What an amazing man...

...is Paul Wolfowitz! Amazing in that the taxpayers of America are still paying his salary! That is, however, a paltry sum compared to the billions of dollars his Iraq venture is costing us.
Now, having completed his demonstration project in the use of naked force in Iraq(They'll Welcome us! They'll Cheer Us! They'll Throw Flowers At Us!), Wolfowitz is resurrecting another idea from the days of empire: hire bandits as mercenaries. Now, this has worked pretty well over the millenia. A lot of empires have had a lot of success in getting bands of armed men to do their dirty work for them. Of course, it has often wound up being a bad thing. As in Rome, where the Vandals eventually decided to go for the Goose instead of settling for the Golden Egg. They sacked Rome, when they'd been hired to protect it.
We, too, have on occasion tried to use 'militias' to help us out. We don't seem to have the knack, however, like the English and the French and the Germans and Spanish(to a lesser degree) had a few centuries ago. Our experience hiring the Khmer Rouge to clean up after us after we had bombed Cambodia into chaos is one example. Heck, we hired the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union! That little foray has wound up costing us a bundle of money, a lot of lives, and the heartbreak of September 11. Then there is Chalabi and Associates. They told us they could run Iraq for us, if we paid them enough. Somehow, that didn't work out either.
No, given our track record at hiring surrogates to do our fighting for us, I think we should tell Mr. Wolfowitz "Thanks, but no thanks."

Wht the @#$% is going on?

So, according to the latest news in the War on Terrorism, so called, "United States authorities" refuse to allow German courts to question prisoners held in U.S. prisons, because it might lead to "critical secret information being divulged." It is not even allowed to confirm-or-deny if a particular individual is even a prisoner. So much for Habeas Corpus.
On the other hand, the name of the man (Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, to wit) who was cooperating with the CIA by collecting information directly from al Quaeda (a terrorist organization, I believe) was given to the New York Times by the National Security Adviser of the United States!
Incredible!
Could the identity of this man, a (now former) focal point of al Quaeda intelligence, be a less valuable resource than people who have been in jail for the last two years?
One of the most frequently cited rules the U.S. government has for deciding what information shall be classified is: "No information shall be classified simply for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment on the part of the government, or of any individual."
If I were a member of this government, at this point in time I'd probably be frantic to prevent people from learning how badly I'd screwed up the entire episode of
Captured Enemy Combatants - a neologism that eerily reminds one of the fabulous Captured Enemy Documents of the Vietnam war.
A more maladroit war on terrorism would be difficult to imagine.

This time, I believe the President

President Bush's latest malapropism puts me in mind of a story in the Golden Ass of Apuleius, where there's a relevant conversation between two travellers.
Traveller 1: "In olden times, when new rulers came to power, they were required to swear an oath to do all in their power to harm the people, but they don't do it anymore."
T2: "You mean they don't do all they can to hurt the people anymore?"
T1: "Oh, no, they still do that; they just don't swear that oath anymore."
I guess our president is regressing to olden times.

How Productivity Software Saved the Day

I have spent the last several days in a kind of limbo. Or, if you prefer, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Its a sort of penance for having done something the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn't like. Anyway, I've been walking a lot, rubbernecking, dodging motos and beggars (I notice that the Geckoes are active in the daytime too, here). I've also been watching a lot of teevee in the heat of the day. I just saw Shakespeare in Love earlier today. It really is a good movie, I am happy to report. The thing that got me to thinking though was the last scene, where Shakespeare is beginning to pen Twelfth Night.
Now, I have several computers, not counting the one I am currently typing on. This one is in an internet cafe next door to my hotel. Costs r2000/hour (50 cents). My primary computer, despite being a well-aged five years, is fully loaded with Productivity Software. With my computer I can Process Words; I can Spread Sheets; I can Base Data, in many wonderful ways. I can even Point with Power. Isn't the modern world amazing!
My point? Will Shakespeare wrote 55 plays, and a number of sonnets (78 is a number that comes to mind, but it's probably wrong), and the only productivity software he had was a blotter. Or perhaps they still used sand to blot the ink on the paper back at the beginning of the 17th century. I don't really know. At 55 plays, Master Will is approximately ummm, 55 plays ahead of my production. So much for Word Processors, Spell Checkers, Grammar Checkers, Plot Outliners, and all the assorted canned writing aids of today. Of course, I am no Shakespeare, you might say. You are correct. In fact, there are very few such. One is the correct count, I believe. Still, there are lots of other people in history, recent times, and today, who have created rather prodigious bodies of intellectual work. I haven't heard of any who can be said to have had their productivity improved by Productivity Software.
Of course, without such software, I wouldn't be writing this, so that's something, I guess.
The only other example of the utility of Productivity Software I can think of immediately is that when my secretary (this was in the early '80's) came into possession of a Word Processor, the monthly report she submitted from my group to the main office grew in a few months from a seven page document, on average, to a seventy page document, also on average. She stopped typing, and started cutting-pasting-inserting-overtyping. Nothing ever got taken out.
Sort of like the tax laws.
Oh: everything has been smoothed over with the Thai Ministry of etc., so I am returning to Bangkok tomorrow. All has been forgiven.

To believe in Hell, ...

