive expansion into the world of lattes.

“We want to move from beverages as an accompaniment to being a beverage destination,” Don Thompson, president of McDonald’s USA, said in a meeting with analysts Tuesday. “Our speed, our convenience, the value that we can afford to customers without quality comprise will make us a formidable player.”

J.

There's a fair overview of platforms at Macworld: Feature: A blog for everyone

I use Moveable Type software from SixApart, and 1and1.Com for hosting. I use their Business plan - which has 250 GB web space and 2.5 terabytes monthly data transfer.

(Like I need it. Heh.)

The MT software needs to be installed, but it's a fairly easy walkthrough. You DO need to be able to read instructions and follow them. But then, if you don't read you probably aren't going to blog...

J.

Gee. Maybe Bush ISN'T an incompetent boob after all.

For Bush, Advances But Not Approval - washingtonpost.com

The war in Iraq seems to have taken a turn for the better and the opposition at home has failed in all efforts to impose its own strategy. North Korea is dismantling its nuclear program. The budget deficit is falling. A new attorney general has been confirmed despite objections from the left.

After more than two years of being buffeted by one political disaster after another, President Bush and his strategists think they may finally be getting back at least a bit of their footing. While still facing enormous challenges, from the crisis in Pakistan to the backlash over children's health care, they hope Bush has arrested his downward spiral and established a better foundation for the remainder of his time in office.

But in today's world, with a media presence that's starving for stories 24/7, if anything isn't an immediate success, it's a flop.

Patience is a virture. Lots of folks seem to be lacking it these days...

J.

Out in Seatlle, I believe, there's apparently a movement to teach kids how horrible it was that the Pilgrims came over and started the whole white man's thing. It kind of overlooks the fact that the Indian tribes were pretty much constantly fighting for land long before we arrived, and the supposed ecologically sensitive American Indians were just as bad (if not worse) for the land as the newcomers were. (When a main method of hunting buffalo requires you to run the whole herd off a cliff, you're not worrying too much about long-term effects on the buffalo population.) (Of course, what WE did to the buffalo population was just was bad, and let's not even talk about the passenger pigeon...)

But the Pilgrims? Well, let's just review the historical record.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Tragedy of the Commons

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. "Isn't sharing wonderful?" say the teachers.

They miss the point.

Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

It's an interesting little bit of history - and not one that'll be loudly proclaimed to the small fry...

J.

Oh, I think there was profiling going on all right.

cbs2chicago.com - Congressman Accuses Police Of Racial Profiling

CHICAGO (CBS) ― U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-7th District) said Wednesday he was the victim of racial profiling.

CBS 2's Mike Parker reports, the congressman insists the only reason he was pulled over by Chicago police is because he is black.

"I hope that this was some kind of isolated instance, but I know in my heart of hearts, I know that it's not," Davis said.

The congressman said he was driving three friends home early Monday morning when two white Chicago police officers pulled him over and said he had swerved over the center line before making a left turn from Kedzie onto Douglas Boulevard.

The congressman was nailed with a $75 ticket and a date in traffic court on Dec. 28. He denies doing anything wrong.

"There was just no reason I could conjure up other than the fact that there were four black people in a car," he said.

I have a hard time telling the ethnicity of the person in front of me at a stoplight in the daytime. Somehow, while driving at night the cops were supposed to be able to tell these guys were black and then just decided to pull them over...? No. I'm not buying it. I AM buying the cop's reason, that they were driving badly and got pulled over.

Go ahead and fight this, Rep. Davis. It'll be interesting to see what the camera in the police car shows....

J.

I'm grateful for men like this who defend our country.

This is on a hospital door in Walter Reed.

THAT is determination.

J.

Or is it simply a lack of perspective? Sometimes, a change of perspective is in order.

Childhood diseases used to have a fearsome mortality rate. Then vaccination came along, and those diseases became first a nuisance, then pretty much ignored. Measles, mumps, rubella, polio - all pretty much vanished. Now the worry is that mercury based preservatives might possibly cause autism - though you'd think if they did there'd be an immediate, very noticeable uptick in autism cases starting in the '50s when the polio virus became common.

But although autism was already on the books, no significant upturn was noticed in autism numbers. And even if there had...

It might have been looked at as a lesser of two evils. When faced with diseases killing tens of thousands, would a statistically difficult to correlate side effect be something worth worrying about?

On to other things. There used to be some significant problems regarding food growing and distribution here in the US. Not any more, with the use of pesticides and fertilizer, better sanitation practices and refrigerated shipping. Yet there are those who criticize mightily folks who use such things as pesticides and fertilizers. Could they be used in more environmentally friendly ways? Certainly. Should they be eliminated? No, not unless you want to see food prices shoot up and quality take a dive.

