Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The world's worst argument for rail transportation
Having traveled around Europe, I enjoyed their trains and it would be nice to see something similar here in the US, but this argument, taken from an letter to the editor in the Seattle Times, takes the cake for a moronic argument.
Nationally, we put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into construction and support of air-travel infrastructure, while letting Amtrak die a slow death from neglect. (You can't fly a train into an office building — the money we're spending on the Iraq war could've bought us a very nice, national high-speed rail network.)
Has the writer ever heard of 3/11?
Nationally, we put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into construction and support of air-travel infrastructure, while letting Amtrak die a slow death from neglect. (You can't fly a train into an office building — the money we're spending on the Iraq war could've bought us a very nice, national high-speed rail network.)
Has the writer ever heard of 3/11?
Darth Bush?
All the Bush-Hitler comparisons were pathetic, if not unexpected given the political environment, but now they are comparing Bush to the Galactic Empire. Give me a freaking break! What is next, the John Kerry-C3PO connection? Actually that one makes sense... All I want to know is does it suck, and is Jar-Jar in it?
CANNES, France - Without Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the Cannes Film Festival this time, it was left to George Lucas and "Star Wars" to pique European ire over the state of world relations and the United States' role in it.
Lucas' themes of democracy on the skids and a ruler preaching war to preserve the peace predate "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" by almost 30 years. Yet viewers Sunday — and Lucas himself — noted similarities between the final chapter of his sci-fi saga and our own troubled times.
Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between "Revenge of the Sith" — the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering — to President Bush' s war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq.
CANNES, France - Without Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the Cannes Film Festival this time, it was left to George Lucas and "Star Wars" to pique European ire over the state of world relations and the United States' role in it.
Lucas' themes of democracy on the skids and a ruler preaching war to preserve the peace predate "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" by almost 30 years. Yet viewers Sunday — and Lucas himself — noted similarities between the final chapter of his sci-fi saga and our own troubled times.
Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between "Revenge of the Sith" — the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering — to President Bush' s war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Does he get an employee discount?
Don Luskin points out that the New York Times is going to start charging $49.95 a year to read the online edition of their paper. This reminded me of a recent section on open source that I read in The World is Flat, the new book on globalism by Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist.
From page 102
But I believe that all online newspapers should be free, and on principle I refuse to pay for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I have not read the paper copy of the New York Times regularly for two years. I read it only online.
So this of course raises the question, will he stop reading his own newspaper?
From page 102
But I believe that all online newspapers should be free, and on principle I refuse to pay for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I have not read the paper copy of the New York Times regularly for two years. I read it only online.
So this of course raises the question, will he stop reading his own newspaper?
Yet another new standard in journalism
First Dan Rather brought us "fake but accurate", now we have a new standard in the continuing evolution of journalistic practices, via Michelle Malkin's site.
"We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."
-- Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker
"We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."
-- Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker
More News from the Uz
Violence and bloodshed continue in Uzbekistan. There is nobody to cheer for here, a repressive dictatorship on one side and terrorist affiliated fundamentalists on the other side. The US needs to push the country towards a more peaceful revolution. Hopefully Karimov is smart enough to realize, after Georgia, the Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, that his days are numbered otherwise.
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan (AP) — Gunfire rang out Monday in the eastern city where Uzbek security forces fired on protesters last week — a clash that reportedly left as many as 500 people dead — and reports emerged that violence in nearby towns killed hundreds more, further threatening the stability of the government in this key U.S. ally in Central Asia.
The clashes in the region bordering Kyrgyzstan were the worst since Uzbekistan gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. If the reports of more than 700 deaths since Friday hold true and if Uzbek forces were behind the killing — as most reports indicate, it would be some of the worst state-inspired bloodshed since the massacre of protesters in China's Tiananmen Square in 1989. (Video: Death toll rises in Uzbekistan)
President Islam Karimov's government has denied opening fire on demonstrators as witnesses have claimed, instead blaming Islamic extremists for the violence. The authoritarian government has restricted access for reporters in the affected areas.
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan (AP) — Gunfire rang out Monday in the eastern city where Uzbek security forces fired on protesters last week — a clash that reportedly left as many as 500 people dead — and reports emerged that violence in nearby towns killed hundreds more, further threatening the stability of the government in this key U.S. ally in Central Asia.
The clashes in the region bordering Kyrgyzstan were the worst since Uzbekistan gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. If the reports of more than 700 deaths since Friday hold true and if Uzbek forces were behind the killing — as most reports indicate, it would be some of the worst state-inspired bloodshed since the massacre of protesters in China's Tiananmen Square in 1989. (Video: Death toll rises in Uzbekistan)
President Islam Karimov's government has denied opening fire on demonstrators as witnesses have claimed, instead blaming Islamic extremists for the violence. The authoritarian government has restricted access for reporters in the affected areas.
Paul Krugman: Military Analyst
Paul Krugman should stick to what he does best, bad economics analysis. When he branches into military subjects, the economist whose military experience is limited to watching "Platoon" on HBO once, only embarasses himself. In his latest column titled "Staying what course?" Krugman is insisting that the Bush administration has not only failed to make us safer, but destroyed the capabilities of the military.
