Social Networking

Blogger's note: I now have a Facebook page. This makes the rest of what I have written seem pointless, but I stand by the basic tenets of it, in terms of privacy or a self-imposed lack thereof. Facebook can be a very private thing, shared among close friends and family, but it also demands a certain amount of attention. By deciding to expose more of myself (clear the image from your mind) I have also decided, by extension (please, no "exposed extension" jokes, please), I had more to expose, and I have created an expectation of more exposure, even if it is just to friends and family. Since I don't actually have all that much to expose (again, keep your jokes to yourselves)-- the reason I don't call my mother everday is because I don't feel that I have all the much to say to her specifically-- I find myself "immortalizing the trivial" just to fill up the space. Having said that, I kind of "get it" now, however, I still can't dance.

Welcome to all who got here by clicking on the link found on my lovely wife's Facebook page. For those of you hoping that I will, one day, have a Facebook page of my own, well, that's hope you can't believe in.

I have to admit, as stodgy as it's going to sound, I just can't wrap my head around the popularity of Facebook and MySpace. I'm a deeply personal person, and while I am perfectly willing to share my thoughts (anonymous and over-claused as they are) I couldn't imagine telling everyone (even my own family) about the wart I just had removed or that the damned washing machine is acting up or that little Billy* pooped in the dog bowl again.

By immortalizing the extremely trivial, we trivialize immortilazation. Imagine if we'd had to wade through a littany of Shakespere's trials and tribulations ("Little Lord William* hath shat in the curr hound's trough...") to get to "Hamlet." Imagine if we had to read Hamlet's blog posts about Ophelia ("OMG, Ophelia hath totally losteth it!") I could go on and on and on, but I think we can all agree that I've beaten a tired comedic concept to death already.

More fearful, in my eyes, is a generation that is growing up with no secrets, with no expectation of privacy. I would be aghast if the government was behind it; I am terrified that they are doing it to themselves. A person needs that which is his own in order to be; there is an essence of humanity that cries out for some things to be held close, and others to be granted as a gift to those who choose or care to listen.

I'm not saying that Facebook and MySpace are the self-inflicted wounds that caused the death of privacy; I am saying that they are cuts number 889 and 890 in the 1000 cuts of the old saying, I am saying that they join the ranks of the census (every question after "how many people in the house?" is an affront to privacy) the income tax (why, pray tell, does the government have to know who pays me what?) and every government form that has the temerity and gall to ask me if I am white or not.

Have we become so used to telling strangers about our personal lives that we actually invite it now? Is this a final capitulation to the dulling reality that there are no secrets, no personal lives anymore?

Or is this the ultimate homage paid to Andy Warhol's famous 15 minutes quip? Do we all hope that we will say or do something so compelling, or brilliant, or disgusting that we will be remembered by the multitudes, if only for a brief moment? Is being the "Numa, Numa" guy really worth it? Really?

Regardless (and no, I don't care what anyone's motivations are-- the great thing about deep thoughts is that you can generalize and, if you sound intellectual enough, no one cares that you're using the intellectual dodge of stereotyping) I think that this trend is one I will avoid for the forseeable future, if for no other reason than I can't dance.









*Billy or "William" is not my son's name, for those of you that thought you caught me giving personal information. Nyah, nyah.

Election '08

The following are cut-and-paste quotes from a forum I frequent, so if they seem a bit random, they are, kind of. These are my initial, honest thoughts, and if they offend anybody, I honestly don't care, left or right, Democrat or Republican. Clearly, I didn't vote for the man. I couldn't, for a whole host of reasons that don't matter right now. Suffice to say that, 4 years from now I will be either eating justly deserved crow or trying hard not to giggle when I say "I told you so."

With that, here are a few random thoughts I had, with additions clearly noted.