I noticed a report from Reuter in the local paper the other day. It said that there was a positive correlation between a populatioon's "belief in hell" and the honesty of said population. Now, correlations of avowed beliefs and behavior are pesky things. I have noticed for instance that measures of human society have a marked tendency to find that ten percent of the population is (fill in the blank). It seems almost every possible percievable difference in people contains at least one subset of humanity that amounts to 10% of the whole. I find all this suspicious.
And I think many, perhaps most, people who claim high moral character also have some caveats. "I'm considerate and respectful of other people." - Unless I don't like them. "I always do my best at work." - Unless I'm not feeling good. "I don't lie, cheat, or steal." - Unless I'm sure no one is looking.
One might imagine that there is something about what, or how, the social scientists choose to measure things.
In this particular case, an outfit calling itself "Transparency International" determined that people who belive in hell have a lower "corruptionn rate" (?), and that this somehow corresponds to a higher GDP for the society or country in question.
My personal feeling about this is that people who have more, have more to lose, and tend not to pursue criminal activites as blatantly as those who have nothing to lose. This, I think, is why lower unemployment rates correspond so well with lower crime rates. Police Chiefs and Governors disagree, claiming that it is their bold anti-crime initiatives that make the difference, but the evidence is mostly on my side. So there!
Seems to me, it's mostly a matter of who is measuring these things. I don't know who exactly Transparency International is, but given their results, I have reason to doubt their methodology. What are they looking at to determine rate of corruption? Example: Thailand (indeed, all Southeast Asia)is sometimes thought of as a fairly corrupt society. Lots of bribery, kickbacks, and the like. Still, there are some in America who have single-handedly swindled more people out of more money than all the criminals (both blue and white collar) in Thailand put together.
Murder, rape, assault, robbery; these are common blue-collar crimes in America. Embezzlement, false tax filings, perjurious legal claims; these are common
white-collar crimes in America.
Perhaps "Transparency International" doesn't consider these practices to be corrupt. Maybe because the perpetrators "believe in hell", they get a free pass?

Totally Botched!

Due to the president's attention deficit disordered foreign policy, Afghanistan has now achieved the distinction of being in a worse state than it was when run by the Taliban. Given their (the Taliban's)ignorant, luddite (actually, pre-luddite might be appropriate), and retrograde governance, this is no mean feat. To be fair, there is a patina of increased freedom in the country. However, since the freedom often involves being killed by unrestrained terrorist or "militia" groups, it is of little value to most people. Things have become so bad that Medesins San Frontieres, which has managed to remain active in Afghanistan throughout the war with the Soviet Union and the reign of the Taliban, has been forced to leave the country; the opium trade is now so robust (remember when Rush Limbaugh praised the Taliban for their effort to end the cultivation of Poppies?) that Afghani heroin has largely priced the traditional Golden Triangle out of the heroin business. Fortunately for the people of that regionn, it has been easy to switch to factory production of methamphetamines, which are enjoying a boom in sales in South East Asia...
To return to the original topic, President Bush, feeling he wasn't getting enough column inches in the major newspapers, decided he was "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan, and turned his attention to Iraq. Actually, I suppose, he always intended Iraq as his major objective. Having little-to-no ability to see consequences, he overthrew the government of Iraq, which proved not so very hard to do, militarily inconsequential as they were, and then decided that Iraq, too, was a "Mission Accomplished". I truly believe that to this day he doesn't understand that simply ousting Saddam Hussein doesn't fix anything. Post-Saddam, there is an entire country (yes, we know; The Size of California), filled with Real People, that requires resources, governance, the full panoply of societal infrastructure that the president ignorantly believes occurs by default. His neo-cons, being more evolved, believed (I think) that with the Iraqis throwing flowers, and with Halliburton pumping oil, everything would work out. Infrastructure to the laissez-faire capitalist means banking, and nothing else.
So now, with Afghanistan in stasis, and Iraq approaching that state, what do we do next?
The choice is clear: New Tax Cuts, or New President.

It's Convention Time!

The Dem's convention is going on this week. Naturally, commentators are commentating like crazy. For years now, one of the favorite themes of commentators of a certain type is the motivational psychology of William Jefferson Clinton. It has become an article of faith with them that he is unable to utter any statement, no matter how simple, without parsing and reparsing it, calculating several levels of interpretation, and examining his utterance for potential personal image enhancement. They deconstuct his every sentence and claim to see only ego, never substance. For people like these, the appearance of his book atop the best seller list must be causing a severe acid reflux reflex.
In the last week or so I've seen a lot of "analyses" of the effect on the assembled Democratic Party's mental health of the convention speech of the ex-president. Apparently, he must be articulate, but not too articulate. And interesting, but not too interesting. And, of course, there is the appearance of candidate-in-waiting Hilary Rodham Clinton. She also must be energizing and riveting, but not too much so. Her book, sitting next to husband Bill's at number two, must also be galling to the commentators of the right. I'm delighted, even though I can't afford either book. I confess to doing a lot of shopping at the remainder tables of bookstores, where I do not have the opportunity to buy a Clinton book, but where I can always pick up a copy of Rush Limbaugh, should I so desire. The relative salability of these books gives me great hope that the size of the army of enraged radio talk show caller-inners, and their influence, is a lot smaller than one is inclined to believe from their loudness. Perhaps, like my tendency to write numerous letters-to-editors, the callers are not as much numerous as persistent. A few hundred determined malcontents endlessly calling into talk shows can create a large impression. Just as a few letter-writers (such as myself) can. This is a good thing, even if I find those particular malcontents irritating (which I admit is the case only because they do not agree with me).

I guess I was wrong...

Okay, I give up. According to a report whose provenance I have misplaced, 20% (that's 1 in 5) of the people in the United States who have received spam email (that is to say, 20% of all Americans)... have made purchases via spam "opportunities". Incredible! No wonder those spammers aren't withering on the vine. I guess I was wrong when I claimed that spammers were people without redeeming qualities. If they add value to that many lives, then I think we need to reevaluate our efforts to curb them. If one in five decides as a result of those emails that there is something they need to purchase that they didn't know about before, we'd better not stifle those entrepreneurs of merchandising. Or, spammers.
I admit to being a little miffed though, when I put a block on, e.g. viagra, only to find email offering me an amazing opportunity to purchase v1agra, or perhaps vi@gra, or some like catenation of similar symbols. I don't really think that someone who receives such a solicitation is very likely to suddenly say: "OH, MY! I certainly would like to get some of that! I'm so happy they got past my filter!" But then, there is that 20%. That's about the same percentage of Americas that vote! So, therefore, I am going to stop railing against these pioneers of marketing, and be silent about their evil ways.
I still think those who click on spam should have their hard drive reformatted, though.

