I would like somebody in the Bush White House to explain to me how we can be spending the most money for our military since WWII, and yet still be losing the war we're currently fighting. A big defense budget doesn't add up to success.
We're paying mostly to outsource things we could do more cheaply, and do better internally. We're paying mostly to run an unsuccessful war into the ground, rather than admit we screwed up. We're paying mostly to fund cold-war style projects for an international situation that has rendered them obsolete. American needs a sustainable defense, not an unsustainable war in Iraq or corporate welfare program for defense contractors.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
This Guy Makes Don Imus Look Like...
To those who think foregoing torture makes us weak...
I give you the story of how we got Zarqawi without raising a hand against one Iraqi prisoner.
Work smarter, not harder.
Work smarter, not harder.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
What I Really Think is Pathetic About The Republican Party at This Point...
Romney and McCain are hacking each other to pieces trying to make the other candidate look like they're a quitter, a yellow, white flag waving coward who wants to tell the enemy everything we're doing by giving ourselves a timetable for leaving.
Or, put another way, the Republicans are fighting to see which one of them can, with the most conviction, tell the American people they're wrong and contradict their wishes.
Or, put another way, the Republicans are fighting to see which one of them can, with the most conviction, tell the American people they're wrong and contradict their wishes.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Yeah, I thought the De-Baathification Reform was a good idea...
But I was sort of counting on them getting it right.
Spencer Ackerman's saying it got screwed up.
I know the Bush Adminstration likes to talk about milestones reached, but it helps if you're not celebrating empty victories, such as loophole-laden laws that might lead to even greater disenfranchisement.
Repeat after me: results matter.
Spencer Ackerman's saying it got screwed up.
I know the Bush Adminstration likes to talk about milestones reached, but it helps if you're not celebrating empty victories, such as loophole-laden laws that might lead to even greater disenfranchisement.
Repeat after me: results matter.
That's Why This Man Scares Me
Apparently, Bush has decided to ignore another inconvenient truth.
Fortunately, this one only has the potential to embroil the Middle East in near-perpetual warfare, not cook the planet on HI.
Do any of these people get that provoking needless conflict will make defending Israel more difficult than plain Diplomacy will? So many people out there think of war as being the Gordian knot strategy cutter of all time, but many times, it can entangle the knot even more.
The problem with the Neocons is that they nearly always underestimate the complexity of military force and its consequences. They are accustomed to being the stinging gadflies of tough foreign policy, but in practice, they've become blusterers and bluffers who who hope for the best and blunder after it. Their policies, in both Israel and America, have made us less safe rather than more, as they'd desire.
The sooner these people lose power, the better.
Fortunately, this one only has the potential to embroil the Middle East in near-perpetual warfare, not cook the planet on HI.
Do any of these people get that provoking needless conflict will make defending Israel more difficult than plain Diplomacy will? So many people out there think of war as being the Gordian knot strategy cutter of all time, but many times, it can entangle the knot even more.
The problem with the Neocons is that they nearly always underestimate the complexity of military force and its consequences. They are accustomed to being the stinging gadflies of tough foreign policy, but in practice, they've become blusterers and bluffers who who hope for the best and blunder after it. Their policies, in both Israel and America, have made us less safe rather than more, as they'd desire.
The sooner these people lose power, the better.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Fascio-Fascism
I kind of shake my head at calling Jonah Goldberg "the doughy pantsload", but I've already had the privilege of taking shots at his previous pronouncement on his fascism.
Well, I think he just robbed a bakery, because this takes the cake.
Mussolini got labelled a fascist because he supported WWI.
Just one problem: Mussolini WAS the original Fascist. He founded the party that gave the 20th century a name for totalitarian, brutal governments.
The real problem here is that some people identify fascism with any political cause that steps on their toes by preventing them from indulging whatever impulse they want, or does something they can't keep them from doing. Hence, Jonah's previous equation of Ivy-League educated school teachers with Nazi brownshirts.
At the end of the day, what Jonah can't tolerate, is somebody teaching or advocating what he disagrees with, in a way where he or others can come back in and reverse the "damage". He wants control, and fears the Left's influence on all levels.
And this is how, Ironically enough, they justify indulging in the paranoia and political acts that get them defined as fascists. Fascism, more than anything else, is defined by the impulse towards authoritarian control of society. Now, bureaucracy and government intrusion can be part of this, when not balanced by civil liberties, but what truly defines fascism is the vicious will to employ violence and other abuses of power to maintain power over the society, and the impulse to use violence to untie the Gordian knot of problems both internal and external.