The fact is, as hopeful as I am, there is a lot of room to be fearful. Obama hasn't said anything that will actually reverse the course (Socialism) that this country has started on (starting with the New Deal and only slightly slowed down since.) There may be a socio-economic tipping point that is reached when less than 50% of Americans are actually paying taxes. Then, truly, people can vote themselves (or pay for it, as corporations do) largesse from the federal kitty-- when that happens in earnest, we are lost. Europe is about 20 years ahead of us on that, and they are desperately trying to reverse some of the things they have done; all the economic indicators lead me to think that it is too little too late (we're upset at a 6.1% unemployment rate-- France's and Germany's have been at 8-10% for the entire economic expansion of the 90s and 00s-- think it's getting better today?) In fact, France has people with PhDs going to, of all places, Ireland for jobs. Go figure.

President Obama will have crushingly enormous decisions to make, and quickly. He didn't bring us to this point (neither did the Republicans or Bush alone, truth be told-- we've all had a hand in this, Dems, Repubs, government, private sector and, yes, Virginia, you and I) but it's on his lap. I pray that he makes decisions the Founders would applaud. If he does, we're good for 4 more years, at least. If he doesn't... well, social programs always slap a band aid on a sucking chest wound, and the economy will sputter along in spite of itself for a while. It won't last, and it can't. If we collapse, so does the rest of the world (so much for "de-coupling.") It'll be interesting, to say the least. Stock up on ammunition, would be my advice.

Still and all, I am hopeful. I don't think President Obama wishes ill for his country, I just think he's hung around the wrong crowd for too many years. I am hopeful that his intellect and grasp of the American psyche will aid him in breaking away from that crowd and doing what is truly in the best interest of the nation.

While riding around in my truck one day, I came up with this scenario:

Your CIA DCI walks into your office and says, "Mr. President, we have it on good authority and have verified through a variety of other international intelligence agencies that Osama Bin Laden will be in a neighborhood in Peshawar, Pakistan for an approximately hour long meeting with his top lieutenants and members of the Taliban tribes supporting him. The meeting starts in 20 minutes. We can have aerial assets on site in 30-35 minutes from your go, ground assets are not an option at this time. One last thing, Mr. President: the meeting is being held in an elementary school surrounded by a residential neighborhood. We believe school is in session."

In this case, The President wouldn't have time to agonize or debate things over for 18 months-- like the Democrats and Republicans did in the lead up to the Iraq War. He wouldn't have time to convene the Senate and House and pass an Authorization for the Use of Force resolution supported overwhelmingly by both parties. He'd have to either pull the trigger, or not, and live with the decision either way.

Imagine he did. And he missed (our intelligence was off by 20 minutes, or he was never there, or whatever.) 33 kids dead, hundreds wounded, a residential neighborhood on fire. You know what? I'd support President Barack Obama's decision to do it. Or say he decided not to-- and 8 months later, after a taped bin Laden message was released, a dirty bomb explodes in downtown LA (the tape, as they normally do, contained the "go" signal.) While we might not hear about the aborted bin Laden hit (unless it was leaked by a disgruntled DCI who felt that if people would have just pulled the trigger, LA would be saved) if we did, I'd still support my President.

(As a caveat, if Obama was offered bin Laden by the Pakistani government but refused due to legal issues... well, I don't think that will ever happen, post 9-11.)

In either case, no one-- not Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich or any of the others-- could ever convince me that my President, whatever his decision was, acted without the best interests of the country at heart. You could never convince that he would bomb an elementary school because he felt like killing kids or that he let bin Laden slip away because of some malice of forethought. You couldn't convince me that he would send young men off to fight and die to make his buddies rich, or materially destroy the United States while marching towards glorious Revolutionary Socialism. You couldn't convince me that he knew about the LA dirty bombing and let it go so that he could start a war for oil. (EDIT: Or for Tony Rezko or Bill Ayers.)

The mere thought that people can believe that physically repulses me. It's personal, visceral. (EDIT: In my mind, it speaks more to the psyche of the haters than the hated. It shows an almost religious zealotry but for, of all things, politics-- of course, government is becoming more "god-like" everyday, so maybe there is reason for that zealotry-- and I can't get anymore worked up over politics than I can religion. It bothered me that Obama used that religious-like fervor to get elected; I honestly don't think he truly understands what he tapped into, but neither religion nor politics holds any fear for me, so I have no hatred. But, to me, there is no difference between people that say "gay people are evil and are going to Hell" and people that say "George Bush is Hitler and is going to Hell." They are both clearly unhinged, and thus, incapable of rational discussion and deserving of none. We may never be able to rid ourselves of extremists, but we should do our best to minimize them.)