Encouraging terrorists

The Phillipine military has left Iraq in a body. Totally abandoned the "Coalition of the Willing". Left a major gap in the flank of the occupation troops. All fifty one soldiers. Only good thing about it, it was pretty easy from a logistical sense. Spain, Nicaragua, P.I. One is inclined to ask just how willing some of these coalition partners really were. Given that most of them have a few hundred troops at most, and those forbidden to engage in actual combat, I have a vague notion that these partners are going along with the United States desire for some window dressing in hope of gaining some present or future favors from Uncle Sam. Or, seeing how vindictive the current administration can be, perhaps these partners are simply hoping to avoid an unpleasant payback.
Now the Phillipine government is certainly coming in for a lot of criticism for their departure. The U. S. State Department (among others) says that if you do what the terrorists want, you'll only encourage more terrorist acts. I guess somebody must have been doing quite a lot in the last year or so to encourage them, since there is more terrorism going on than you can shake a stick at lately. Perhaps dropping bombs on people doesn't make friends so much as piss them off. That's what the Iraqis keep saying anyway. The Palestinians say that too. And they certainly do seem to have an unlimited supply of terrorists in their midst.
I would claim there is a connection, but the president, who claims he has more intelligence than me, says that's not so. It's all that evil going around out there that's to blame.
I'll stick to my theory.

Taking flight

It looks as though I'm going to have to take a little trip soon. That means getting on an airplane. The actual flying (in the plane) is easy. It's that getting on part that's difficult. Last time I flew, we spent a pretty considerable part of the allotted flight time sitting at the gate. With apologies, but no explanation. Eventually, several people were taken off. No, not the Muslims sitting in the middle seats; the Buddhists sitting on the right side. Following their departure, there was considerable cleaning and disinfecting of the area. Apparently we are being protected from bird flu, as well as terrorists. They had already siezed my WMD (aka nail clippers) at the gate, so I was cleared to fly.
All this is by way of leading up to the big competition at this weeks air show in London. There are lots of nifty attack planes being demoed, sure, but the real money is in the contracts gleaned by major commercial aircraft competitors Boeing and Airbus. Or, rather, they would be competitors if they didn't need each other so much. Without Airbus, Boeing wouldn't be able to justify asking for special tax treatment and government subsidies to "help us compete". Similarly, Airbus can cite the specter of Boeing to seek help from various government organizations in Europe.
The big faceoff this year is between the new Boeing 7E7 "Dreamliner" and the Airbus A380 "Superjumbo". Or perhaps it's "Gargantua".
In this one, I think I'm going with Boeing.
Considering my most recent experience, mentioned above, I'm not at all certain that a Superjumbo, which is supposed to carry 550 or more people, can actually find enough travellers who can pass muster with the security folk to get away from the gate. I'm afraid the A380 is destined to spend more time at the terminal than in the air, waiting for clearance. Meanwhile, Boeing serendipitously decided to make the Dreamliner fuel efficient, like the VW Beetle, only sleeker. Considering the cost of a barrel of oil, that might be one of the great guesses of the century. Of course, it may be that the seekers after nail clippers, etc., will find more efficient ways to root out potential terrorists, and the Gargantua will be able to take to the skies in a reasonable time.
We'll see.
Meantime, I prefer to walk, wherever it's feasible.

At the XV Annual Conference

This morning, as most mornings, I again passed by the dying AIDs victim lying in the grass by the statue at the park entrance. I can't tell if it's a man or a woman. A woman, I think, but it's hard to tell. All I can see is some sticklike limbs curled around a shapeless body. She/he lies there in a fetal position most of the day; I see her/him there sometimes when I pass by on the way home from work, too.
At the same time, across town, the XV International HIV/AIDs Conference is taking place. Its motto "Access for All" probably doesn't apply to the dying person in the park; with an admission fee of a thousand dollars, I suspect the conference is financially out of reach of this person, who I doubt has a thousand of anything. The conference attendees tend toward the clean, neat, well-fed and well cared for. People with resources. Still, the conference is bound to have some positive results. Solutions will meet problems. People will learn things. Some people will become more aware of some facts. There are of course demonstrators, who shout "hypocrisy" at the attendees, angry that the plague doesn't seem to be taken seriously enough. And, certainly, there are politicians and the famous-and-beautiful who come to events like this to get their pictures taken. Hypocritical it may be, but perhaps there is an appropriate quid pro quo here. The politician gets mention in the news, and so does the conference. And so does the disease. So,in the end, the HIV/AIDs plague gains in importance in the public consciousness.
I think though, that some will manage to avoid learning anything from this conference. They (typically the most demonstratively pious) will remain adamant that the only solution to the AIDs plague is - no sex. If you persist in being sinful, you must be punished, I guess; with pregnancy, with disease, with death perhaps. While not uniquely true only of the Catholic Church, Rome does manage to maintain a certain Pride of Place. In a recent document issued by Cardinal Trujillo, who is president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, it is claimed that the use of condoms provides a false sense of safety, and is likely to increase sexual activity, thus increasing the rate of transmission of HIV. He has included some references to tests of condoms, in which he completely misstates the conclusions reached by the testing scientists. Tests of condoms, as well as comparing HIV infection rates with condoms use, show quite clearly that their use reduces infection rates tremendously. Given the unbending animosity of the church to condoms and other pregnancy prevention devices, though, one suspects that this is a self-serving attempt to manipulate the less-than-well-informed. And a deliberate ignoring of the procreation imperative that impels sexual activity.
In the insistence on abstinence only, a teaching of not only the church in Rome, but also of the current United States administration and its fellow travellers among the more conservative protestant church leaders, we see that there are others besides me who sometimes espouse ideas that fall into the category of "Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong."