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
Let's have a quick recap of the last 4 years. Hmm, less than 2 months after 9/11, with less than 500 US troops on the ground we overthrew the Taliban. Then in March 2003, despite being numerically outnumbered, we marched 500 miles through the desert and occupied Baghdad in 3 weeks. All while suffering less casualties then a hot weekend in Paris. Yet somehow, because some terrorists still know how to make bombs we have "demonstrated the limits of American power". Do you think Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison right now laughing over the weakness of the US military?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Yeah, and anytime they chose to accept battle they lost! If "melting away" were considered a sign of military prowess we would be saluting the great victories of the French Army right now.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
While I agree that recruiting may be a long term problem if we stay in Iraq longer than expected, especially for the reserves, we are hardly powerless to respond to threats. Between the active Army and Marine Corps and their respective reserves, and the Army National Guard, we have over one million soldiers under arms. Only 140,000 are in Iraq. Not to mention the most powerful Air Force and Navy in the world, which have barely had to make an effort thus far.
While the war may be hurting recruiting, it is actually making the veteran servicemen better. It may sound cruel, but surviving war and combat teaches you your job. Most of the soldiers in the military are now veterans of at least one deployment. They know how to do their jobs under stressful conditions, and they know how to train soldiers to do their jobs and kill the enemy. We are not going to win the war with a bunch of untrained draftees, but with some hardcore veteran professional soldiers.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
Well no kidding. The whole point of it is that we are enabling the Iraqi government to take care of itself. We have no intention of staying forever. Has Krugman not noticed all those Iraqi policemen and soldiers on CNN? He criticizes the administration, and then proposes what the administration is already doing. He says we need to get beyond the cliches, well here is one cliche, can you say strawman argument?
UPDATE: My first link on Don Luskin's excellent site, although I gave him several tips in my pre-blog days. Welcome all Poor and Stupid readers, you are anything but. Also Mr. Luskin points out a great ironic comment by Krugman on scrivner.net
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
Let's have a quick recap of the last 4 years. Hmm, less than 2 months after 9/11, with less than 500 US troops on the ground we overthrew the Taliban. Then in March 2003, despite being numerically outnumbered, we marched 500 miles through the desert and occupied Baghdad in 3 weeks. All while suffering less casualties then a hot weekend in Paris. Yet somehow, because some terrorists still know how to make bombs we have "demonstrated the limits of American power". Do you think Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison right now laughing over the weakness of the US military?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Yeah, and anytime they chose to accept battle they lost! If "melting away" were considered a sign of military prowess we would be saluting the great victories of the French Army right now.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
While I agree that recruiting may be a long term problem if we stay in Iraq longer than expected, especially for the reserves, we are hardly powerless to respond to threats. Between the active Army and Marine Corps and their respective reserves, and the Army National Guard, we have over one million soldiers under arms. Only 140,000 are in Iraq. Not to mention the most powerful Air Force and Navy in the world, which have barely had to make an effort thus far.
While the war may be hurting recruiting, it is actually making the veteran servicemen better. It may sound cruel, but surviving war and combat teaches you your job. Most of the soldiers in the military are now veterans of at least one deployment. They know how to do their jobs under stressful conditions, and they know how to train soldiers to do their jobs and kill the enemy. We are not going to win the war with a bunch of untrained draftees, but with some hardcore veteran professional soldiers.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
Well no kidding. The whole point of it is that we are enabling the Iraqi government to take care of itself. We have no intention of staying forever. Has Krugman not noticed all those Iraqi policemen and soldiers on CNN? He criticizes the administration, and then proposes what the administration is already doing. He says we need to get beyond the cliches, well here is one cliche, can you say strawman argument?
UPDATE: My first link on Don Luskin's excellent site, although I gave him several tips in my pre-blog days. Welcome all Poor and Stupid readers, you are anything but. Also Mr. Luskin points out a great ironic comment by Krugman on scrivner.net
Friday, May 13, 2005
A good essay on WWII
In contrast to the incoherent blather of Pat Buchanan, we have some words of wisdom from Victor Davis Hanson. It is well worth a read.
Revisionism holds a strange attraction for the winners of World War II. American textbooks discuss World War II as if a Patton, Le May, or Nimitz did not exist, as if the war was essentially the Japanese internment and Hiroshima. That blinkered and politically correct focus explains why so many Americans under 30 are simply ignorant about the nature and course of World War II itself. Similarly, the British have monthly debates on the immorality of their bombing Hamburg and Dresden.
In dire contrast, even the post-Soviet Russian government will not speak of the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pact, the absorption of the Baltic states, the murder of millions of German citizens in April through June 1945 in Eastern Europe, and the mass execution of Polish officers. If we were to listen to the Chinese, World War II was about the gallant work of Mao’s partisans, who in fact used the war to gain power, and then went on to kill 50 million of their own citizens — about the same number lost in all of World War II. Japan likewise has never come to terms with the millions of Asian civilians its armies butchered or its systematic brutality waged against American POWs.