You have my word on this-- whether I agree with him or not, whether he is brilliant or moronic, Messianic or misguided-- I won't ever believe he has anything other than the best interests of the nation at heart.

What is a War?

I know I have a blog post that already asks the question, "Are we at war?" For some, the answer is "yes," for others (including, sometimes, our President) it is a resounding "NO!"

I'm not going to debate that schism right now; it truly isn't important to the discussion.

However, a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Mario Cuomo (former Governor of New York) got me thinking about the various definitions of war-- legal, denotative, connotative and obvious. He makes some interesting, if not absolutely backed up by any kind of research, points in the article:

"The war happened because when Bush first indicated his intention to go to war against Iraq, Congress refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, this article has spelled out that Congress -- not the president -- shall have "the power to declare war." Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this constitutional mandate was not erased by the actions of timid Congresses since World War II that allowed eager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without a "declaration" by Congress."

For reference, this is the relevant part of Article I, Section 8:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Congress, indeed, is giving the sole authority to "declare" (I use quotes because apparently that's the real crux of Cuomo's argument-- nobody "declared war") war. No dispute there. However, we get to the heart of the debate in his next paragraph:

"Nor were the feeble, post-factum congressional resolutions of support of the Iraq invasion -- in 2001 and 2002 -- adequate substitutes for the formal declaration of war demanded by the founding fathers."

Interestingly enough, he dismisses both the original Authorization of the Use of Force and the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq as "feeble," yet no where does he cite what a "declaration" of war is supposed to look like. There is no form letter in the Constitution, where Congress plugs in the name of the country to be attacked and the dates. I would argue that authorizing the President to use the armed forces against another country is, in fact, a declaration of war against that country.

Let's define a few terms, shall we?

Declaration:

1.	the act of declaring; announcement: a declaration of a dividend.

2.	a positive, explicit, or formal statement; proclamation: a declaration of war.

3.	something that is announced, avowed, or proclaimed.

4.	a document embodying or displaying an announcement or proclamation: He posted the declaration in a public place.

So, a "declaration" is a thing; a label. Something can be "declared" I assume, without explicitly labeling it as such.

War:

1.	a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2.	a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3.	a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

War is also a label that is applicable when two (or more) countries/nations/tribes are in a state of armed conflict.

So, with respect to Afghanistan, the AUF (2001) authorizes (or you can say "declares that") the President to conduct armed conflict against-- well, let's quote it:

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Use "all necessary force" against "nations"? Looks, walks and quacks like one to me. I'm no lawyer, but any reasonable person could assume that authorizing the President to use the armed forces to attack another sovereign nation is response to an attack or threat would be... well, a declaration of war.

And as for Iraq, Congress had another debate (which the President didn't think was necessary in light of the initial resolution, but OK) and passed yet another resolution (declaration?) allowing the President to use force-- well, let's quote that, too:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, the President was, once again, told (declared to?) that he could use force (we can assume the military would be involved) to attack Iraq. In fact, Iraq is mentioned four times after the phrase "authorized to use the Armed forces of the United States." The Congress cited 23 reasons for the President to use force; it passed 77-23 in the Senate, which is as bipartisan as it gets (which circumvents the specious and infantile argument that a Republican President forced a whimpering, robot-like Republican Congress to pass a wimpy resolution granting Bush dictatorial powers.)

Again, the words "declare," "declared," or "declaration" are nowhere to be seen, but it takes a special kind thought process to take the phrase "The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate" and not construe that to mean "war." We may have the luxury of being able to parse words and question phrases, but the men and women on the ground, on both sides, have no doubt about what they are doing, or what it is called.

Which leads me to my conclusion, and hopefully the point of all this. We are a society of wordsmiths and meaning pimps; we are a society that has transformed a "garbage man" into a "sanitation engineer; "disabled" into "differently-abled; "teacher" into "educator," which has since morphed into "facilitator;" a society in which a politician was run out of town on a rail for using the word "niggardly."