The Runningmate

Well, I see that John Kerry has finally stopped playing Hamlet, and has selected a running mate. Senator Edwards was probably his best choice, since none of the others (the Republican excepted) has a lot of national recognition. Sen. Edwards, when he was running for the presidential nomination, was usually described as "an attractive candidate". I think this was generally a slighting reference to his appearance. Much like saying that Dan Quayle was an attractive candidate. I did hear Edwards doing a lot of interviews last fall, pretty much anywhere they'd have him. I thought he did pretty well. Rather than the usual litany of "I'm the best man for the job, my opponent is lame-o, vote for me!", he actually presented thoughts and ideas regarding the economy, education, social infrastructure, and the war. It sounded as though he had done some studying. No wonder he didn't make the cut.
When push comes to shove, most voters vote their emotion, rather than their mind. We'd all like to think that we consider the issues, then make a rational decision based on reasoned self interest. Actually, we mostly just vote for the guy we'd most like to lead us on the upcoming mammoth hunt. That's why modern campaigns look more like a jousting tournament than a debate. It's all a matter of which knight has the bigger lance.
Now, George Bush has been proud to show off the size of his lance, employing it all over the world, even in such out of the way places as the 'stans. In response, John Kerry has been forced to show old Vietnam War footage that shows the size of his lance. It's not certain, but I think maybe there's a statute of limitations on old lances. Or maybe it was when Kerry disavowed his military activities when he became, well, a militant. Anyway, it looks like a close election, one in which we can expect to see, or hear, a lot of high-decibel talk about whose lance is bigger.
Personally, I'd like to hear them talking about how to make the country better, but then I guess I'm just old-fashioned. Or naive.

The Trial of the Century...

It seems there are a lot of trial-of-the-centurys these days. I can recall a few from the last century. My personal favorite would have to be the Scopes Trial. It seems to have been about a really strange law. Something you'd only fine in Tennessee, likely. Then there was the trial of the football player. A truly dreary affair that only served to aggravate the suspicion that the rich get tried, the poor go to jail.
So I saw Saddam Hussein on the teevee last night. I think he looked a little bit like George Carlin. Apologies to George if he is offended. Perhaps there's a new career in this for him. A Saddam impersonator.
Anyway, I saw Saddam on teevee last night, where an Iraqi court is getting ready to try him for an assortment of crimes. Nobody is certain what crimes to charge him with. I think being a brutal thug dictator would be an appropriate charge. But there's a problem in all this: I'm not sure if it's possible for a dictator to break his own laws. Still, I guess Iraq is going to pass some new laws. If they do this, maybe they can just pass a law making it illegal to be a former Iraqi dictator, and let it go at that. I don't know if it's still true, but it used to be in the United States, it was unconstitutional to make a law and then arrest someone for breaking the law before it was a law. It's called ex post facto, I think because lawyers like to make everything clear for the rest of us.
Well, it might turn out to have been a better idea to send Saddam to an international court, where they already have laws against being a brutal thug dictator (see Slobodan Milosevich, e.g.). There are those who don't like that idea, though, because they are afraid that the court will find Saddam guilty of invading a foreign country. If we find out that's illegal, it might reflect poorly on President Bush. Actually, there are a few United States Presidents who could have a problem with this. So, to avoid this difficulty, the United States has decided not to believe that international courts have any authority. But that an Iraqi court does.
I am really looking forward to the "open, fair trial" of Saddam Hussein, but I don't expect to see it before November.

Al Gore - attack dog of the left?

I read a few days ago where Al Gore said "democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate's long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Bush, too, has gone to war and has come back into 'the city' and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war." ' [ Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2004]. I believe this is not entirely correct. Actually, democracy became progressivley more fettered in Rome, and finally disappeared, as a result of the Roman Senate failing to take action when Julius Caesar failed to disband his army on returninig to the Roman state. The Senate had long since abrogated its duties, by submitting to first Marius', and then Sulla's dictatorial aspriations, allowing them to continue on as Consuls beyond their appointed terms. It was only a small step by then to acquiescing to Caesar.
In sum, the loss of democracy is never, I believe, due to the action of an individual tyrant, it happens because the people consent to the act of tyranny. Sadly, I see the United States Congress (and the Supreme Court, even more so) failing to say "no" at appropriate moments. One would suppose enough people would remember the Tonkin Resolution, and dthus be a little shy of granting the President carte blanche to deploy his military in any time/place he wishes to.
Of course, the appearance of a tyranny does require a tyrant. Someone who is so certain he is right that he is willing to take any action without regard to others opinions. I see that in the United States today, also.

Is there a link? The Vice President speaks.

Apparently, those who have/had "links" to al Qaeda are to be placed in the column of Those-Who-Are-Against-Us. And I have to say, I do not doubt that the government of Iraq had links to al Qaeda. After all, they all live on the same planet. As to we all, I believe. I could be wrong here; it is possible that our Vice President does not live on this planet: Speaking of the [September 11] commission, he [Vice President Dick Cheney] said, "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials. (New York Times, June 17, 2004).
The thing is, the United States government ALSO had contacts with al Qaeda. Mostly through the CIA, of course, which appears to be the branch of government most tasked with the handling of foreign affairs these days. It was the CIA that provided arms, including SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) to al Qaeda and the Taliban. To be honest, most of the aid sent to Afghanistan was provided to the Taliban rather than directly to their ally al Qaeda. The CIA even provided textbooks to Taliban madrassa schools. Intended to demonize the Soviet Union, they proved to be such effective tools of instruction they continued to be used by the Taliban to demonize all things western, including, of course, their providers. This is a truly wondrous irony, or would be if the results hadn't proved so deadly.
So, when it comes to the question of "links", I would hope the veep would be a little more circumspect in his assertions.

Strange bedfellows indeed!