The truth is that the supposedly biased West discusses the contribution of others far more than our former enemies — or Russian and Chinese allies — credit the British or Americans.
Revisionism holds a strange attraction for the winners of World War II. American textbooks discuss World War II as if a Patton, Le May, or Nimitz did not exist, as if the war was essentially the Japanese internment and Hiroshima. That blinkered and politically correct focus explains why so many Americans under 30 are simply ignorant about the nature and course of World War II itself. Similarly, the British have monthly debates on the immorality of their bombing Hamburg and Dresden.
In dire contrast, even the post-Soviet Russian government will not speak of the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pact, the absorption of the Baltic states, the murder of millions of German citizens in April through June 1945 in Eastern Europe, and the mass execution of Polish officers. If we were to listen to the Chinese, World War II was about the gallant work of Mao’s partisans, who in fact used the war to gain power, and then went on to kill 50 million of their own citizens — about the same number lost in all of World War II. Japan likewise has never come to terms with the millions of Asian civilians its armies butchered or its systematic brutality waged against American POWs.
The truth is that the supposedly biased West discusses the contribution of others far more than our former enemies — or Russian and Chinese allies — credit the British or Americans.
Violence in Uzbekistan
There are reports out of protests, prison breaks and even deaths in the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan. Instapundit has a good roleup too.
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan — Outrage over the terror trial of 23 Muslims exploded into broader unrest in eastern Uzbekistan on Friday when armed protesters stormed a jail to free defendants, clashing with police in violence that brought thousands of protesters into the streets. At least nine people were killed and dozens wounded, witnesses and officials said.
One protester, who put the death toll as high as 20, said 30 soldiers were being held hostage because they were shooting at demonstrators. Two of the dead were children, Sharif Shakirov, a brother of one of the defendants told The Associated Press.
President Islam Karimov and other top officials rushed to the eastern city of Andijan, where the government insisted it remained in control despite the chaos, though it blocked foreign news reports for its domestic audience.
For those of you who have not been to Uzbekistan, which is probably just about everyone, it is a very remote (it holds the distinction of being one of only two doubly landlocked countries in the world in case you ever get that question on Jeopardy) and poor country. It is also a virtual police state. My job when I was in Tashkent was basically to haggle with traffic cops to get out of tickets. They apparently can't afford cars, so they stand on just about every street corner waving down passing motorists.
I found their characterization of rushing "to the eastern city of Andijan" a bit odd, since Andijan is in the Fergana Valley, the only real agriculturally rich and densely populated area of Uzbekistan, and only about 50 miles east of the capital anyway.
The big question of course is whether this "uprising" is a more popular rebellion like in Kyrgyzstan and the Ukraine, or more Islamic fundamentalist tinged (cue memories of Tehran 1979). Just to give you an idea of what the country is like, in Bosnia for example, they play the Islamic calls to prayer 5 times a day (mostly just to annoy the Serbs) but you never see anyone praying. In Uzbekistan, which is 90% Muslim, it is illegal to even play them. Islam Karimov (ironic name admittedly) bans just about any display of Islam, in a paranoid attempt to crush Islamic fundamentalism. The people I talked to didn't really seem to care, their biggest concern was just surviving economically, in a country where a hundred dollars a month was considered a decent salary. In the aforementioned article this guy points that out.
"We are not going to overthrow the government. We demand economic freedom," Egomov told The Associated Press.
"If the army is going to storm, if they're going to shoot, we are ready to die instead of living as we are living now. The Uzbek people have been reduced to living like dirt," Egomov said.
This is not to say that Islamic fundamentalism plays no role, religion is a common way of venting frustrations for more temporal concerns. The US has helped a bit, giving $500 million plus to Karimov in return for renting an old Soviet Airbase for the Afghan war. Of course how much of that ended up in Swiss bank accounts is a good question.
More on all this later if I get a chance.
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan — Outrage over the terror trial of 23 Muslims exploded into broader unrest in eastern Uzbekistan on Friday when armed protesters stormed a jail to free defendants, clashing with police in violence that brought thousands of protesters into the streets. At least nine people were killed and dozens wounded, witnesses and officials said.
One protester, who put the death toll as high as 20, said 30 soldiers were being held hostage because they were shooting at demonstrators. Two of the dead were children, Sharif Shakirov, a brother of one of the defendants told The Associated Press.
President Islam Karimov and other top officials rushed to the eastern city of Andijan, where the government insisted it remained in control despite the chaos, though it blocked foreign news reports for its domestic audience.
For those of you who have not been to Uzbekistan, which is probably just about everyone, it is a very remote (it holds the distinction of being one of only two doubly landlocked countries in the world in case you ever get that question on Jeopardy) and poor country. It is also a virtual police state. My job when I was in Tashkent was basically to haggle with traffic cops to get out of tickets. They apparently can't afford cars, so they stand on just about every street corner waving down passing motorists.
I found their characterization of rushing "to the eastern city of Andijan" a bit odd, since Andijan is in the Fergana Valley, the only real agriculturally rich and densely populated area of Uzbekistan, and only about 50 miles east of the capital anyway.