Surely "declaration of war" can be changed to "authorization for the use of force," no? I may not agree with it, but it fits the pattern of softening that's so prevalent in today's language-policed society.

A garbage man is still a garbage man. A war is still a war.

Winning Wars?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an op-ed written by MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK. The two are self-professed critics of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War (who can blame them?) and its aftermath. After coming back from an 8 day trip to visit American and Iraqi forces, they found a remarkable thing:

The surge is working.

This is news to people who haven't been listening closely. The plan that the "surge" is using was actually hammered out by General Petraeus (the current commander of MNF-I) while he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq (Kurd-country) in 2003-2004. The same general plan was used (completely coincidentally-- there's no evidence that Colonel McFarland (CMDR, 1BCT, 1AD) had devised any strategy with General Petraeus prior) to great effect by the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division in Ramadi in the al Anbar province 2005-2006. What was once known as the center of the Sunni and AQI insurgency is now a stable region, where U.S. and Iraqi forces patrol without fear.

My brother, who was Scout platoon leader, battle captain and later S-1 of the 1/35th AR, 2BCT, 1AD (attached to the 1BCT) during the "Anbar Awakening" as it is now rather melodramatically being called, relayed to me an incredible story. He prefaced it by saying that he felt he was present at an historical moment; I'm paraphrasing, so any mistakes or omissions are completely my own, but apparently he and his battalion commander (whose name escapes me at the moment) were going to one of their regular, weekly or so meetings with one of the more powerful local sheiks-- these meetings were usually secret, to protect the sheik from reprisal. They walked into the building where these meetings took place, and were greeted by the sight of not one, but a dozen (or so) sheiks, all powerful men in their areas. The gist of the opening remarks was, "WE want to make a deal with the Americans."

My brother's battalion commander, naturally, said, "Let me get my boss."

The "head" sheik asked my brother's BCT Commander what he needed from the tribes, to which the Americans replied "300 police recruits would be a good start." After some assurances that the police would be used to patrol their own neighborhoods, the 2 parties shook hands and went home.

The next day there were 1,000 new Iraqi Police recruits lined up outside the main Ramadi Station.

Wars are won and lost based on how quickly the participants learn from there mistakes. The "small footprint" approach advocated by Generals Abezaid and Pace were, in hindsight, completely ineffective in fighting a counter-insurgent campaign. Counter-insurgency starts with "winning the hearts and minds" and you start winning the hearts and minds by a.) moving among and living with the people whose hearts you are trying to win and b.) providing security for those people.

The Sunni-based, AQI-led insurgency was able to maintain control of the population through intimidation and murder. We would strike and leave, allowing the insurgents to fill the vacuum left by us. Now, we have learned from our mistakes. We strike hard and stay, building COPs or "Combat Outposts" (imagine the stockaded forts of the Old West and "F-Troop" fame.) We patrol with increasingly brave, increasingly competent Iraqi Security Forces, we are pushing hard, on multiple fronts, never resting, never letting the enemy rest...

The AQI-led insurgents (there are very few Sunni-led insurgents at this point in time) haven't learned. They are still trying to intimidate the local populations with bombings and murders and kidnapings.

The most important thing to remember about winning wars is that one side has to lose. It is as important to say, loud, long and clear that the AQI-led insurgency is losing as it is to say that we and our allies are winning. In fact, it is important to say that AQI was never in a position to win; they could only win if we defaulted and left the field-- even a high school football team can win a game against the Indianapolis Colts, if the Indianapolis Colts leave midway through the second quarter.

I say "bravo" to those 2 brave reporters. They undoubtedly are going to be viciously attacked in the coming weeks. Thanks for putting out there what some of us already knew...

Fridays: A Gift Of Western Civilization

We've all heard it before, the old cliche' "Thank God It's Friday." When I was young, being raised as a nominal Catholic, I used to think it was because grown-ups liked halibut night (note to non-Catholics: Catholics/Christians were not supposed to eat meat on Fridays back in the day; some still follow that idea, but only during Lent, which is why you will see fish meals pop up on fast-food menus around March of every year--CG.)