Are the Republicans Fascists? No. But the party's become the closer of our two to that. The Democrats once strayed in that direction, and paid the price for it.
If we wish to stay clear of this problematic kind of politics, we must realize one thing: at the end of the day, we may have adversaries in politics, but we have very few true enemies.
Well, I think he just robbed a bakery, because this takes the cake.
Mussolini got labelled a fascist because he supported WWI.
Just one problem: Mussolini WAS the original Fascist. He founded the party that gave the 20th century a name for totalitarian, brutal governments.
The real problem here is that some people identify fascism with any political cause that steps on their toes by preventing them from indulging whatever impulse they want, or does something they can't keep them from doing. Hence, Jonah's previous equation of Ivy-League educated school teachers with Nazi brownshirts.
At the end of the day, what Jonah can't tolerate, is somebody teaching or advocating what he disagrees with, in a way where he or others can come back in and reverse the "damage". He wants control, and fears the Left's influence on all levels.
And this is how, Ironically enough, they justify indulging in the paranoia and political acts that get them defined as fascists. Fascism, more than anything else, is defined by the impulse towards authoritarian control of society. Now, bureaucracy and government intrusion can be part of this, when not balanced by civil liberties, but what truly defines fascism is the vicious will to employ violence and other abuses of power to maintain power over the society, and the impulse to use violence to untie the Gordian knot of problems both internal and external.
Are the Republicans Fascists? No. But the party's become the closer of our two to that. The Democrats once strayed in that direction, and paid the price for it.
If we wish to stay clear of this problematic kind of politics, we must realize one thing: at the end of the day, we may have adversaries in politics, but we have very few true enemies.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
While we're on the subject of charming...
Let's try the new catchphrase in the war: Iraqi Solutions. Which more or less amounts to saying, we're not going to force policy changes on unwilling Iraqis, we're just going to let them sort out things for themselves.
Naturally, it should beg the question: if we're going to let them sort out things for themselves, why are we keeping tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq? Oh, that's right, so they don't kill each other sorting things out. Brilliant!
But should that be our job, for the indefinite future, especially given the fact we're running low on referees- sorry, peacekeepers- to send over there?
If they're going to sort things out themselves, eventually it's going to come down to them sorting it out between themselves, and that's either going to happen with us in the middle and in the way, or with our presence minimal. I don't think we should suffer from the illusions that this is going to be pretty whatever course we pick. We should also, though, not suffer from the illusion that staying in Iraq will do anything but continue to aggravate the problem, and get Americans killed for the sake of procrastinating, ass-covering politicians.
You know, those likeable fellows. How many Americans have to die so that Congress and the President can save face and avoid political risks?
Naturally, it should beg the question: if we're going to let them sort out things for themselves, why are we keeping tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq? Oh, that's right, so they don't kill each other sorting things out. Brilliant!
But should that be our job, for the indefinite future, especially given the fact we're running low on referees- sorry, peacekeepers- to send over there?
If they're going to sort things out themselves, eventually it's going to come down to them sorting it out between themselves, and that's either going to happen with us in the middle and in the way, or with our presence minimal. I don't think we should suffer from the illusions that this is going to be pretty whatever course we pick. We should also, though, not suffer from the illusion that staying in Iraq will do anything but continue to aggravate the problem, and get Americans killed for the sake of procrastinating, ass-covering politicians.
You know, those likeable fellows. How many Americans have to die so that Congress and the President can save face and avoid political risks?
Are they naturally charming, or do they have to work at it?
In Blackwater's distinguished career, this has to rate as one of their more beautiful foul-ups, probably highly appreciated by our men and women in uniform: dropping tear gas on our own troops, not to mention a bunch of Iraqis, at an intersection in Baghdad.
The blog this links to notes that both the Helicopter in the air and the vehicle on the ground released this stuff, so it begs the question, not only why this was released, but why they had it to release in the first place.
Update: For those considering the innocent mistake defense for Blackwater, This Wired Blog entry on the matter should put that bad idea to rest. Repeat after me: Smoke grenades are yellow on green, CS grenades are red on grey. Unless Blackwater is employing visually impaired people just for the purpose of confusing these two different kinds of grenades, they ought to know the difference, and they ought to have people with the sense not to inflict tear gas on friendly forces.