The big question of course is whether this "uprising" is a more popular rebellion like in Kyrgyzstan and the Ukraine, or more Islamic fundamentalist tinged (cue memories of Tehran 1979). Just to give you an idea of what the country is like, in Bosnia for example, they play the Islamic calls to prayer 5 times a day (mostly just to annoy the Serbs) but you never see anyone praying. In Uzbekistan, which is 90% Muslim, it is illegal to even play them. Islam Karimov (ironic name admittedly) bans just about any display of Islam, in a paranoid attempt to crush Islamic fundamentalism. The people I talked to didn't really seem to care, their biggest concern was just surviving economically, in a country where a hundred dollars a month was considered a decent salary. In the aforementioned article this guy points that out.
"We are not going to overthrow the government. We demand economic freedom," Egomov told The Associated Press.
"If the army is going to storm, if they're going to shoot, we are ready to die instead of living as we are living now. The Uzbek people have been reduced to living like dirt," Egomov said.
This is not to say that Islamic fundamentalism plays no role, religion is a common way of venting frustrations for more temporal concerns. The US has helped a bit, giving $500 million plus to Karimov in return for renting an old Soviet Airbase for the Afghan war. Of course how much of that ended up in Swiss bank accounts is a good question.
More on all this later if I get a chance.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
There goes my career in the Peace Corps
In the wake of Putin's nostalgic comments and a look back at the victories of the Great Patriotic War, Russians continue to get paranoid. Of course, then again, I am sure we are spying on them.
U.S., British and other foreign nongovermental organizations are providing cover for professional spies in Russia, while Western organizations are bankrolling plans to stage peaceful revolutions in Belarus and other former Soviet republics bordering Russia, Federal Security Service director Nikolai Patrushev told the State Duma on Thursday.
Patrushev said the FSB has monitored and exposed intelligence gathering activities carried out by the U.S. Peace Corps, the British-based Merlin medical relief charity, Kuwait's Society of Social Reforms and the Saudi Red Crescent Society.
He said foreign secret services rely on NGOs to collect information and promote the interests of their countries.
"The imperfectness of the legislation and lack of efficient mechanisms for state oversight creates a fertile ground for conducting intelligence operations under the guise of charity and other activities," Patrushev said in televised remarks.
He said a bill to regulate the activities of foreign NGOs will be submitted "soon" to the Duma. He said the bill would change registration procedures for foreign NGOs, but did not elaborate.
U.S., British and other foreign nongovermental organizations are providing cover for professional spies in Russia, while Western organizations are bankrolling plans to stage peaceful revolutions in Belarus and other former Soviet republics bordering Russia, Federal Security Service director Nikolai Patrushev told the State Duma on Thursday.
Patrushev said the FSB has monitored and exposed intelligence gathering activities carried out by the U.S. Peace Corps, the British-based Merlin medical relief charity, Kuwait's Society of Social Reforms and the Saudi Red Crescent Society.
He said foreign secret services rely on NGOs to collect information and promote the interests of their countries.
"The imperfectness of the legislation and lack of efficient mechanisms for state oversight creates a fertile ground for conducting intelligence operations under the guise of charity and other activities," Patrushev said in televised remarks.
He said a bill to regulate the activities of foreign NGOs will be submitted "soon" to the Duma. He said the bill would change registration procedures for foreign NGOs, but did not elaborate.
Pat Buchanan Uber Alles
Pat Buchanan has now shown that he has taken that step beyond being an odd former conservative politician and talk show host, and transformed into a complete flipping lunatic. In a little gem of an essay titled, Was World War II worth it? Pat takes the completely legitimate fact that Eastern Europe pretty much got sold out to Stalin in the deal and makes the wild leap that this somehow invalidates the entire war.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
Herr Buchanan is of course missing the point, that although we were stuck between two unpalatable choices, these were the only choices we had. We had no choice but to throw down with Germany, we couldn't beam to some other more peaceful planet. As horrible as Stalinism was, Hitler was more of a threat, we could not just wish him away.
Another great, more indepth fisking of this story is available here at Vodkapundit, great name for a blog I must say.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
Herr Buchanan is of course missing the point, that although we were stuck between two unpalatable choices, these were the only choices we had. We had no choice but to throw down with Germany, we couldn't beam to some other more peaceful planet. As horrible as Stalinism was, Hitler was more of a threat, we could not just wish him away.
Another great, more indepth fisking of this story is available here at Vodkapundit, great name for a blog I must say.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Why we are still in Bosnia
I saw this on LGF. Since I spent most of last year in Bosna i Hercegovina, I was asked constantly by friends and family why we are still there. Well, this may have something to do with it.
The terrorists that carried out the Madrid bombings in March 2004 have been trained at special Al Qaeda based in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The news was broken Tuesday by the chief of the local police department Dragomir Andan at a special press conference.
RIA Novosti cited the top police chief as saying that all 11 terrorists left for Spain passing through Sarajevo.It was also reported that the explosives used in the terror acts were produced in Bosnia.
A total of 192 people were killed and over 1,500 others were injured in the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid.