But now that I am older, and have to actually work for a living, I understand the true meaning of Friday: it is the last day in a week of drudgery and toil, the final day that you have to deal with bosses, customers, purchase orders, sales reports, intra-office memos, faulty equipment, and lazy coworkers-- in 8 short hours, we will get our reward, 2 full days of blissful repose and serene contemplation of the good things in life.

But to what do we owe the joy of the weekend? Well, first and foremost, we owe Friday to the oft-maligned practice of remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy-- those pesky Judeo-Christian values that are so out of vogue today. The Sabbath should be (and is, for Jews and smaller Christian sects) Saturday, the final day of the week, the day even God had to use to fire up the grill and forget about the hard week's work He had just put in, what with Creation and all that. Takes a lot out of a deity, especially when there's only One of him doing all the work. Sure, it makes the org. chart more readable, but when you mess around and make something like the duck-billed platypus, there's no one else to blame.

So, the Jewish religion was really the first organization to mandate a 6-day work week, and "T.G.I.F." was meant literally in Jewish communities.

Reviving the Dead

As I type this, I realize it has been months since I last visited these august posts-- if anyone reads this, I apologize. Things got hectic. I got busy. The dog ate my homework.

As I revive this dead blog, I realize that many things, long forgotten and thought dead, have come back; in celebration of my revival, I thought I'd post a few others:

Al Gore. Remember him? He was the stodgy old VP for America's first rock and roll president. Then he was humiliated loser of a presidential election (that was handed to him on a silver platter.) Now he is... savior of the world. Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Academy Award winner. The climate absolutely has to be changing, and it has to be man's fault, because if it isn't, Al Gore has to go back to his Tennessee mansion and stew the years away in obscurity...

The Viet Nam War. Well, it's ghost has been raised, anyway, being used to frighten the children. It's shadow covers the Battle for Iraq, even if the fit isn't perfect. Viet Nam vets are suddenly all the rage, after being marginalized and forgotten for 35 years. Viet Nam war protesters are quite popular, too, even though the consequences of their success 35 years ago are, in large part, ignored-- because what happened in the aftermath of our pullout of Viet Nam is eerily similar to what people are saying will happen when we pull out of Iraq, and that wasn't pretty, either.

"Water"gate. Or rather the appearance of it. Everything is a "gate." Come to think of it, Watergate wasn't revived, it's been kept on life support and trotted out every time some minor political official violates a statute. This one should be laid to rest, finally.

Jimmy Carter. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we stab this hateful, anti-semitic vampire in the chest with a wooden stake, he reappears, dragging himself upright and somehow adding to a veneer of respectability the Habitat for Humanity has given him. Ol' Jimmy may be revived, but methinks the villagers are closing in, with pitchforks and torches...

And finally, but most importantly, socialism is pulling itself up from the Stygian Pit it was cast into with the fall of Communism. It is taking root small places, the corners of the gardens of capitalism, but it is persistent and tough to kill. Health care, schools, agriculture, the environment and Berkeley has all succumbed, or are going to succumb, to it's lie of "fairness" for all. Socialism appeals to the simple child in all of us; play nice, share your toys, take turns, all done while being watched over by a doting, protective mother and a stern (but fair) father. Who doesn't wish that they were a child again, when you didn't have to pay for anything and someone was always looking out for you?

Well, I hope that my revival doesn't signify the Coming of the End, but if it does, or if it's coincidental to it, at least I will be able to pull up a chair, drink a beer, and laugh at the folly of it all.

Writing sardonic posts about it on the Internet is just icing on the cake.

2006 Elections

Well, the Dems won the House and the Senate (recounts notwithstanding.) I guess I should come clean and say that I am a conservative, more Libertarian then Republican, but if there are no decent Libertarians, then I almost always vote Republican. Needless to say, I am disappointed with the results of the election, but not at all surprised. The Republicans didn't give anyone any reason to vote for them, and the Dems had the best sales pitch at all-- they weren't Republicans.

