"No, I was talking about BUSH, not you guys!"

John Kerry is once again suffering from that peculiar political Tourette Syndrome he's battled since his return from Vietnam. When it comes to speaking about our troops, he supported one thing before he opposed it; he saw war crimes - maybe; he was in Cambodia, or maybe not; and by the way, he only meant to insult the Commander in Chief, not the troops. Of course, like many a person caught cheating on their spouse or in other lies, he is now angry.

Perhaps rather than childish anger he should try bringing along an interpreter from now on so we all know what he really means.

"Let's tell them we'll talk some more....."

North Korea says they will talk again.

The Kinky Finger?

IN AN EARLIER POST I guess I implied my vote for Kinky was based more on what his own campaign calls "the finger vote" rather than any real substance.

Well, the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Kinky and I are wrong; there is more than just hat to this cowboy and anyone who claims he has no real ideas is just plain misinformed. He has ideas galore. Now like every candidate, I don't think his every idea is good, but since I do not vote or abstain over single issues, it's not a deal killer.

If I thought the only reason to vote for Kinky Friedman was just to shoot the bird at republicans and democrats, I would never do it. If I thought the only reason to vote for Kinky is because Rick Perry is a RINO whore who helped sell out Texas to developers, builders, foreign corporations and the insurance lobby or because Chris Bell and Carol Foghorn Strayhorn are less stimulating than a block of cheese, I would not do it either.

I hope Kinky in these last few days hits on the substance and rises or falls on it.

Bravo 60 Minutes

Credit where credit is due, great story on the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group, a modern Air Force MASH type unit with over 300 personnel extraordinarily dedicated to saving injured military members (American and Iraqi) in Iraq. The story also showed heroic efforts to save two Iraqi children injured by terrorist blasts; one made it, another did not.

I wonder if those who advocate an immediate or stepped up withdrawal understand that the bombings killing women and children will not stop and may likely grow worse as a nation unable to deal with its own violence sinks into chaos?

CNN, Vultures and War Dead

"... The idea that horrors are required to give zest to life and interest to art is the idea of savages, men of no experience worth mentioning, and of merely servile, limited sensibilities. Don't tolerate it." George Santayana, Letter to G. Lowes Dickinson, 26 November 1913

I had to let this whole CNN insurgent sniper video controversy percolate in my mind for a few days before writing about this. First, let me say I am an absolute, no exception freedom of the press person; that means if journalists can find the information they have a right to print/air/blog it. Period. Second, this has nothing to do with whether or not you support why we are at war. As the man said, you can't TiVo history and our troops are there.

Then there is the subject of responsibility.

On the Anderson Cooper blog CNN and its defenders raise a number of reasons why the footage, "subject to hours of intense editorial debate at the highest levels here at CNN", aired:

• We, as Americans, need to know how our military personnel are being killed in Iraq;
• We need to see "the other side" of the story;
• Americans need to be aware of what is going on in Iraq and;
• We need to know what our troops are going through over there.

First, leave it to CNN to assume we don't know how people die in wars. Just to put their minds at ease, let me assure them the majority of Americans know our solders, sailors, airmen and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan don't die from hangnails, pinkeye, shingles or bleeding gums. Further, those who do not know that are so goddamned stupid they deserve no, I mean zero consideration in the "intense debate" about how news is covered. In fact, I seriously doubt the aforementioned intellectual potted plants watch CNN or any other program that is not broadcast on the Cartoon Network.

Next, what the hell are people saying when they mention the "other side of the story?" You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a TV, newspaper or magazine announcing the number of American deaths in Iraq. Now let me digress on that a minute. I am not at all minimizing the deaths of Americans, Iraqis or anyone else, with the exception of the terrorist bastards blowing up schools and markets filled with civilians; I could care less how many of them are killed or the method. If they are targeting civilians or shooting at our troops, kill them.

Now some comparative numbers:

• Korea: - 1950, 1951 and 1952: U.S. Killed: 32,964
• Vietnam - 1967, 1968, 1969: U.S. Killed: 34,550
• Iraq - March 19, 2003 to October 23, 2006: U.S. Killed: 2,799

Total combat deaths for the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter in Korea exceeded 3, 600. Wounded in Korea were over 100,000 or an average of about 33, 300 per year. Wounded in Vietnam were over 150,000. If you assume the battle of the Ia Drang Valley as the beginning of major combat operations that comes out to about 21,500 wounded per year. Nearly as many American's died as prisoners of war in Korea as have died in Iraq so far. The survival rates for wounded in Iraq is over 90%. It is NOT discounting deaths to tell "the other side of the story" or "the unvarnished truth" about casualty rates and how they compare to past wars. It just does not fit the CNN agenda.