The terrorists that carried out the Madrid bombings in March 2004 have been trained at special Al Qaeda based in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The news was broken Tuesday by the chief of the local police department Dragomir Andan at a special press conference.
RIA Novosti cited the top police chief as saying that all 11 terrorists left for Spain passing through Sarajevo.It was also reported that the explosives used in the terror acts were produced in Bosnia.
A total of 192 people were killed and over 1,500 others were injured in the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid.
Friday, May 06, 2005
This is why I don't take business advice from the New York Times
From Taranto
Business Advice From the New York Times
"Wal-Mart critics often note that corporations like Ford and G.M. led a race to the top, providing high wages and generous benefits that other companies emulated. They ask why Wal-Mart, with some $10 billion in profit on about $288 billion in revenue last year, cannot act similarly."--New York Times, May 4
"Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut its corporate credit ratings to junk status for both General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F). . . . The decision by one of the nation's most respected ratings agencies comes as the two iconic American automakers are losing market share at home to Asian automakers, seeing sales soften for their most profitable models and are facing enormous health care and post-retirement liabilities."--Associated Press, May 5
Business Advice From the New York Times
"Wal-Mart critics often note that corporations like Ford and G.M. led a race to the top, providing high wages and generous benefits that other companies emulated. They ask why Wal-Mart, with some $10 billion in profit on about $288 billion in revenue last year, cannot act similarly."--New York Times, May 4
"Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut its corporate credit ratings to junk status for both General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F). . . . The decision by one of the nation's most respected ratings agencies comes as the two iconic American automakers are losing market share at home to Asian automakers, seeing sales soften for their most profitable models and are facing enormous health care and post-retirement liabilities."--Associated Press, May 5
Why our public high schools schools are doomed
They are lucky it wasn't my mom on the phone, getting yelled at would have been the least of their worries. Happy soon to be Mother's day mom!
Kevin Francois gave up his lunch break to talk to his mother, but it ended up costing him the rest of the school year.
Francois, a junior at Spencer High School in Columbus, was suspended for disorderly conduct Wednesday after he was told to give up his cell phone at lunch while talking to his mother who is deployed in Iraq, he said.
His mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, left in January for a one-year tour and serves with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.
"This is our first time separated like this," said Francois, 17, on Thursday.
Bates came to Fort Benning with her son from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga. She enrolled him at Spencer in August. Since her deployment overseas, Francois, whose father was killed when he was 5 years old, lives with a guardian who has five children in Columbus.
The incident happened when Francois received a call from his mother at 12:30 p.m., which he said was his lunch break. Francois said he went outside the school building to get a better reception when his mother called. A teacher who saw Francois on his phone told him to get off the phone. But he didn't.
According to the Muscogee County School District Board of Education's policy, students are allowed to have cell phones in school, but cannot use them during school hours.
"They are really allowed to have those cell phones so that after band or after chorus or after the debate and practices are over they have to coordinate with the parents," said Alfred Parham, assistant principal at Spencer. "They're not supposed to use them for conversating back and forth during school because if they were allowed to do that, they could be text messaging each other for test questions."
Francois said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."
Francois said the teacher tried to take the phone, causing it to hang up.
The student said he then went with the teacher to the school's office where he surrendered his phone. His mother called again at 12:37 p.m. and left a message scolding her son about hanging up and telling him to answer the phone when she calls.
Kevin Francois gave up his lunch break to talk to his mother, but it ended up costing him the rest of the school year.
Francois, a junior at Spencer High School in Columbus, was suspended for disorderly conduct Wednesday after he was told to give up his cell phone at lunch while talking to his mother who is deployed in Iraq, he said.
His mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, left in January for a one-year tour and serves with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.
"This is our first time separated like this," said Francois, 17, on Thursday.
Bates came to Fort Benning with her son from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga. She enrolled him at Spencer in August. Since her deployment overseas, Francois, whose father was killed when he was 5 years old, lives with a guardian who has five children in Columbus.
The incident happened when Francois received a call from his mother at 12:30 p.m., which he said was his lunch break. Francois said he went outside the school building to get a better reception when his mother called. A teacher who saw Francois on his phone told him to get off the phone. But he didn't.
According to the Muscogee County School District Board of Education's policy, students are allowed to have cell phones in school, but cannot use them during school hours.
"They are really allowed to have those cell phones so that after band or after chorus or after the debate and practices are over they have to coordinate with the parents," said Alfred Parham, assistant principal at Spencer. "They're not supposed to use them for conversating back and forth during school because if they were allowed to do that, they could be text messaging each other for test questions."
Francois said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."
Francois said the teacher tried to take the phone, causing it to hang up.
The student said he then went with the teacher to the school's office where he surrendered his phone. His mother called again at 12:37 p.m. and left a message scolding her son about hanging up and telling him to answer the phone when she calls.
Col. David. H. Hackworth, 1930-2005
I had the honor of meeting COL Hackworth at Ft. Carson in 2002. I got a book signed by him and my picture taken, which unfortunately I can't find. Whether you agree with all of his views or not, his record stands, he was a true American hero, and will be missed.