So our real choice was either to vote for Republicans, or to vote for something that wasn't (we're not sure what it is, but they seem to like taxation.) I actually voted straight Liberatarian (except I voted for Kinky Friedman for governor-- I liked the idea of a cigar smoker in office.) Texas is red through and through, so I knew I wouldn't be hurting anyone much, sadly, really-- I wished I could make the GOP hurt, you know, like if I was living in Missouri or something. The bastards dropped the ball on spending, immigration, tax reform, social security reform and energy policy. An idiot could run the War in Iraq, as evidenced by the idiots we already had running it. Sure, the economy is good, but that rarely has to do with a president and is mostly cyclical in nature.

(Note: Granted, government getting out of the way, in the form of lower taxes, always helps. But the GOP lowered taxes and made the tax code more convoluted, more confusing and more full of loopholes. The Dems always got it wrong on that-- tax cuts help everyone, but the tax loopholes benefit only the very rich. Ask Teddy Kennedy.)

So what the GOP did do right, it did right in the worst possible way, and what it did wrong it did wrong in the most spectacular way.

The fact is that the Republicans deserved to lose, and the Democrats won by default (because that's the way our two-party system works.)

North Korean Nukes

Vader has his Death Star. Dr. Evil had his "Death Ray." Kim Jong Il has his nukes. Small nukes, granted (1 kiloton is considered a small tactical nuclear weapon in our arsenal) but nukes nonetheless. Run away. Hide the kids. Ready the survival bunkers-- we have enough condensed milk and hash to survive the coming storm!

Seriously, what is it we are afraid of, again? A short, odd-looking madman has come into possession of a weapon that has the potential to kill hundreds of people at a time. I'm sure the wepons he has already sold to fellow dictators and terrorist groups around the world has killed thousands more, and besides, al Queada already borrowed some of our own planes to do more damage than that.

But nuclear weapons have radiation and, you know, you can't see it and it's icky. This is the same line of reasoning that has kept us from lessening our reliance on foreign oil by expanding our nuclear power generation capacity. Like radiation is any more dangerous then CO2 emissions our toxic smog. Like allowing our economic future to be held hostage by camel-humping towelheads is any worse then the possibility of another 3-Mile Island. Less then 100 people died as a result of that accident; how many more have died in Iraq?

But we fear nukes-- unreasonably, in my opinion-- so our politicians must roar and bluster and blame. And we must cower and hide and tremble. The mighty United States, brought trembling to it's knees by what is, compared to our power, a mere firecracker. Iran must be loving this.

Personally, I'm a lot more terrified of missing a payment on a credit card or watching the Bears lose to Arizona. My fears, while more mundane, are eminently more likely to cause me grief then are the nuclear weapon of Kim Jong Il.

Mark Foley: Tackling the Issues.

Forget North Korean nuclear tests. Forget the Iraq war debate. Never mind Anna Nicole's sons' suspicious death.

We have a perverted congressperson.

Lay aside, dear readers, your worries about the border, Social Security, terrorism, religious fundamentalism and T.O.'s attempted suicide. Concern yourself not with the mundane worries of the work-a-day world.

There's a (cyber) sex scandal in the Halls of Power. The Earth quakes with the weight of it. Indecency! Perversion! Stop the presses! There's a filthy, sick politician afoot! Oh, the Humanity!

Something about the blogosphere just fails to lend itself to biting sarcasm being dropped into an endless pit of cold, dark cynicism. What a wonderful story to feed the Entertainment Tonight-blotted minds of the sheep. What a lovely fairy tale to tell the kiddies (particularly if both you and they want to have nightmares.) Why fear terrorists, when our own children can be propostioned in the very heart of our own government? Keep the kids in the basement until they're 35, Security Moms... they are safe with no one anymore.

The only people who are safe in 2006 are... why, politicians, of course. They are safe from having to answer for their failures and safe from having to define their positions (other then the position that they are very, very anti-pedophile, and who can disagree with that?) They are safe, once again, from having to educate the public in any meaningful way and safe from having to be educated about that which they speak. And the media is safe, too. Safe from having to editorialize about oil futures and market pressures. Safe from having to investigate mundane issues like the cost of government subsidized healthcare and the cost of government subsidized retirement. Safe from having to explain the subtle intricacies of International and Constitutional law.

And thank God, too. That shit soooooooo puts me to sleep!

Random thoughts

Statistics without context are worthless.

Furious Squirrells would be an excellent name for a rock band. As would Attack Beavers.