Here endeth the lesson.
The blog this links to notes that both the Helicopter in the air and the vehicle on the ground released this stuff, so it begs the question, not only why this was released, but why they had it to release in the first place.
Update: For those considering the innocent mistake defense for Blackwater, This Wired Blog entry on the matter should put that bad idea to rest. Repeat after me: Smoke grenades are yellow on green, CS grenades are red on grey. Unless Blackwater is employing visually impaired people just for the purpose of confusing these two different kinds of grenades, they ought to know the difference, and they ought to have people with the sense not to inflict tear gas on friendly forces.
Here endeth the lesson.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
A Word of Advice from a Media Student to Bill O'Reilly
"We're sorry we had to have that little confrontation," O'Reilly added, "but no one on this earth is going to block a shot on The O'Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen."
Bill , mugging your future interview subject's employee will hardly endear you to him, nor will claiming that assault and battery, criminal behavior, is justified in the name of getting your shot. When I was videotaping a presentation, and the people got in the way, I raised the camera up, or planned the shot from a vantage point that I knew would be clear.
There is absolute no excuse for shoving somebody to get a shot.
Oh, another suggestion: if somebody blocks a shot, make lemons into lemonade. It makes it more cinematic to stage in depth, and as long as you frame it right, you can shoot over somebody's shoulder, and have them be in the foreground without getting distracting.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Biting Them in The Blindcheeks
Why does it seem that every time the Bush Administration's attempted to defend its aberrant policies, it ends up violating national security?
But I guess this is all okay, since it's patriotic administration officials doing this, and not dirty hippy commies with far left leanings (The main sign of which is opposition to the Bush administration, rather than any demonstrated political bias in that direction.)
But I guess this is all okay, since it's patriotic administration officials doing this, and not dirty hippy commies with far left leanings (The main sign of which is opposition to the Bush administration, rather than any demonstrated political bias in that direction.)
You know you've really screwed up...
...When you've got the Terminator as an enemy.
I mean, how good can your environmental plan be if it's being opposed by a machine from a future where everything's been nuked anyways?
I mean, how good can your environmental plan be if it's being opposed by a machine from a future where everything's been nuked anyways?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Well, that just takes the... Fruitcake. Ugh.
I don't know what staffer advised Rudy Giuliani to do this ridiculous ad, but whatever he's paying him, he should double it, and make him his campaign manager.
Why?
Because the crashing and burning of Rudy Giuliani Campaign has yet to have entertained me, or a million other Democrats and Independents quite enough yet. If you're going to go out, go out with style!
Why?
Because the crashing and burning of Rudy Giuliani Campaign has yet to have entertained me, or a million other Democrats and Independents quite enough yet. If you're going to go out, go out with style!
What? It’ll be a really nice fruit cake with a big red bow on it!
-Rudolph Giuliani, perhaps to be inducted into the hall of fame of
campaign destroying quotes, right alongside "Yeargh!".
Monday, December 17, 2007
Lindsey Graham? Collect call from the Memory Hole.
Yes, I'll hold.
Oh, yes. He said that you said that if there wasn't progress on provincial elections, reversing De-Baathification, and spreading the wealth on oil revenues, then it was very likely Iraq would become a failed state.
Yes, you said that. He said you even asked a rhetorical question about whether it would be worth keeping soldiers there if such progress weren't made.
Hello?
Hello?
Hello?
Darn it.
Oh, yes. He said that you said that if there wasn't progress on provincial elections, reversing De-Baathification, and spreading the wealth on oil revenues, then it was very likely Iraq would become a failed state.
Yes, you said that. He said you even asked a rhetorical question about whether it would be worth keeping soldiers there if such progress weren't made.
Hello?
Hello?
Hello?
Darn it.
Another Brick in The Wall, or Up Against the Wall?
One has to wonder whether Jonah Goldberg had a very happy elementary school experience.
We don't need no education...
We don't need no thought control...
Teacher, leave those kids alone!
(apologies to Pink Floyd)
Cradle to grave indoctrination from the right, that's the only way!
We don't need no education...
We don't need no thought control...
Teacher, leave those kids alone!
(apologies to Pink Floyd)
Cradle to grave indoctrination from the right, that's the only way!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
What does a Broken Army Mean?
Push soldier far enough, put them in bad enough positions, and things like this happen.