Col. David. H. Hackworth, 1930-2005
Legendary U.S. Army Guerrilla Fighter, Champion of the Ordinary Soldier
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 – Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.
Col. Hackworth spent more than half a century on the country’s hottest battlefields, first as a soldier, then as a writer, war correspondent and sharp-eyed critic of the Military-Industrial Complex and ticket-punching generals he dismissed as “Perfumed Princes.”
Col. David. H. Hackworth, 1930-2005
Legendary U.S. Army Guerrilla Fighter, Champion of the Ordinary Soldier
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 – Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.
Col. Hackworth spent more than half a century on the country’s hottest battlefields, first as a soldier, then as a writer, war correspondent and sharp-eyed critic of the Military-Industrial Complex and ticket-punching generals he dismissed as “Perfumed Princes.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The only thing worth reading in the New York Times
I may not always agree with Thomas Friedman, but I always find him interesting. I am reading The World is Flat currently. This article says a lot about the importance of democracy in Iraq.
"The Iraqi election was a total shock to the militant jihadist forces in the Arab-Muslim world," Mr. Stock noted. "They warned Iraqis that 'you vote - you die,' and instead millions of Iraqis said back to them, 'We vote - we decide.' " And the thing they are deciding on is not to be pro-American, not to be pro-Western, but to try to build their own Arab society in a way that will be open to modernism and interpretations of Islam that encourage innovation, adaptation and progress.
The jihadist forces hate this notion. They see the struggle for democracy in Iraq as anathema to everything they stand for: a literalist interpretation of Islam, unsullied by modernity, adaptation, women's rights or political and religious pluralism.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born jihadist behind much of the Iraq violence, spelled it all out in his declaration last January. Democracy must be opposed, he said, because it is based "on the right to choose your religion," and that is "against the rule of God." He added: "Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor? Have you accepted oppression of the Crusader harlots?"
Zarqawi and his Saudi and Egyptian allies are trying to defeat America and its allies in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, but Zarqawi & Co. are losing - and they know it.
Having lost the argument with their own community, and unable to offer any program, the Sunni-Traditionalist-jihadists seem to have become totally unhinged, with people becoming suicide bombers at the rate of three and four a day.
The jihadists "know that if democracy comes to this part of the world, the Zarqawis and their ilk are done," Mr. Stock said. "Because the majority of people do not buy their methods or most of their message. They don't want to live like the Taliban. If democracy manages to spread in the Arab world, it will not necessarily be pro-American, but it will definitely be pro-living, not pro-suicide. It will not be a cult of death, but a culture of life." A recent cover of a popular Egyptian magazine, Rose el-Youssef, Mr. Stock noted, shows two well-known female Arab pop singers under the headline: "Stronger than Extremism."
"The Iraqi election was a total shock to the militant jihadist forces in the Arab-Muslim world," Mr. Stock noted. "They warned Iraqis that 'you vote - you die,' and instead millions of Iraqis said back to them, 'We vote - we decide.' " And the thing they are deciding on is not to be pro-American, not to be pro-Western, but to try to build their own Arab society in a way that will be open to modernism and interpretations of Islam that encourage innovation, adaptation and progress.
The jihadist forces hate this notion. They see the struggle for democracy in Iraq as anathema to everything they stand for: a literalist interpretation of Islam, unsullied by modernity, adaptation, women's rights or political and religious pluralism.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born jihadist behind much of the Iraq violence, spelled it all out in his declaration last January. Democracy must be opposed, he said, because it is based "on the right to choose your religion," and that is "against the rule of God." He added: "Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor? Have you accepted oppression of the Crusader harlots?"
Zarqawi and his Saudi and Egyptian allies are trying to defeat America and its allies in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, but Zarqawi & Co. are losing - and they know it.
Having lost the argument with their own community, and unable to offer any program, the Sunni-Traditionalist-jihadists seem to have become totally unhinged, with people becoming suicide bombers at the rate of three and four a day.
The jihadists "know that if democracy comes to this part of the world, the Zarqawis and their ilk are done," Mr. Stock said. "Because the majority of people do not buy their methods or most of their message. They don't want to live like the Taliban. If democracy manages to spread in the Arab world, it will not necessarily be pro-American, but it will definitely be pro-living, not pro-suicide. It will not be a cult of death, but a culture of life." A recent cover of a popular Egyptian magazine, Rose el-Youssef, Mr. Stock noted, shows two well-known female Arab pop singers under the headline: "Stronger than Extremism."
Western Washington Terrorist Supporters
I noticed this on LGF, and e-mailed Soundpolitics, who soon put up a post on it. This is some Democrat (a self proclaimed program director, whatever the hell that is) in Snohomish County, who writes anti-American articles for left wing websites. Initially I passed on making my comments, since this is on just about every conservative blog on the net, but I can only hold my tongue so long. If someone wants to criticize the war or the president, that is fine, but this one goes too far.
The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.
For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the "insurgency", and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.
I can't even begin to address the idiocy of someone who would argue the moral legitimacy of sacrificing his son to a bunch of head chopping car bombing terrorists.