Occasionally, the numbers do lie.

You are defined by what you do when it counts. The rest of the time, it's just practice.

My child will have access to more information then the human mind can handle. My only job is to make sure he has the mental nimbleness to know what is bull$hit and what isn't. Pray for me. Pray for him.

The most unsatisfying part about most conspiracy theories, generally, is their answer to the question, "Why?"

The scariest thing about computers is not what they can do, but rather, how little we know about what they can do. And the gap is widening by the minute.

God has a terrible sense of humor.

Nothing is done for one individual that is not of some benefit to the other-- the sooner you internalize this, the sooner you will truly understand what motivates people.

Well-supported opinion is too often paraded around as "empirical fact." The difference between the two is huge, but few people can tell them apart.

Cheddar cheese tastes best on french bread. A little butter is allowed.

It's OK to lose, but never OK to be beaten. Think about it.

Take a second and think about how little you know about anything. It puts the universe in perspective.

Everyone loves the expansive power of government, until someone they don't like is in charge.

Pet a dog. Even if it doesn't make you feel better, it'll be good for the dog.

To Punish a Pope

I can't honestly say I support very much that any Pope (or Imam or Rabbi or whatever) does on a day to day basis. The response of the Islamic world to some remarks that the Pope made in a scholarly lecture of reason and religion has led me to believe the the Islamic faith has lost it's minds collectively.

I thought that the whole cartoon thing was bad enough, but then I see Christians protest ugly and unfunny cartoons and art all the time-- no one wants to see their religion, their faith, made the butt of a childish joke, after all. But to respond to an historical quote made in the middle of a (very) long speech about the reconciliation of reason reason and faith, and how one cannot stand without the other, (rather then the prevailing secular attitude that neither can stand with the other,) with death threats and comparisons to Hitler-- that's just unreasonable (which was the point of the Pope's speech.)

Religion without reason is anarchy. A reasonless God cannot be a moral compass, nor can a reasonless God be followed with any faith (if you can't trust God to be reasonable, who can you trust, after all.) Islam has proven itself to be reasonless by responding to a speech about reason with unreasoning fury. Rather then accepting the debate openly and discussing the fusion of religion and reason, Muslims have chosen to do what they always do: protest, bluster, name call and threaten. This is no religion of peace; this is a religion of the bully, one that cannot stand up to the slightest blow, yet uses its size to intimidate those around it.

I may laugh at Christians who espouse the "Intelligent Design" theory and deny the very evolution that their own DNA proclaims, but they do not threaten me for it-- they try, in their own way, with reason to debate me and to try to change my mind. They cling to the veneer of science, even if they reject some of it's central findings. In the end, with neither side convincing the other, we learn a little something more about ourselves. No blood need be shed, no apologies issued.

I leave you with another quote from Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he is again quoting one of the last Roman emporers:

"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

God couldn't have said it better himself (I hope.)

Are We At War?

Seems like a simple question, but one that doesn't seem to have a ready answer. I mean, if you ask the President, he'd say, "Yes, of course we are!" but then he readily accepts the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, which clearly allows the Court and the Congress to set limits not specified in the Constitution the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. So, the president believes we are at war, but not enough to actually defend his Constitutional right and duty to prosecute a war as he sees fit. Bush see the threat, knows how to fight it, but refuses to make the case.

The loyal opposition seems to think that we are at war, but only in a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" sense of the thing-- we should throw more money at it, and make more speeches about it, but not actually, like, fight, like in a war or anything. To them, the War on Terror should be fought as was the Cold War, politically, covertly and legally when possible. The loyal opposition sees the threat, misidentifies it (willingly or unwillingly, I don't know) and thinks that if we just do it the way we did for 50 years, there will be peace... uneasy, punctuated by violence, but peace, nonetheless.

If we are at war, then everything from the TSP to the PATRIOT Act is completely legal; the editorial board of the New York Times needs to be arrested and charged with espionage at the least, treason at the worst. Politicians who decry the war publicly should be ostracized at the very least, and possibly charged with aiding and abetting in some extreme cases.