"Politicians and pastors can make strange bedfellows, but there's something different about President Bush's faith-based campaign to stay in the White House." San Francisco Chronicle, June 21, 2004.
I've asked around a bit over the last few weeks, just to get an idea of what peoples reactions are to the Grand Communion Debate among some Catholic bishops in the U.S. I generally get a blank look, but that's normal when an American is asked about current events.
Now, the President claims fellow-traveller status with Pope John Paul II on the issue of abortion (that is to say, don't allow it at all, never, no way, no how). At the same time, John Kerry, who actually is a catholic, favors non-state-intervention on abortion (I personally tend to favor the uninvolvement of the state on issues of morality; after all, I mean, ask a politician what's right?).
Now, the Pope's stance on abortion is informed by his stance on killing. That is to say, "Thou shalt not kill." Pretty clear. Pretty sweeping. This, however, is clearly not the rationale for the president's opposition to abortion. In fact, there is considerable evidence to support the idea that the president is generally in favor of killing a lot of people. From the statehouse of Texas, where he appeared to relish the execution of more people than were killed in any other state, to the White House, where he steadfastly claims the right to detain, imprison, and kill people without recourse to any oversight from courts of law in America or elsewhere in the world.
So, my question is: where does George Bush derive his anti abortion stance from?
I would have to believe he was a hypocrite if I thought it was for the purpose of winning votes now, wouldn't I?

Why I could be wrong ---

Many people have asked me how I came to use the quote at the top of this blog... Actually, no one at all has asked; but I'm going to tell you anyway. A long time ago - in fact, in an earlier millenium, I did very poorly on a calculus exam. I went to my professor and asked, in particular, about one question which I thought I'd answered brilliantly. My professor quickly scanned the page in question and pointed to an operation near the bottom. He said "Here: Good idea; too bad it's wrong." From time to time since then, it has seemed to me that the same could be said of other ideas I have had. Perhaps even of ideas others have had, as well. Some of my ideas have worked out, some have not. I really have no idea if my batting average is better or worse than most. Probably about average, I expect. So far, at least, I seem to have survived everything, though there have been a few close calls. But those are topics for future posts. Enjoy!

Time to move on to more interesting topics

I have not failed to note that most of my recent posts were pretty much rehashes of the fiasco in Iraq. I was hoping to find something new and amusing in the news, and I knew it was only a matter of time.
Now, the Supreme Court (of the United States) has ridden to my rescue.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. (AP, June 14, 2004)

Yep; it sure would be imprudent if the Supreme Court actually exerted itself to resolve questions of constitutional law! Who do you think they are, anyway? What is the Court for? Why, it's there to dodge thorny questions of constitutional law. Or maybe to tell the states (read, Florida) how to interpret their own laws about things like, for instance, elections.

I actually remember when this "under God" thing was inserted into the pledge. As an elementary schooler at the time, I was required to stand and recite the pledge every day. Not reqired to, you say? Sure, I could have remained sitting, or stood in silence. I guess for those who don't believe in such a thing as peer pressure, or have forgotten the horrible sense of being different, in those early years, being the only child not saying the pledge would be easy. Even as I aquiesced, and joined in the reciting, though, I wondered to myself: "Whose God are we under?"

I guess the Court wonders about that, too...

How Paul Wolfowitz sees the world. Originally posted December 11, 2003

According to the latest report, Asstistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has issued yet another ukase regarding Iraq. As ever, he is wrong in this one, as he has been in all the others. One can only speculate as to why it is appropriate for the United States Defense Department to be issuing ANY conditions regarding who can and who cannot contract to work in the (formerly) sovereign nation of Iraq. Is Mr. Wolfowitz finally acknowledging what many Iraqis, and many from other countries, have suspected all along: that Iraq is now, in fact, a wholly-owned fief of the United States?
The real belly laugh, though, is the wonderful logic shown by the statement “Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq.” Mr. Wolfowitz proposes to expand international cooperation by LIMITING international cooperation. Clearly, Mr. Wolfowitz has learned the lessons of Newspeak as described so nicely by George Orwell. I believe Mr. Wolfowitz sees himself, however, as being Machiavellian, rather than Orwellian. He is wrong about this too.
There is also the chilling phrase “…encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq AND IN FUTURE EFFORTS.” (emphasis mine). Where are these future efforts to take place? Are these anticipated invasions of independent nations also going to be for the purpose of distributing sweetheart contracts to friendly corporations? Be forewarned, Iran, Syria, North Korea. You might be next.
As I have noted before, it remains a mystery to me why the deficit-ridden American taxpayer continues to pay this ever bellicose man to continue his destructive ways.

Sometimes I feel almost prescient. Originally posted November 18, 2002

I haven't seen any polls lately showing how great a majority of the population favors going to war. I suppose since the President has a "mandate" for war, the polls have become irrelevant. Still, it has seemed to me right along that the popularity of war has been pretty much a vote for war in the abstract. That is, a war without consequences for us, but with lots of dead "evildoers" on display on the early newscasts.
When the war actually begins, even with the tightly managed news coming out of the Pentagon, I believe its popularity will quickly subside. It certainly will when the cameras start showing the body bags being offloaded.
Last week, on Veterans Day, the president spoke at the Vietnam
Memorial. It would have been better if he had looked at the memorial. And perhaps reflected on the design for the memorial of the next war.

What about Afghanistan?

From time to time I try to imagine what would have ensued if the president had sent an additional 135 thousand troops to Afghanistan, instead of miring them down in Iraq. No way that was going to happen, of course, because Afghanistan just isn't going to get as many column inches in the news as Iraq. Also, no oil.
Still, just imagine: perhaps the government of Afghanistan would extend beyond the suburbs of Kabul; maybe the Taliban would be out of business; al Quaeda would be unable to operate in the middle east; the opium fields wouldn't be burgeoning. Maybe Osama bin Laden would have been captured! There'd be less terrorism!
At a minimum, both Afghanistan and Iraq would be much quieter, and safer places.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein (apparently the only brutal thug dictator the President really cares about) would still possess the ability to launch weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-program-activities against us within as short a time as 45 minutes!
Meantime, the president continues to imagine a "free and democratic" Iraq. Sorry Mr. Bush. Not in the cards. There are three possibilities in that sorry state: a.) Continued U.S. military occupation (not politically palatable); b.) an Iraq unified by a dictator (Saddam lite?); or c.) a number of mini-Iraq states divided by ethnic/religious differences (fighting each other for oil/power/money).
As some others have pointed out (David Brooks, even), it might be that when we say democracy, middle-eastern people see something entirely different from what we think they see.
They see things like American warplanes dropping bombs, American soldiers torturing Iraqis, American companies milking Iraq for oil. Not a pretty sight.