Again - it's a matter of perspective.

Food costs used to consume a major portion of the household budget. Now, not so much. Food is now, by historical standards, pretty darn cheap. In fact, it's actually difficult to find someone who cannot get enough to eat. Indeed, for poor and rich alike, weight gain/obesity is a problem.

CNN.com - Working poor face higher obesity rates - Mar. 4, 2004

Fruits and vegetables are key to a healty diet - but starches and carbs are cheap. One source of inexpensive fruits and vegetables is a very reviled capitalist institution - WalMart. (It's also a source of more and better paying jobs than were available in an area before - so it's a double threat.) Supposedly one main complaint about WalMart is it will move into an area and provide so much competition to local businesses that they can't compete and end up shutting down.

Having, in the early '80s, done a fair bit of travel in rural areas courtesy of the USAF, and having shopped in a lot of small-town groceries and stores, I don't see this as a bad thing. The prices were usually high, the quality was usually low, and the selection was pretty skimpy. And with no alternative, what would cause things to change? Local hardware stores, while picturesque, didn't necessarily have what you needed.

I doubt any businesses relocated primarily due to the availability of a WalMart, but I'm pretty sure there's not many that might consider locating out to a rural community who go "Um, there's a WalMart - we're not gonna go there!" WalMarts tend to provide a lot of jobs - and better paying ones than the people locally would be able to find. A cheap-jack grocery might employ a couple of dozen people, a WalMart several hundred. A mom&pop grocery or hardware store won't be able to provide affordable health care - and WalMart can. (Whether the employee takes it is his choice, and 'affordable' is certainly subjective.)

But plenty of people hate WalMart, to the point where Penn & Teller devoted an episode of their show to an analysis of Wal-Mart criticism as a social movement. They theorized that despite the noble rhetoric, the real motivation of "Wal-Mart haters" was rooted in human psychology. They suggested that hating Wal-Mart permits a person "to feel better about themselves" for three main reasons: They "don't run a greedy international conglomerate", they aren't Wal-Mart workers, widely considered "low-skilled, minimum wage drones", and they aren't Wal-Mart customers thought of as "toothless, welfare-getting hillbillies". (Preceeding paragraph cribbed shamelessly from Wikipedia's entry on WalMart.)

One thing noted, however, in my quick look-over of WalMart, is that the criticism seems to be following a standard binary activist trait. If WalMart is not perfect, it must be stopped. Regardless of what results might accrue, or what benefits the company may provide, it must be stopped. That it will impoverish millions of Chinese isn't important. Or that jobs will disappear or food cost more.

Students for a Free Economy > Home - Wal-Mart Helps the Poor

An unreflective passion for social justice may be one of the biggest obstacles to creating peace and prosperity in the 21st century. While there are most certainly factory owners in China whom we would rightly regard as criminal in their treatment of their workers, it is very important not to confuse these incidents with the phenomenon of globalization. It is a good thing that Wal-Mart is encouraging more humane standards in its supplier's factories. And yet it is also important to remember that Wal-Mart's "vast pipeline that gives non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market" is a vast pipeline of prosperity for the hundreds of millions of rural Chinese whose lives are more difficult than we can imagine.

Act locally, think globally: Shop Wal-Mart.

Let's go on to government. There are those who argue that Communism/Socialism is good - because it pretty much guarantees everyone a fair shake. Well, that 'fairness' is certainly subject to arguement, but there's no doubting that those in the higher echelons of the Party get more. Socialism has been touted, again for the egalitarian aspects - but is that a good thing or a bad? When you force everyone into a 'one size fits all' arrangement whether through taxation or coercion, is it beneficial to society as a whole?

Certainly there are some who would say yes.

From the perspective of the WalMart haters, it's evil and must be done away with. From the perspective of those who distrust/dislike vaccination, the process is iffy and dangerous. For those who believe in Communism, the idea that someone can make a fortune off their own merits and business acumen borders on the criminal. Take ANYTHING providing a benefit to someone, and you'll find someone else that thinks it should be stopped.

Perspective - it's a wonderful thing.

And something to think on...

J.

Yeah, well, you know... we just can't keep from meddling in things we shouldn't.

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life' - Telegraph

New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.

The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.

That in all the billions of stars in a galaxy, and in the billions of galaxies out there, that there hasn't been some other life that's been as curious as we?

This sounds more like competitive cosmological philosophical naval-gazing with a touch of distain than actual scientific thought. I just don't buy it. Humans breaking the universe, simply by looking and thinking?