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:
Now this utter moron is comparing Iraqi terrorist to our founding fathers? Yes, I get Al Zarqawi and Thomas Jefferson confused all the time. I just can't count all the times I have heard those rousing Al Qaeda speeches on democracy, human rights, and self determination. Apparently for this moron, the votes of 8 million Iraqis who went to the polls in January are a less important measure of the will of the Iraqi people, then car bombs being set off by a few thousand jihadists, many of whom aren't even Iraqi! I have to go now, I am going to lose it.
The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.
For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the "insurgency", and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.
I can't even begin to address the idiocy of someone who would argue the moral legitimacy of sacrificing his son to a bunch of head chopping car bombing terrorists.
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:
Now this utter moron is comparing Iraqi terrorist to our founding fathers? Yes, I get Al Zarqawi and Thomas Jefferson confused all the time. I just can't count all the times I have heard those rousing Al Qaeda speeches on democracy, human rights, and self determination. Apparently for this moron, the votes of 8 million Iraqis who went to the polls in January are a less important measure of the will of the Iraqi people, then car bombs being set off by a few thousand jihadists, many of whom aren't even Iraqi! I have to go now, I am going to lose it.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Paul Krugman's Misleading Math
In his recent columns, the formerly respected economist turned left wing Bush hater has been vociferously attacking any and all attempts to reform Social Security. In today's editorial he turns his teeth on Bush's recent proposal, at last week's press conference, to limit social security payments to the rich in order to hold down its cost and help stabilize the system. Usually liberals like sticking it to the rich, but for some reason that only applies to taking taxes from them, not giving them benefits.
The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.
But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.
In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.
Even if we assume he is telling the truth, and as Don Luskin points out, he probably isn't, this comparison is incredibly misleading. He is claiming that the rich are not "feeling any pain' from these cuts. But isn't that the whole point? Yes, millionaires will not see much of a difference if their benefits are cut, but that is the whole point of cutting it in the first place! You could eliminate Bill Gates benefits entirely and he wouldn't notice, so why are the taxpayers of America paying for his benefits? Krugman manages to argue against his own point.
Why doesn't Krugman compare the total amount of benefits the "rich" get before and after the change? That would give us a truer indication of what the changes mean to the system, not to the individual. Social security payments are capped to a certain amount, so for the rich they will always be a smaller percentage of their income, regardless of their level. The whole point of the change is not to "cause them pain" as Krugman appears to desire, but to save money in the system by giving it to people who need it the most. Gone are the days when taxes are a mere form of income to support government programs, they are now a form of punishment for those who are in the wrong social class.
The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.
But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.
In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.
Even if we assume he is telling the truth, and as Don Luskin points out, he probably isn't, this comparison is incredibly misleading. He is claiming that the rich are not "feeling any pain' from these cuts. But isn't that the whole point? Yes, millionaires will not see much of a difference if their benefits are cut, but that is the whole point of cutting it in the first place! You could eliminate Bill Gates benefits entirely and he wouldn't notice, so why are the taxpayers of America paying for his benefits? Krugman manages to argue against his own point.
Why doesn't Krugman compare the total amount of benefits the "rich" get before and after the change? That would give us a truer indication of what the changes mean to the system, not to the individual. Social security payments are capped to a certain amount, so for the rich they will always be a smaller percentage of their income, regardless of their level. The whole point of the change is not to "cause them pain" as Krugman appears to desire, but to save money in the system by giving it to people who need it the most. Gone are the days when taxes are a mere form of income to support government programs, they are now a form of punishment for those who are in the wrong social class.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
What do "environmentalists" really want with ANWR?
The Seattle Times has run a couple of "guest editorials" the last couple of days on ANWR and energy use. I found them interesting, in that they revealed more than the usual "don't disturb the caribou" bumper sticker slogans. In fact they pointed out, that the opposition to ANWR, was not so much that they were afraid we would destroy the park, a desolate area nobody goes to anyway, but that they actually want to restrict our access to oil, in order to amplify the shortage. A telling quote:
Ultimately, an energy policy that relies on billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil and gas companies and drilling wildlife sanctuaries for less oil than the U.S. consumes in a single year is worse than no plan at all. By extending our reliance on fossil fuels at the expense of sustainable, clean, innovative energy solutions, pro-drilling politicians are missing the boat.
Now let me start by saying, I am completely in favor of "alternative" and "clean" energy. If you can invent a fusion reactor or fuel cell car, more power to you. Any major company that is not investing in future technologies like this is truely "missing the boat". I am even in favor of government sponsorship of some of this research. Where the authors are "missing the boat" on this, however, is that we don't currently have the technologies to replace fossil fuels. That is why prices are going up. They just want to make the situation worse, as some sort of perverse incentive program. These technologies will be developed over time by private industry, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use what resources we do have available. These two issues are not mutually exclusive. This argument is like claiming that we shouldn't treat AIDS patients, because keeping them alive without finding a cure for AIDS, is just "extending our reliance" on the current drugs. We can do both!
The second piece, by the fact challenged Floyd McKay, makes the same false point.
Wrong, if you look at our congressional leadership. Once again, Congress is taking the wrong fork in the road to the future. The tough have backed off, and instead rewarded their friends.