Don't Gaff That Shark!

Some years ago, I worked as a deckhand on a sportfishing boat out of Los Angeles. One summer morning we were fishing out at Rocky Point (South of Redondo Beach), and we had a pretty good bite going. A good mix of fish, including Calico Bass, Bonito, Barracuda, with a few Yellowtail mixed in.
Unfortunately, we also had a pair of Blue Sharks cruising off the stern.

They were eating pretty much every fish the passengers hooked. They were going for the bait, too, and cutting off the fishermen’s lines. One of the Blues was going back and forth so close off the stern, I decided to do something about it. So I grabbed the long gaff and went to the back of the boat. Terry, the skipper, shouted “Don’t stick him!”. I said “He’s just a little fish, no problem.”
Well, Blue Sharks are kind of long and skinny (like I was in those days), so their appearance can be deceptive. I gaffed that Blue just behind the dorsal fin, and pulled about six feet of shark out of the water. There was still more fish in the water than there was out of it. That Blue wrapped its skinny little tail section around the gaff, started thrashing about, and broke it off. The shark swam away, looking unhappy, with the hook in its back. Because I didn’t listen to the skipper, I wound up having to replace that gaff out of my own pocket.
I learned a lesson from that, eventually. I tried to pass that lesson on to President Bush a while ago. I tried to tell him not to stick that gaff into Iraq. He didn’t listen to me. He didn’t listen to a lot of people. Now, well, it looks to me as if Iraq has broken off the gaff, and is swimming away with the hook in its back.
Seems to me, the President owes the people a new gaff, paid for out of his own pocket. And he should take care when and where he uses it in the future.

About that "crushing debt Saddam created in Iraq". Originally posted Dec. 19, 2003.

Thomas Friedman (New York Times, Dec. 18) wonders why France now seems willing to provide some measure of "debt forgiveness" to Iraq. Others have extolled James Baker's statesmanship in getting other European countries to follow suit. I think Mr. Baker has a slam dunk here: whatever government eventually comes to be in Iraq will certainly, after as much temporizing as it can, repudiate the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein. So, why not look generous and forgive a debt you will never collect on anyway. Get some bonus points for appearing nice.
And how can the United States make a fuss over this? Ever since Saddam's regime stopped following America's orders, we have branded him an illegitimate government. How can a legitimate Iraqi government be held responsible for Saddam's debts?
So, I think we can all expect to see that advertisement in a "paper of general circulation" very soon: "Not responsible for any debts other than my own." Signed: Iraq.
[This seems to me to be more likely now than it did last December.]

I'm returning home...

I'm at the end of a very nice vacation here in America, and it's time to go back home to Thailand. It's a very nice place, if you don't mind sweating a lot. I expect I'll be pretty busy at work, but not to worry; I'll be back here to post bigger and better (i.e. more sarcastic) diatribes from time to time. It's really too easy.
For example, this morning in the news: "The war on terrorism has resulted in the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the protection of their rights... People in thosse countries did not have the kinds of protections that we're used to in the United States, and now they do." Scott McClellan (White house press secretary) (Washington Post, May 27, 2004). What is this guy saying? We humiliate, beat, and kill our citizens too? If we liberated these countries, how coume they aren't liberated? At least, it seems some of the liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq don't feel very liberated. I wonder if Mr. McClellan can pass the blush test.

What's in a poll?

I was in the library the other day, browsing through some news mags. I looked at the latest (May 24) Time/CNN poll, because it had some bad news for the president. One of the questions (the last one, I think) went something like "Given the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Graib prison, are you more/less inclined to support the war?".
Interesting question. The answers are really interesting!
Sixty one per cent. said the news and the pictures had no effect on their opinion. Thirty one per cent. said it made them less supportive of the war. Eight per cent. said it made them MORE supportive of the war.
Here's a clear example of what's wrong with polls: I really want to know what it is about a picture of pvt. Englund holding a leash attached to a cowering naked Iraqi man that makes someone say - "Yeah! Now I see what this war's all about! We should be doing a lot more of this!" That's 8% folks, almost one in twelve, who thinks this sort of thing is a good idea.
Well, this has really made me think. And try to figure out what is going on. So far, my best idea is that this shows that about one in twelve people polled have exactly no idea what they are being asked. This might explain other seemingly anomalous poll results. Another possible answer is that about one in twelve poll respondees are sado-masochists. I hope that's wrong. Perhaps one in twelve regards this all, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, as nothing more than just a few little good-natured franternity pranks. Considering the body count, and the number of prisoners sent to the hospital, I have to think that Rush must have been in a really tough fraternity!
Time/CNN: How about some followup questions to that one-in-twelve? I really would like to know what kind of people I'm walking among.

George the 43rd, or is it G. 41st?

I remember in 2000, a long time ago now, lots of people were saying that George XDIII (43) wanted to become president to redeem his fathers legacy from his errors of
1.) A tax increase, and
2.) Not occupying and destroying Iraq.
Now I read where a lot of people in the "liberal left" American press are saying that George XDIII has destroyed George XDI's legacy with his record-setting budget deficits and his maladroit mishaps in Iraq. I say different. The short reign of G. XDI seems to me, now, like a veritable Golden Age. Nothing like a son showing what might-have-been to burnish dad's curriculum vitae. Perhaps something like what Tiberius said to Caligula (well, at least what Robert Graves said he said): "I shall nurture you to Rome's breast like a serpent." So that his (G. XDI - or do I mean Tiberius'?) place in history would seem finer, by comparison if not in reality.
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone...