No wonder we can't have nice things...

J.

But this one was funny.

YouTube - HuckChuckFacts

I'll take humor over the normal stale political garbage any day.

J.

Chavez: Only a 'Traitor' Will Vote No

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.
"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

And even the UN is getting in on the act - condemning Hugo for his 'labor reforms'.

Hmmm.

The UN, going against a dictator? Maybe Bolton's time there DID do some good.

J.

Charleston Daily Mail

THE New York Times devoted a huge hunk of its Page One on Tuesday to the good news of the return to more normal times in Iraq. The story was illustrated with a photo of a wedding scene on the streets of Baghdad.

Violence has been cut in half. And while the nation is far from the tranquil democracy that many of us hoped for in April 2003, it also is a far cry from the chaotic mess it was just six months ago.
We are winning in Iraq.

Will someone please inform the Democrats?

It is still very possible that Iraq'll go down the tubes - and if the Democrats have anything to say/do about it, Iraq's screwed. However - they can only ignore what's going on there for so long. Eventually, reality (as opposed to 'reality based' fantasy) is going to become impossible to ignore.

It is up to the Iraqis to find their way, but they deserve our help. Democrats need to live up to their name and support democracy.

Over the last 30 years, it's been my experience that it's the Republican party, not the Democrats, who've fought for freedom for other countries. Democrats prefer a status quo in international affairs, Republicans prefer to work against regimes that've been troublesome, even if the results don't always come out right they'll at least attempt a change.

Yeah, I know. It's not how they paint themselves. Democrats CARE. They CARE deeply. They CARE passionately. They CARE so much... yet why can't they get anything DONE?

Perhaps because it's easy to say you 'care'. You 'feel their pain'. Talk is very soothing, and talk is VERY cheap. You'll never go wrong by telling the other what they want to hear!

Action is expensive. Action has the possibility of going wrong, of mistakes. Mistakes have the possibility of bouncing you out of office in the next election.

It is much easier to avoid mistakes when all you do is talk.

But for the Dems - that party line's out of order. When faced with a serious threat, they tried hard to talk their way out of action. Since gaining the majority in the House and Senate, they've talked a lot, and gotten nothing done. They've proclaimed a loss - when we're winning. The ratings for Congress are WAY below the President's ratings.

They need to change course. Where is their Petraeus to lead them out of the quagmire they've dashed into?

J.

Yeah. WalMart.

Friday morning I grabbed the little guy by the scruff of the neck and dragged him kicking and screaming out to do some AM shopping.

Actually, I promised him we'd go get some fresh Krispy-Kremes so there was no dragging by the scruff of the neck. Or kicking. Or screaming.

But we still went shopping.

I figured I'd go looking for the one thing my lovely bride wants this year. WalMart had it, so does BrandSmart. The BrandSmart flyer had the price, WalMart supposedly price-matches. We went to the local Super-WalMart at 7:45, expecting a crowd.

There wasn't one.

The assistant manager in the electronics department I talked with said there was a real rush at 5:30 when they opened, and the store was jammed. Then the store emptied out. She was expecting waves throughout the day.

We left before the second wave hit, item in hand. (Note - WalMart price matches, but they don't pricematch discount stores or warehouse stores. Sears, KMart, Radio Shack, Target they'll match, BrandSmart and Best Buy they won't. But - because the assistance manager in the electronics department had already said I'd get the discount, she gave it to me. I was impressed.

Yes, there's things that folks might dislike about WalMart - but there's things to like, also.

J.

Compressed Air Sound Amplification?

The Auxetophone.

I must confess I don't see how this could work well. And from accounts included, it didn't reproduce music all that well. It was, however, LOUD.

One can understand how vacuum tube amplifiers were seen as preferable...

J.

Must be nice to be able to jet to Bali to have a conference to worry about global warming. Good thing AlGore's selling carbon credits - I'd hate to think what penance they'd have to do otherwise!

And they'd better get in their fun - pretty soon the Global Warming bandwagon's going to shed a wheel...

Global Cooling?

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continue—but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD).

But hey, it's a good excuse to throw a UN-sponsored party... in Bali!

You know, I'll believe global warming is a crisis when those who are saying it's a problem start acting like it. Flying 12,000 people to Bali... well, that's one hell of a crisis-management junket. AlGore jet-setting around in a private jet promoting the idea? Seems to me they're just adding to the problem.

Of course, they ARE the priveleged ones. We peasants shouldn't question our betters and all...

J.