Yes, I said agenda. If you do not think CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets, reporters and bosses have an agenda when it comes to the war in Iraq, you have lost contact with reality or are intellectually dishonest no matter what side of the war you're on.

CNN, Anderson Cooper, et al can wrap this in terms of imparting information all they want and excuse it by seriously intoning the heated debate had before airing the video. It told us nothing we already did not know, served no legitimate news function and they are now propagandists on behalf of those killing the young men and women they feign to care so much about. I know the CNN Vultures will still sleep well tonight and that's what is most disturbing.

Books by George Santayana

Political Disagreement, Nazis and Growing Up

I have heard people I otherwise respect comparing Karl Rove to Joseph Goebbels, for example, always with a quick grin that projects that 'I'm so clever" look normally used by kids who announce they've made doodee.

These are not political or history neophytes, but intelligent, learned people. It makes me want to vomit.

My father was orphaned because his father took a Nazi bullet and it profoundly affected him until the day he died and I realize now it affected the way he interacted with me. He was seven years old when his aunt and uncle told him his father was dead - a couple of days latter he received a letter from his father, mailed before his death, and was overjoyed because he thought there must have been a mistake; Of course, there was not.

Less than a year before my father died he gave me my grandfather's Purple Heart and Army Air Force Patch from his uniform along with the citations, letters from Sec Army, FDR (no doubt signed with an auto-pen) and a picture of my grandfather, Bogan Haney, in uniform holding his M-1. They hang in my office now.

The Nazis killed millions via combat/aggression, millions more by extermination. I hear people all of the time squawking about how you should not question their love of country just because they question this war and administration. They are correct. But when they cross the line with cutesy Nazi comparisons, I think it's fair to question their love and respect for those who died in WW II defending freedom - like the father my father lost and the grandfather I never knew - and next time I will tell them exactly that.

Newt talks sense

Newt Gingrich was featured on C-Span yesterday, speaking at Johns Hopkins. This is a man who has been vilified and caricatured in ways that would drive many to despair and retreat. Instead he has stayed on the cutting edge of political and social practicality.

Whether talking about the Middle East, Iraq, global warming, calling for doubling the budget of the National Academies of Science or proposing paying high school students for achievement in math and science, it was obvious this college crowd was taken aback at the intelligent, reasoned man before them.

His answer to the one student who tried to bring up Gingrich's messy divorce
(coincidentally, the one student whose manners and unwashed appearance would lead South Park's Cartman to call him a "dirty, smelly hippie"), was compelling and honest in a way you rarely hear from current/former politicians. Watch the entire speech here.
Newt's Books

Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites uniting?

Texas hat tip to NRO.

A Cautionary Tale?

Britain, under the Labor Party since 1997, continues to gut their navy and defenses in general; in addition to reducing the number of ships in their navy by more than a third they also left their remaining ships virtually defenseless from over the horizon air attacks by retiring their harrier force without a replacement available until 2013.

No one enjoys spending the money required to maintain a strong military. We all want a world where war is not a constant. But even the most casual observer of history and humanity knows it is a world we inherited.

In our nation's history there are cycles of draw down and build-up of military forces and equipment. We need to be mindful of obligations to our own and nations around the globe and not allow our armed forces to ever become so crippled that it cannot defend itself.

Why Six Party Talks seemed doomed to failure

When President Bush laid out the logic for multilateral talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear Crisis in his Wednesday News Conference it seemed so reasonable: It's far more difficult to break your word to multiple parties than with just one. Fair enough. However, when all of the parties have, to put it mildly, competing interest and one is seen by at least two of the parties as an interloper from across the seas it gets complicated to the point of paralysis, which is kind of where we are at in the U.N. it seems. When news of the "test" broke, I posted that negotiations can be done from strength and some sort of direct talks may be the answer.

Having worked in both politics and the legal field, I understand that sometimes negotiations are as follows: "Do A and you will be rewarded in some fashion; Do B and we will bury you." Simple thinking? Perhaps. But I've seen it work in microcosm many, many times. Negotiation is not always a multifaceted dance through endless permutations of the situation at hand. Sometimes it is the gift of a choice, nothing more.

North Korea, in previous talks has demanded concessions by the United States that even such an isolated, parochial regime could not expect to attain. These included our abandoning our military commitment to South Korea and endless supplying of a dictator who starves, murders, tortures and imprisons his own people on a level matching Joe Stalin in ferocity and numbers in proportion to its population. We should not and cannot give in to these demands.