Protecting Marriage

There's been a lot of arguing going on lately about marriage. I really don't have much interest in marriage, myself, anymore. But it does seem to me that if somebody told me I couldn't marry, why then I'd probably think that that was a big deal.
I decided to do a little research. Only a little, because I'm a lazy guy. So, I downloaded a copy of the United States Constitution(tm), so I could do a keyword search. I searched on: "homosexual", "gay", "queen", "fag", "faggot", "lez", "lezzie", "lesbian", and a few other more derogatory terms I don't think are fit for a family blog like this one. I got 0 hits. This sort of surprised me, because so many people over the years and the decades and, yes, even over the centuries, seem to have found things in the Constitution that told them some citizens had more rights than other citizens. Well, it turns out that homosexuals, gays, queens, ..., etc., have the same constitutional rights as everybody else!
I think the president should know about this, because he took an oath (on the Holy Bible, no less!) to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I think this means his job is to defend the Constitution from people who want to put words in it to make some citizens have different rights from other citizens. As a compassionate guy, and especially as a uniter and not a divider, I expect he can do no less.

Here's one from the past. Originally posted on March 18, 2003.

The war is on. That was certain at the point where the United Nations approved resolution 1441, while at the same time our Vice President referred to the process as a sham. And we simultaneously started to prepare for the war to come.

It has been clear since then that the administration has always been willing to pay the price, no matter how many Iraqi children must die in the war. One wonders if anyone in the White House has given thought to the future consequences:
The fact is, the world now knows indisputably what it previously only suspected: they only exist at the sufferance of the United States. This will still be true after this warlike administration has been replaced by a more peaceable one. For the forseeable future, we will be forced to maintain a bellicose posture in order to defend our title of "King of the Hill". The "Operation Shock and Awe" that we applied in the Dresden firebombing, to demonstrate our power to the Soviet Union, only spurred the arms race. The sequel, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, spurred the nuclear arms race. This operation will accomplish the same. As a response to this beaing of the war drums, other countries will be scrambling (are now scrambling) to find a deterrent to our agression. Governments stricken with fear will not become our friends; they will do their best to avoid our wrath, while seeking that deterrent.

I suppose in the course of time it will become clear that this was not a single point failure caused by George W. Bush alone. It was forseeable if we had only noted how many people how often felt the need to remark on how strong and powerful and unique we were as "The Only Remaining Superpower". When that becomes the most notable observation of a nations character, supplanting earlier identification as, e.g., "The World's Leading Democracy", that super power was bound to be unleashed by somebody. It just happened that President Bush was the first one to be seduced by his apparent possession of power sufficient to control the world. He will find he is chasing a will'o'the'wisp.

Despite all the military might of the United States, President Bush still is powerless to determine the fate of nations.

"Its not us; we're not like that". (Originally posted May 5)

In all the uproar over the scenes of abuse in Abu Graib prison, I haven't heard any one make mention of that apalling young woman (Lyndie England) in the pictures. The one with the fully erect cigarette and the fully erect fingers. Pretty clearly very drunk or very stoned, or both. In any case, she is obviously very pleased at being in TOTAL CONTROL over a group of naked men. If she was this way when she joined the army, I think that's pretty alarming. If she learned this sort of behavior in the army, that's even more alarming.
There is a third possibility however. Since, as the president says, "It's not us - we're not like that", perhaps she is an evildoer disguised as an American soldier. There are many, I am sure, who would greatly prefer that to be true. I think they will be disappointed. In any case, the perpetrators of this (these) acts, whether widespread as some have claimed, or narrowspread, as some insist, have given great aid and comfort to the enemy. Gee, that's the definition of treason, isn't it!

A running-mate to be proud of! (Originally posted Apr. 17)

As the Pres-Election season heats up, along with the pennant race, I would like to commend to candidate Kerry's attention a possible running mate with absolutely impeccable credentials. A man with a long and honorable record of service to his country. A man of high moral standards, and absolute commitment to his country. A man who, moreover, with one simple sentence, demonstrated a depth of knowledge of the real world far greater than the entire present administration combined. I would like to recommend Gen. Eric ("Several hundred thousand troops...") Shinseki.

Looking forward to June 30. (Originally posted on Apr. 12)

What can President Bush be thinking? How can he allow Iraq to become a sovreign state again while they remain in possession of those hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction? Is the president playing politics with the safety of the American people? Will the next Smoking Gun be a Mushroom Cloud?
Ahh, C'mon! We all understand two things. 1, there are no WMD and 2, Iraqi sovreignty is to be a farce watched over by a hundred-and-many-thousand occupying U.S. troops and presided over by Don Rumsfeld.
Note: Secretary Powell and Administrator Bremer are now (May 15) responding to questioners by avowing that, if asked to, American troops will leave Iraq. I find this unlikely, even knowing that, if everything goes according to plan, we can always reoccupy Iraq on November 3.

How to win a war, in three easy steps. (Originally posted Apr. 10)