I think many hawks nowadays have a poor appreciation for the human needs of war, and it's a good way to lose more wars. You can't simply grind your army into the dust and not have the above or worse happen.
I think many hawks nowadays have a poor appreciation for the human needs of war, and it's a good way to lose more wars. You can't simply grind your army into the dust and not have the above or worse happen.
I Just Somehow Knew...
When CNN's Political Ticker posted this article with the headline "Ticker: Dem V.P. nominee backs GOP hopeful", I had a very strong, sneaking suspicion who it was before I clicked through. What do you know? I was right!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Tortured Good Intentions
Kevin Drum posted this on the Washington Monthly site, and I'd like to register my response to the logic contained therein.
The logic is, we're doing this to save people. Funny thing is, they're doing it for that reason, too. Save people from us, from the pre-Islamic state of ignorance, from themselves, more or less. They're saving the world, for crying out loud!
At least, that is, in their own minds.
They are rightly considered cruel, violent, and extremist for their behavior. Which is the situation we are in to a lesser extent, when we think up wonderful ways to justify what is just basically torture. It's cruelty, and what's more, it doesn't work like it's supposed to.
Supposedly, it's a magic way to get perfect information just by threatening or hurting a bad guys. That, unfortunately, is something out of the movies. We're not hard drives, to be broken into by torturing hackers. When you break a person's will, you have no idea whether they believe that telling the truth fulfills what you desire of them. If you're rather insistent on a point, they might begin to see the merits of agreeing with you, whether or not they know it to be true. If they've kept their wits about them, they can feed you whatever BS they can.
It's not that torture can never reveal good information. It's just that being the interrogator, the person who wants to know, you yourself will probably be the last person to know where the truth is or is not within a tortured person's confessions.
The glorious vision of instant actionable intelligence is an illusion. If you don't know where the truth begins or ends, you will end up having to do follow up, or perhaps possibly missing the opportunity to take action elsewhere. If you will have to follow up anyways, and your instant intelligence turns out to be BS more than anything else, then you could end up no closer to the truth than somebody who stuck to normal interrogation methods and took their time looking up leads in the first place.
But instead of being better off then them, you're worse off. You lose reputation, you lose campaigns for hearts and mind. You make it easier for people who really do dislike us to become more hateful. You make it more difficult for America to take the moral high ground and fight against these kinds of injustices.
The more we become like the terrorists, the more paralyzed we become in opposing their evils.
The logic is, we're doing this to save people. Funny thing is, they're doing it for that reason, too. Save people from us, from the pre-Islamic state of ignorance, from themselves, more or less. They're saving the world, for crying out loud!
At least, that is, in their own minds.
They are rightly considered cruel, violent, and extremist for their behavior. Which is the situation we are in to a lesser extent, when we think up wonderful ways to justify what is just basically torture. It's cruelty, and what's more, it doesn't work like it's supposed to.
Supposedly, it's a magic way to get perfect information just by threatening or hurting a bad guys. That, unfortunately, is something out of the movies. We're not hard drives, to be broken into by torturing hackers. When you break a person's will, you have no idea whether they believe that telling the truth fulfills what you desire of them. If you're rather insistent on a point, they might begin to see the merits of agreeing with you, whether or not they know it to be true. If they've kept their wits about them, they can feed you whatever BS they can.
It's not that torture can never reveal good information. It's just that being the interrogator, the person who wants to know, you yourself will probably be the last person to know where the truth is or is not within a tortured person's confessions.
The glorious vision of instant actionable intelligence is an illusion. If you don't know where the truth begins or ends, you will end up having to do follow up, or perhaps possibly missing the opportunity to take action elsewhere. If you will have to follow up anyways, and your instant intelligence turns out to be BS more than anything else, then you could end up no closer to the truth than somebody who stuck to normal interrogation methods and took their time looking up leads in the first place.
But instead of being better off then them, you're worse off. You lose reputation, you lose campaigns for hearts and mind. You make it easier for people who really do dislike us to become more hateful. You make it more difficult for America to take the moral high ground and fight against these kinds of injustices.
The more we become like the terrorists, the more paralyzed we become in opposing their evils.
A Little Thing Called Cooperation...
To be very blunt here, I don't think I've ever heard of Congress or the Judiciary being asked to back off in a situation like this. Strikes me as particularly arrogant of them. Things have a bad habit of disappearing around these people when they're allowed time to set their affairs in order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)