Should we be prepared to act if we know for sure the DPRK and that little fart of a dictator has nukes and they keep threatening us? You bet. Not quickly, not rashly, not with any joy, but we live in the world as it is.

Both Japan and the Clinton administration flirted with the idea of an Israeli style preemptive strike on NK in 1993-94. Former Clinton Administration officials advocated preemption this year as a reasonable course of action (Though their Tom Clancy-like scenario is a bit rosy). I'm not cheering for this outcome. I have no desire to see tens of thousands of dead on the Korean peninsula; nor in Tokyo, Sydney or Los Angeles.

More controversial speech censored at Columbia

Texas Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.

GEN. CASEY: "... If you took a 30-mile radius from the center of Baghdad and drew a circle, 90 percent of the sectarian violence that goes on in Iraq, 80 to 90 percent, would take place in that circle; a little bit outside of that in Diyala Province, and a little bit down in Basra. So the idea that the country's aflame in sectarian violence is just not right. So I don't subscribe to the civil war theory. " (Press Briefing 11 October 2006)

Seems reasonable on face - so why are we having such a hard time controlling the situation? Some possible answers in this paper by C.L. Staten, Sr. National Security Analyst-Emergency Response & Research Institute. It is a concise, highly readable paper/briefing written nine days after the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of the predictions made by Staten about the potential problems with urban warfare were chillingly on point including issues like armored personnel carriers, enemies that "don't fight fair" and collateral damage propaganda.

Moderates, Nukes and common sense

As we begin to deal with a nuclear North Korea it’s time to talk to our friends, neighbors and anyone who will listen about where we “moderate” conservatives stand on security and foreign policy.

We are not doves and seek no short cuts on the road to a secure nation and world; rather we stand horrified at the prospect of Kim Jong Il buying another Ferrari or expanding his porn collection via the sales of nuclear materials or weapons. We should also express our unqualified support for Senator McCain’s stern rebuke of leading democrats attempting to blame the current administration for a nuclear program that had its gestational period under a previous administration.

Clearly President Bush needs to provide the leadership. However, when Harry Reid, within 12 hours of the assumed nuclear test, starts flogging away on our president it takes little imagination to see why an unnamed DPRK official starts hinting at a nuclear attack on the United States. Let me repeat that, as it seems to be largely overlooked or scoffed at: North Korea has implied they are willing to attack the U.S. with a nuclear tipped missile. Whether or not the threat is credible is not the point; clearly North Korea poses no real military threat directly to our nation. But it shows a mindset where one can imagine the sale of a small yield nuclear device to someone who could do substantial damage in any American city.

We must stand behind this or any future President who tells North Korea that the United States will not tolerate any form of nuclear terror, blackmail or even continued threats. We should also support our President in his affirmation of our commitment to military and security treaties with our Asian-Pacific rim partners.

Always ahead of the curve

24 hours before most were talking about it, Celebrate Democracy reported the blast from the DPRK might have been either a dud or of a conventional nature. Our post of the USGS seismic recording of the event and link to comparative recordings of a 1998 Pakistani nuke test showed a substantial difference in pattern (Though I claim no expertise in this area).

"If we don't defeat them in Iraq....

[T]hey will come after us here."
Not a completely false premise, but you wonder what will happen if we get hit again at home while still in Iraq?

Why I should not vote for Kinky, but will

No, I don't think he is the best at thinking or speaking on his feet; I do not believe he has a clue as to the working of government and therefore he will have to hire on political insiders to help him out, or he can be like Carter and his Georgia Mafia - a bunch of amateurs who at best just spin their wheels most of the time and at worst cause real damage by gross incompetence.

On the other hand: Texas has a weak governor because of the incredible restraints imposed by our constitution. The Lt Governor has far more power.

Yet I wonder how many of my fellow Texans could name our current Lt. Gov?

But back to Kinky - sometimes it is all about sending messages. Rick Perry is knee deep in the pockets of the insurance lobby and the construction industry. Grandma Strayhorn and Chris Bell frankly just fail to inspire. I worked with Chris Bell at an ABC affiliate back in the 80's. I was a lowly photographer and he a reporter and sometimes anchor. He was a nice enough fellow and I can't think of a bad word to say about him. But he does not have "that vision thing" it seems, or does not share it well if he does.

So Texans have to answer whether they want essentially more of the same, or if they will take the road less traveled in the hope of showing all running for office they better deliver and place constituent interest first.

When Kinky says he will never be bought or sold, I believe him; I also believe he will honestly try to do what he claims he will do. Damned if he fails, if he tries.

Meanwhile...

We hearken back to Rosie O'Donnell and others saying colossally stupid things like fundamental Christians are as big a threat as Radical Islamic terrorist. One of the reasons her comments bothered me so much is that I think she does a lot of good things and was likely venting over some rather hateful things said to/about her by some Christians.