Increases in gas prices remind us that we have two roads to choose between. One road — the energy industry's road — leads to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and probably in the not-distant future to drilling offshore.
Congress is taking that road, and the House added insult to injury by boosting the tax breaks the oil industry already gets, to encourage more exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Even President Bush, stalwart friend of Big Oil, gagged at that one.
The road not taken by Congress is to use concern over gas prices to do some conservation work to ease our dependence upon non-renewable resources.
There is absolutely nothing saying that we can't do both at the same time! This is not a fork in the road, these are various steps that we can take. There is more than one solution to a problem. This is analogous to the current argument that we invaded Iraq purely for WMD, not to overthrow Saddam and establish a democracy. Because everyone knows you can't have more than one reason for doing something.
Ultimately, an energy policy that relies on billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil and gas companies and drilling wildlife sanctuaries for less oil than the U.S. consumes in a single year is worse than no plan at all. By extending our reliance on fossil fuels at the expense of sustainable, clean, innovative energy solutions, pro-drilling politicians are missing the boat.
Now let me start by saying, I am completely in favor of "alternative" and "clean" energy. If you can invent a fusion reactor or fuel cell car, more power to you. Any major company that is not investing in future technologies like this is truely "missing the boat". I am even in favor of government sponsorship of some of this research. Where the authors are "missing the boat" on this, however, is that we don't currently have the technologies to replace fossil fuels. That is why prices are going up. They just want to make the situation worse, as some sort of perverse incentive program. These technologies will be developed over time by private industry, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use what resources we do have available. These two issues are not mutually exclusive. This argument is like claiming that we shouldn't treat AIDS patients, because keeping them alive without finding a cure for AIDS, is just "extending our reliance" on the current drugs. We can do both!
The second piece, by the fact challenged Floyd McKay, makes the same false point.
Wrong, if you look at our congressional leadership. Once again, Congress is taking the wrong fork in the road to the future. The tough have backed off, and instead rewarded their friends.
Increases in gas prices remind us that we have two roads to choose between. One road — the energy industry's road — leads to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and probably in the not-distant future to drilling offshore.
Congress is taking that road, and the House added insult to injury by boosting the tax breaks the oil industry already gets, to encourage more exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Even President Bush, stalwart friend of Big Oil, gagged at that one.
The road not taken by Congress is to use concern over gas prices to do some conservation work to ease our dependence upon non-renewable resources.
There is absolutely nothing saying that we can't do both at the same time! This is not a fork in the road, these are various steps that we can take. There is more than one solution to a problem. This is analogous to the current argument that we invaded Iraq purely for WMD, not to overthrow Saddam and establish a democracy. Because everyone knows you can't have more than one reason for doing something.
The Kabul Golf Club
I love this story by Steve Kelley, a sports columnist for the Seattle Times. In Bosnia some guys I worked with would occasionally try and hit balls over the fence. We always wondered whether they could set of a mine.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Standing on the weedy tee box at No. 3, I noticed movement in my periphery as I started my backswing. I stopped and looked over my shoulder at the unsettling sight of a man standing about 20 yards away with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder.
"Who's he?" I nervously asked my host, Muhammad Afzal Abdul, the manager and teacher at Kabul Golf Club in the beautiful Bandi Qargha section of Kabul, about 7 miles from the city's center.
"That's my security guard," Afzal Abdul said with a sly grin. "You don't play golf in Kabul without security."
Afzal Abdul calls it "golf with an attitude."
This course he loves like a family member looks more like a bean field after harvest. The "fairway" is furrowed and strewn with rocks and twigs. The hillsides are guarded by Afghan National Army tanks.
The ball doesn't roll in the fairway. It plugs into the dirt. According to the scorecard, "If your ball lands on the fairway, you may either play the ball as it lies, play it from a mat, or play it from a wooden tee."
The rough contains souvenirs of the Soviet occupation, such as the massive green grillwork of an exploded Russian armored personnel carrier. A weathered explosive device lies nearby.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Standing on the weedy tee box at No. 3, I noticed movement in my periphery as I started my backswing. I stopped and looked over my shoulder at the unsettling sight of a man standing about 20 yards away with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder.
"Who's he?" I nervously asked my host, Muhammad Afzal Abdul, the manager and teacher at Kabul Golf Club in the beautiful Bandi Qargha section of Kabul, about 7 miles from the city's center.
"That's my security guard," Afzal Abdul said with a sly grin. "You don't play golf in Kabul without security."
Afzal Abdul calls it "golf with an attitude."
This course he loves like a family member looks more like a bean field after harvest. The "fairway" is furrowed and strewn with rocks and twigs. The hillsides are guarded by Afghan National Army tanks.
The ball doesn't roll in the fairway. It plugs into the dirt. According to the scorecard, "If your ball lands on the fairway, you may either play the ball as it lies, play it from a mat, or play it from a wooden tee."
The rough contains souvenirs of the Soviet occupation, such as the massive green grillwork of an exploded Russian armored personnel carrier. A weathered explosive device lies nearby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)