If we are not at war, then the president and most of his administration needs to be impeached and removed. The TSP must be terminated immediately. Troops must begin an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and our Afghanistan mission must be scaled back to encompass merely the capture of those responsible for 9-11-01.

Under the Constitution, only the United States Congress can declare war. The President of the United States has interpreted the Authorization for the Use of Force passed by Congress in October of 2002 as a de facto declaration of war. It would be a good thing for Congress to clarify this, one way or the other, either by disputing the claim of the President and completely de-funding the Iraq war or by clarifying the resolution and solidifying the President's position. This would require, in either case, tough leadership and hard decisions from those elected to represent the People of the United States of America.

I'm not holding my breath.

Dark, Satanic (Degree) Mills.

I have recently decided to continue (after a pause of four years) my pursuit of a higher education. To that end, I have enrolled in a local state college, which, for the sake of my grades and academic standing, shall go unnamed here. (I don't think it matters if I name it or not, as I assume that this post probably applies to state colleges across the board. I could be wrong.)

Imagine my disappointment when I came to the slow realization that state colleges do not exist to give the student an education-- rather, they exist to allow the student the chance to get a degree, the main function of which is to get a job. Hence, the most frequently asked question in any one of my classes is "Is this going to be on the test?" Sadly, the instructor never replies to the questions with a terse "Everything I say may be on the test," or a longer, less subtle "Everything I say is going to be on the test, and I will ask for exact quotes, so take really good notes and shut up!" No, the fact is that the instructor usually says "No, this is just general information," which means everyone immediately tunes the hapless instructor (I hesitate to say "professor," as I doubt any one of my instructors has a degree more advanced then a Masters and, indeed, I'm almost positive one of my instructors is younger then I am-- I kid you not, last night, one of her stories included a punchline to the effect that her best friend had "double-D" breasts) out completely or, if the answer is affirmative, the poor monkey in front of the class is bombarded by requests of "Can you repeat that?" and "How is that spelled?" and "Will this be on the review?" And yes, there will always be a review and, usually, the mid term and final exams are not comprehensive but rather are steroided versions of chapter tests.

I thank God I have never asked my mother to pay for my higher education-- I would've felt, in hindsight, that I was robbing an old lady at gunpoint. As it is, by paying for it myself, I feel as if I am robbing Peter to pay Paul. State Colleges have, for the most part, become very expensive High Schools-- there is no competition, there is no feeling of being elite or top-tier and there is absolutely NO feeling of education, other then in the sense of learning a trade, which we used to be able to do for free, with an apprenticeship. There are the same "cliques" (I suppose they are called "Crews" now, or whatever people who wear baggy pants are calling it nowadays) the same conversations (although, to be honest, we're generally talking about our kid's childhood rather than our own-- night class ages tend to skew a bit higher) and the same attitude.

I hear people exclaim heartily that colleges and universities indoctrinate people in one political direction or another, when the sad truth is that I would kill for conversation or instruction intelligent enough to be called "indoctrination"-- although I suppose it's hard to seed young impressionable minds when the only question you are asked is "Can you repeat that?" No, the true indoctrination comes from making us mindless test-taking robots; beings devoid of any thought other than "Is this going to be on the next test?" Humanoids almost completely incapable of critical thought-- we don't care if it's right or wrong, if it's on the test, we remember it, if it's not, well-- what were we talking about again? That way, when a politician starts talking about WMDs in Iraq or tax cuts for the rich, we glance up, startled and ask "Is that going to be on the test?!?!?!" Then our instructors calmly inform us that, yes, it is, but there will be a review-- right after the practical labs, and we go back to our degrees and our jobs, thankful that we won't have to remember that again...

And after all this ranting and raving, what am I going to do about it? Well, other than rant and rave, nothing, because I have a wife and a kid and a mortgage and a car payment and, according to statistics, that college degree is worth an extra 4-10,000 dollars to my personal bottom line.

No, that's not going to be on the test.

My first blog post

As usual, I'm old, slow and crotchety. Blogging is probably passe' now, and once again I have dived headfirst into obselescence.

Having said that, having a place to vent about various things will be therapeutic, at the least. I don't know what it would be at the best. Don't care. Read, enjoy (or don't)-- it's not for you anyways.