But I have news for Rosie and those who agree:




This is how Radical Islam responds in word and deed to cartoons of their prophet.

I know in the days of the 24 hour news cycle this may seem like a dated post, but we have to make sure that we let our leaders AND others who use their position as public figures to make idiot statements know we will hold them to account with our wallets and at the voting booth.

Oh good lord

Another Muslim blow up over cartoons?

Iraq perspectives

Col. Thomas Hammes, U.S. Marine Corps. (Ret.) was on C-Span this morning with some very interesting observations about Iraq:

First he feels the insurgency is being fed and the citizens being turned away from law and order and towards affiliations with the various sects/militias because they are anticipating the American pull out from Iraq.

He says the administration is using bumper sticker slogans like "stay the course" but not really doing anything to fix the problem, including direct negotiations and a real commitment to a winning strategy. Actually he says we have a strategy, but we won't commit to it. You can listen to/watch the entire interview on c-span.org and it is well worth the time.

This is a man who helped to manage Iraqi military bases. He says the members of the Iraq military are not lacking in courage or commitment, but the U.S. has done a horrible job of supplying them (Most still ride around in open bed Toyota trucks, much like the militias you see in many African nations). He also says American troops still don't have what they need supply wise or in military footing to accomplish the mission. He also advocates SecDef Rumsfeld should resign.

You may or may not agree with all he says and he lays some blame at the feet of democrats as well, but I don't think his message can be ignored.

Graphic content

Here is the USGS recording of the 4.2 magnitude event from the Inchon recording station. Here are comparative shots of the May 1998 Afghanistan earthquake and aftershocks and the Pakistan nuclear test from the same year.

Ok, Now I'll say I told you so

Well, according to the DPRK and numerous seismographs around the globe a nuclear weapon exploded somewhere near Kilju City. The speculation is that the blast was anywhere from .5 to one kiloton. Some are already saying this blast was so small that Kim Jong IL did not get the bang for the buck he obviously craves. There is even speculation (Though I'm not sure how serious) the DPRK simply set off a large conventional blast to simulate a nuke explosion. (Map from CNN.com)

On the other hand, Russia says it was a substantial blast in the 5-15 kiloton range. If I have to bet on who has the better technical expertise right now, I'll got with the United States Geological Survey (Here is their recording of the event).

President Bush this morning seemed to say "North Korea is going to force us to stop doing nothing." Great.

I read that multilateral talks are doomed to fail, direct negotiations are out; it's like trying to paper train a dog with out every being in the same room with it. James Baker On the Imus radio program last week made the point that you can talk with your enemies without doing so from weakness. I think the longer the DPRK stays isolated the more dangerous it becomes. If Kim Jong IL ends up with a dozen or so small yield nukes and his nation starts collapsing, what would he do to force the world to deal with him?

I'm not talking about the whistling past the graveyard negotiations the Clinton administration engaged in. No matter what the intent, they failed on a massive scale.

Merriam-Webster defines "fascism" as, among other things a group that engages in "[...Forcible suppression of opposition."

Over the past few years I've read a lot about speakers, mostly conservatives, being shouted down on college campuses across the nation, often instigated or aided by teachers/administrators. Last month I saw it myself at University of Texas - San Antonio when a conservative commentator came for a visit. It was sponsored by a campus group called Movement for the Future. My wife, a UTSA student went to see the presentation for extra credit in a class and invited me along.

The speaker was David Horowitz; I might have to turn in my conservative credentials after saying this, but I really did not know much about Horowitz or his group/agenda. There were hand-outs at the event from his group and his main beef seems to be he wants teachers in colleges and universities to (1) Be qualified to teach whatever subjects they teach and (2) allow free, open discourse on issues raised in the classroom and, (3) not reward or punish students for their political or social views, whatever they may be. Now this is a simplification and does not cover their entire agenda, which you can peruse at the above link.

I frankly think the student group over-paid; Horowitz seemed unprepared and engaged in rambling stories, often forgetting his place and moving on to other subjects (and this was before the disruptions started). He said more than one time he was exhausted from travel and I'll take him at his word. Perhaps he should give Forward Movement at UTSA an "exhausted speaker discount."

After about 30 minutes of un-interrupted speech a student from another organization entered the auditorium and loudly announced that what amounted to a counter presentation was about to begin for anyone who wanted to attend. Okay, rude but not exactly speech suppression. This seemed to be a cue for some in the audience to start a heckling campaign that lasted the rest of the evening.

