No way.
Then again, I don't really understand the electoral process, so what the heck do I know?
Just seems to me that people are hearing a lot of things about HRC and most of them are less than flattering. This isn't new, but what is new is that now a lot of it comes from the left. Hatred of Bush united the Democratic Party for the last few years, but now there is a primary on and someone has to win. It has a bigger impact when people on the left expose Hillary's negative personality traits.
I don't have a personal problem with Clinton. I don't think she is evil; she is simply a business-as-usual politician. I don't think that is what this country needs right now. Aside from that, she probably can't win the national election. Sure a lot of Democrats love Hillary. But which are there more of: Dems who love Hillary, or Republicans who hate her?
Why would Dems pick HRC when they could have a Washington outsider with real idealism in Obama, or at least a sure-thing in the general election in John Edwards?
I am on a social networking site called "facebook", which is extremely popular among the college crowd. One might imagine that the overall political leanings of such a network would be to the left. Months ago I joined a subgroup in the network titled "One Million Strong for Barack". There are currently 400,000 members. Why do I bring this up? Months later, someone took this idea and created a group called "One Million Strong Against Hillary". It already has almost 600,000 members.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Can I backtrack, please?
My original prediction was that John McCain would win the GOP primary. Then, as McCain's numbers fell and Fred Thompson looked likely to enter the race, I thought Thompson would get it. I want to change back to McCain:
1. Thompson's Presidential debut did not meet the hype. He was unprepared and unimpressive.
2. Developments in the Iraq War help McCain. In particular, the Anbar Awakening, the drop in US military deaths, and the drop in civilian deaths. This gives McCain a bit more breathing room.
3. A recent poll compared GOP candidates against Hillary Clinton. The poll shows Hillary trouncing Romney or Thompson by ~12 points; she beats Guliani by 4-5. Only McCain keeps it close.
The GOP will become increasingly terrified of the seemingly unstoppable Clinton juggernaut. They're going to start looking for someone, anyone that can give her a run for her money. McCain is the only one that will be able to do so.
Which is fine by me, because I've always been a big fan of McCain.
1. Thompson's Presidential debut did not meet the hype. He was unprepared and unimpressive.
2. Developments in the Iraq War help McCain. In particular, the Anbar Awakening, the drop in US military deaths, and the drop in civilian deaths. This gives McCain a bit more breathing room.
3. A recent poll compared GOP candidates against Hillary Clinton. The poll shows Hillary trouncing Romney or Thompson by ~12 points; she beats Guliani by 4-5. Only McCain keeps it close.
The GOP will become increasingly terrified of the seemingly unstoppable Clinton juggernaut. They're going to start looking for someone, anyone that can give her a run for her money. McCain is the only one that will be able to do so.
Which is fine by me, because I've always been a big fan of McCain.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dilemma of the Day
What of the Armenian Genocide?
President Bush is urging congress to vote against a resolution that would recognize the genocide of approximately 1.5 million Armenians after the First World War. The Turks adamantly deny this genocide took place.
Ethically, we should support the resolution. But can we afford to alienate Turkey at a time when its support is so crucial? Even Israel hasn't recognized the Armenian genocide; its bilateral relations with Turkey are far too important.
If it was up to me, I'd put the resolution off for about 5 years and then pass it.
President Bush is urging congress to vote against a resolution that would recognize the genocide of approximately 1.5 million Armenians after the First World War. The Turks adamantly deny this genocide took place.
Ethically, we should support the resolution. But can we afford to alienate Turkey at a time when its support is so crucial? Even Israel hasn't recognized the Armenian genocide; its bilateral relations with Turkey are far too important.
If it was up to me, I'd put the resolution off for about 5 years and then pass it.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Radiohead to pwn the Record Companies!
Imagine you live in 1890 and you drive a horse and buggy. Because your horse needs water and food, there are stables set up along roads where one can stop and give the animals a rest. Since everyone rides horses in 1880, everyone pays these stables a set price for this service; a "horse tax" of sorts.
Now imagine you buy your first car ten years later. Your car runs on gasoline, not hay. Do you want to pay the horse tax anymore? Of course not! What if you were legally bound to do so? You would probably consider the law to be unjust.