Long ago and far away, I had a subscription to Mother Jones magazine. (Also had a subscription to "Soldier of Fortune", but that's for another time..) I didn't renew it, primarily because I got very tired of the hyperventilating style it had. If they were critical of something, then it was WRONG. It was BAD. It HAD TO BE CHANGED. Social inequities had to be addressed!

Let's see... one big thing I recall was animal testing of cosmetics. Now, the way I looked at it, the stuff needed to be tested. And if there were a more effective, more cost efficient way, wouldn't the cosmetics companies be using it? I'm pretty sure it's costly to run animal tests - but what's the alternatives? Even if you make up the cosmetics out of proven harmless ingredients, the FDA is STILL going to require you to prove the stuff is harmless to humans. And how are you going to do that? (Sorry, testing on condemned prisoners is out - 'cruel and unusual punishment, you know...)

Activism of that sort - of ANY sort - isn't usually open to compromise on it's end goals. In a real sense, it's binary. Either they get what they want, AS THEY WANT IT, or they've failed.

In a way, it's your basic "If-Then" statement. IF products are being tested on animals, THEN it must be stopped. No compromise is possible, no leeway in the end state. They've set a goal - elimination of animal testing. That goal, to be reached, means no animals are being used for tests. Not 'fewer' animals, not 'a minimal number' - but NONE. There may be some in the movement that understand and would be willing to condone limited animal testing - but they'll not be in the majority.

Let's use it in other situations... like, oh, drilling for oil.

IF - oil is detected, and drill rigs are set up - THEN the environment will be ruined.

IF - the environment is in danger from oil rigs - THEN - the oil companies must be stopped.

How about geopolitical situations?

IF - something happens that might cause war - THEN - protesting will stop/avert the war.

Any programmer will notice what's missing in the above statements - qualifiers. There's no "Not" or "Else", and pretty much nothing in the way of any sort of nesting or testing of the statements.

IF - country is attacked - IF - group vocally says they want to destroy western civilization - IF - group is holed up in Afghanistan - THEN - *error*error*too many variables*system dump*HCF abort*Reset default "War Is Bad"*

Binary activism fits nicely with bumper sticker thinking. If you can't fit it on a bumper sticker, it's too complex. Simplicity is good... sometimes. Life, however, is rarely simple enough to boil down to bumper sticker reflexive responses. Responses that run almost Pavlovian in their passion and intensity tend to be the result, almost as if the utterer, sensing that the response is indeed inappropriate, hopes to make up with passion and conviction what is lacking in applicability.

This is not to say that such thinking doesn't have SOME utility - it depends, as always, on just what is believed and what the desired accomplishment is. And occasionally increasing the complexity isn't a bad thing. Using the AND statement can make things considerably clearer.

For example...

IF - conditions are such in some countries that terrorism is fostered - AND - if nothing is done conditions will not change - AND - we are not willing to change the conditions - THEN - terrorism will be a continuing problem.

IF - conditions are such in some countries that terrorism is fostered - AND - if nothing is done conditions will not change - AND - we decide we ARE willing to change the conditions - THEN - something will be different.

Instead, we're trying to foster a governmental model that has never been given anything but lip service in the ME. The people are, judging by the turnout in the Iraqi elections, quite willing to try democracy. They're also building their nation from the ground up - it's getting pretty apparent that in order for them to build a democracy they can believe in, and that WORKS, the Iraqi people are going to have to build from the street level and create a functional structure up to their national level.

Fortunately, after the Saddam years and the Al Quaeda years, they're pretty sick and tired of 'business as usual'. They're willing to work at something that's demonstrably better, and even through it may take decades they're determined to get rid of those who would be only too eager to kill dozens of Iraqis if there was the slightest chance an American would be hurt.

They haven't been conditioned into bumper sticker thinking. And they're willing to work towards a goal that's longer than 2 years away. They've been in the pit - and now they can climb out.

They don't need activists. They ARE activists. Just not bumper-sticker, binary ones.

J.

Democrats: Voters shifting focus from Iraq - Martin Kady II and Jim VandeHei - Politico.com

Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.

The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress’ most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”

On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.

They're determined to turn Iraq into another Viet Nam, if at all possible. (And I say that like I think it's a bad thing, don't I? Of course I think it's a bad thing. I remember the national malaise that led to Jimmy Carter in the White House, leisure suits, and disco. Yes, it's a bad thing, okay?) They think it'll help in '08. And it likely would - if they could control the narrative like they're used to. But as Bill Clinton found out this week, the Internet doesn't forget, and you can't do a 180 on your back statements, saying you didn't support something when your record clearly shows you did.

You've got to admire their urge for consistency - as backstabbing and suicidal as it may be...

J.