It started with just one or two, then began to spread. I saw more than one college employee applauding/encouraging the heckling. By the time it got around to the question and answer portion of the program, the line was stacked with students/attendees who launched into personal attacks, accusations of racism (To a former far left Black Panther supporter), and shouting down any answer they did not like.

I.F. Stone in Trial of Socratestells of the "bloodiest dictator," Ctritias. Critias was part of the Regime of Thirty Tyrants who ruled Athens in 404 B.C. after Athens defeat at the hands of the Spartans. A former student of Socrates, Critias arrested and murdered any who disagreed with him and had roving gangs of thugs who went about Athens beating anyone with a thought not sanctioned by the Thirty. (a Texas hat-tip to University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)

How could a student of a man many describe as one of the most enlightened men of antiquity, a man who "set the standard for all subsequent western philosophy" turn into a bloody, ruthless tyrant? According to Stone, among others, it was likely because Socrates was an elitist, anti-democratic who tutored not one but two students who went on to be brutal dictators in his lifetime.

The point is, educated, even brilliant men can side philosophically and practically with thugs, dictators and profoundly anti-democratic systems/ideas. This applies to those on the left and right of the spectrum but for varying reasons.

I think many right of center find dictatorships not in our backyard tolerable if there is a benefit for our nation. This sort of French-realpolitik thinking had its zenith in the United States during the cold war of course, but is far from dead as a facet foreign policy in many schools of thought.

On the left you see some who engage in what seems like buoyant praise of dictators and their governments because they think they hold a moral candle to democracies/republics around the world.

Fast forward a few thousand years and children under the instruction of our nation's educated elite are being taught ideas that conflict with your own should be suppressed, rather than debated. Speech codes are the norm and students, often organized by professors/administrators use their constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble and protest to deprive others of their right to free speech.

At Columbia University this week, an African-American member of the Minutemen was peppered with racial slurs from the audience. Later, protestors rushed the stage, shouted/shut down the speech in a clearly premeditated act. Anyone who sees this video can clearly see this was one very, very small step from degenerating into assault.

Our campuses have become a breeding ground for future violence. When these young people go out into the real world, they will find themselves unable to defend their ideas because suppression of speech has replaced rhetoric at so many schools. More disturbing, they are already trained to respond with actual or quasi violence when confronted with ideas they disagree with. It does not have to be a majority of the students and teachers. History has shown us again and again what a violent, ideological minority can do.

A fair Question?

More than one person has raised the issue of how republican/conservative attitudes towards gays may have effected the Foley scandal.

If a republican gay could be as out as, say, Barney Frank would, could it have come out sooner? Were they more afraid of the emails or revelations that a popular republican was gay? I think there is a duality here more and less than meets the eye. Obviously many GOP members of the house knew he was gay and still worked with him; To their credit, many democrats had to have known, many more had heard rumors, yet that fact was never used by them for political gain. Don't think it would not have been effective.

Every day you hear about Rudy Giuliani being too liberal/moderate for the republican base. How comfortable could a gay republican be in those circumstances? How comfortable could his leadership be with the possibility of his sexual orientation becoming public knowledge?

On the other hand, it also shows a split between what many republicans say about gays in public and how they deal with them one on one. It's easy to dislike a group but not so easy to judge individuals one on one because of single issues, like what sex they choose to sleep with. Are the sticking with the old saw of "love the sinner, hate the sin?" Could be. I find it more likely they find out that a persons entire worth, political and social orientation just maybe is not tied up in one aspect of the being. As a moderate/conservative I'd like to think both are true and conservatives continue to wake up to the fact that the people marching in thongs and hosiery down main street are not the majority of gays inn this nation.

The Picture by the earlier post does not mean I am a transgendered democrat; it is a lift from some t-shirts I once sold and they will be available again soon.

Emails, Kids and talking dirty...

It seems now some are saying Mark Foley may have been tricked (my word) into sending sexually explicit emails to a former House Page. While it is relevant to the extent that it could show democratic operatives knew about this matter for a good while as well, I am more than a little uncomfortable with the possibility of this turning into an excuse for some of Foley's actions, in particular by republicans.

Hastert has given "the buck stops here" speech and that is well and good. Having had more than a glancing experience with politics and in particular the House of Representatives (I was once a district aid), I know that it is a first class gossip mill and Foley's reputation must have preceded him.

So why not say we should have done more?

I think voters would appreciate someone, anyone "cowboying up" on this and just admitting obvious clues seemed to be passed over and the type of denial you often see in the families of abusers ("I know he strange, but he'd never do THAT") was in play here.

Also, any democrats who knew about this and waited even one day to report it so as to time this for political gain are disgusting, cynical monsters.