The administration of President Bush, or at least the Department of Defense, seems to have a myopia common to militarists - believing that achieving each objective in succession (secure a road, capture a city, kill an opposing general, etc.) will lead to the accomplisment of the ultimate goal. Now, the goal of President Bush in Iraq was, in fact, accomplished a year ago, when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. As far as the president was concerned, it was "Mission Accomplished." What as to follow was of no concern to the president. He likely remains confused to this day as to what the fuss is all about. Not sufficient, however, for the miltarists in the DOD. Their ultimate goal has always been the establishment of a unified Iraq with a government friendly to American interests (note to self: do NOT use the term puppet here). Unfortunately (for them, at any rate), this goal has never been attainable. No matter how many cities are captured, no matter how many resisters are captured or killed, no matter how many slogans are utered (what, by the way, is the flavor this month: Shock&Awe; Hearts&Minds; Peace&Freedom?), no matter how many Operation Something-or-Another-Swords are mounted, there will never be a government friendly to the United States in Baghdad. Anyone establishing such a government is not likely to survive much past the withdrawal of the U.S. occupying forces. Knowing that, it's pretty easy to guess that the 'coalition' will be asked to vacate post-haste on or about July first, by whatever group recieves the note saying "you are now the Official Sovreigns of Iraq".
Napoleon, a much better general, and better imperialist, than Don Rumsfeld, won victory after victory, even reaching his objective of capturing Moscow. Where he spent the winter. His army froze and starved to death there, completely crushing his hopes of defeating Russia. His only reward was the phrase 'Moscow Winter'. Hitler failed to learn from his fellow would-be conqueror, and suffered the same fate, failing even to get past the suburbs of Moscow (which had grown considerably in the intervening 150 years).
In January of last year, before the attack on Iraq, I was visiting in the bay area. I took the opportunity to go into San Fransisco to join a peace march. Much to my delight, I found myself for a time marching under a banner reading "Berkeley Students Against the War". I mentioned to one of the bearers that I had marched under that same banner 33 years earlier, as a Berkeley student myself at the time. I was quite pleased that my fellow students, one generation removed, remembered the lesson of Vietnam, but saddened that the President, who should have learned the first time through, failed to learn the lesson of history, thus forcing us all to relive it.
It was amusing to read comments in the news in the following days accusing me of naivete for believing I could prevent the war. Not so! I insist. Actually, I was only marching so as to establish my credentials to say, today, "I Told You So".

Close down the paper, stop the violence. (Originally posted Apr. 10)

In a marvellous piece of self-referential irony, something for which the Bush administration is becoming noted, Brig. General Kummitt on Saturday told Iraqis in a press conference that anti-occupation forces were against freedom of the press. Unlike, of course, the American Administrator Paul Bremer, who closed down a newspaper because it "advocated violence". If advocating violence is reason to censor the news, why doesn't the government shutter Fox News? In any case, Mr. Bremer's move had the anticipated result. It created violence. Which allows the occupying American forces to show their expertise in violent methods. As Secretary Powell says, "they have a handle on it." If this is a way to create a unified Iraq, it's too Machiavellian for me. Now, if we can just insult the Kurds and Turkmen, Iraq will truly become a unified country. Unified against anything resembling American influence, at any rate. But then, Bush advertises himself as a uniter-not-a-divider.
By the way, why does Brig. Gen. Kummitt get all dolled up in camos, complete with sidearm, to go to a press conference? Is he about to be called to the front to shoot some evildoers?

Coalition of the Willing? (Originally posted Mar. 15)

No need to worry about Spain's actions causing a rift in the "coalition of the willing". The rest of the foreign troops will also be departing Iraq shortly after it becomes a "sovreign nation" again. As a simple matter of saving their necks, the provisional government will have to require the troops to leave. This will be fine with the President Bush, for whom it was mission accomplished as soon as Saddam Hussein was no longer in power. It will also be a great relief to the U.S. Army, which will no longer face the logistical nightmare of trying to find troops to rotate into the combat area. It will, however, be an unhappy event for the President's cronies, whose aim from the beginning was to create a compliant state in Iraq. Nothing personal, Mr. Hussein - it's all a matter of dollars and dinars. Of course, if the President is reelected (a dismal but distinct possiblity), we can always reinvade and reoccupy Iraq. It will be but one more example of the George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine in action: Nothing matters but what I want, all else is irrelevant - The United Nations, Europe, International Law, norms of moral behavior, so forth. The next unilateral invasion will, however, spell the end of the government of Tony (George W.) Blair, and end any semblance of cooperation of other governments with the United States. Too bad the President detests the French language so heartily, else he might also claim "Apres moi, le deluge".

How sanctified is THIS marriage? (Originally posted Feb. 28)

Thanks to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who turns out to be far bolder than one would have thought, we now have a face to put with the strange phobic reaction to gay relationships. We now see clearly that the marriage of Rosie O'Donnel and wife (formerly girlfriend) endangers the marriage of George W. and Laura Bush. One is impelled to ask - HOW? How does Ms. O'Donnel's relationship impact President Bush's at all? As for the President's assertion that "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society", I am likewise motivated to comment on the quality of the President's ability to promote the welfare of HIS children, who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in trouble with the law, for underage drinking, for possession of illegal drugs, for generally acting disgracefully in public. If Mr. Bush's children are an example of well-brought-up children, well then, I think marriage should be banned for hetero- as well as homo-sexuals.

Why Iran isn't a democracy (Originally posted Feb. 22)

Someone in the American administration sure has a wonderful ear for irony! Imagine a Bush adminstration employee saying something like "... [the Iran] vote was neither free nor fair because an unelected watchdog of jurists had disqualified the candidacies of moderate candidates." Is he referring to Iran in February 2004, or America in November 2000?
In other news, Mr. Nader announces he will again offer himself as a presidential candidate because, as we all know, there is not a scintilla of difference between G. W. Bush and John Kerry. Or is it possible that some of his supporters from the last millenium now perceive that there just might be a difference between a president with an apocalyptic vision of the world and his role as liberator, and a senator who has seen the results of an earlier "preemptive" war?

Curiouser and curiouser (Originally posted Jan. 24)

Curiouser and curiouser, said I.
First Dick Cheney says the U.S. inspectors 'need more time' to find those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Strange that the United Nations wasn't considered to 'need more time'.
Now, the president's own press secretary avows that Iran needs to send its captured suspected al Quaeda terrorists to their native countries to be tried. This in spite of the fact that the United States steadfastly refuses to do the same with its alleged al Quaeda members, being held without charge, without indictment, and without legal representation, in a place of legal limbo called Guantanamo Bay.
What's going on here? Why is the United States exempt from the rules it attempts to impose on other countries? Perhaps it is because, as our president says, "I know we are incredibly good!", thus we can be trusted where others cannot.
Sure.