That is, essentially, what the recording industry has done. If the internet had always existed, record companies would never have come into being in the first place. In 1980, consumers needed a way to transfer music from the studio to their homes - a record company was the much needed middleman. Now, a band could upload their music to the internet. Most people have a CD burners or MP3 players. Essentially, technology has made it so the record companies no longer need to exist.
Of course, the record companies weren't happy about that. So they use the legal system and copyright laws to force their continued unnecessary existence. They continue to charge insane amounts of money for a CD; sometimes $20.00 (several years ago, the major American companies were busted for trying to artificially jack up CD prices). Only a tiny fraction even goes to the artist. Consumers were left with a dilemma: be extorted by shady media operations, or short their favorite artists.
I chose the latter. Artists can still make money from live event proceeds, and some have websites where one can donate directly. Still, I have been waiting for the day that a big name artist stepped up to the plate and told the record companies where they can shove a contract. I've been waiting for a big name artist to sell their next album directly on the internet. That day has arrived.
Read here. Radiohead (incidentally, one of my favorite bands) is selling their newest CD online. Not only that, but they are going to let us pay any amount we wish. Seriously, one could pay two cents for their album. Essentially it will be like tipping the band, and the money will go straight to them. Personally, I'll be tipping the band five dollars, because I think that is a fair price for an album. That five dollars will go directly to the band. Going through a big record company would have left the artist with maybe a 50 cent royalty on a $15.00 album.
I hope this is immensely successful for Radiohead, financially speaking. It will encourage other artists to follow suit. At that point, record companies will have to choose between going out of business or lowing their prices to fair levels (which, IMO is about five dollars). As an unnecessary middleman, their days of extorting consumers are over.
Now imagine you buy your first car ten years later. Your car runs on gasoline, not hay. Do you want to pay the horse tax anymore? Of course not! What if you were legally bound to do so? You would probably consider the law to be unjust.
That is, essentially, what the recording industry has done. If the internet had always existed, record companies would never have come into being in the first place. In 1980, consumers needed a way to transfer music from the studio to their homes - a record company was the much needed middleman. Now, a band could upload their music to the internet. Most people have a CD burners or MP3 players. Essentially, technology has made it so the record companies no longer need to exist.
Of course, the record companies weren't happy about that. So they use the legal system and copyright laws to force their continued unnecessary existence. They continue to charge insane amounts of money for a CD; sometimes $20.00 (several years ago, the major American companies were busted for trying to artificially jack up CD prices). Only a tiny fraction even goes to the artist. Consumers were left with a dilemma: be extorted by shady media operations, or short their favorite artists.
I chose the latter. Artists can still make money from live event proceeds, and some have websites where one can donate directly. Still, I have been waiting for the day that a big name artist stepped up to the plate and told the record companies where they can shove a contract. I've been waiting for a big name artist to sell their next album directly on the internet. That day has arrived.
Read here. Radiohead (incidentally, one of my favorite bands) is selling their newest CD online. Not only that, but they are going to let us pay any amount we wish. Seriously, one could pay two cents for their album. Essentially it will be like tipping the band, and the money will go straight to them. Personally, I'll be tipping the band five dollars, because I think that is a fair price for an album. That five dollars will go directly to the band. Going through a big record company would have left the artist with maybe a 50 cent royalty on a $15.00 album.
I hope this is immensely successful for Radiohead, financially speaking. It will encourage other artists to follow suit. At that point, record companies will have to choose between going out of business or lowing their prices to fair levels (which, IMO is about five dollars). As an unnecessary middleman, their days of extorting consumers are over.
Pass this bill.
It is co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton. The bill prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran; it would ensure that President Bush gets congressional authorization before attacking Iran.
A recent poll showed that only some 30% of Americans would support the use of force against Iran. This is a no-brainer. Dick Cheney should not have the power to drag this nation into another war.
Link.
A recent poll showed that only some 30% of Americans would support the use of force against Iran. This is a no-brainer. Dick Cheney should not have the power to drag this nation into another war.
Link.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Missed opportunity
The President of the University of Columbia is an embarrassment, and not because he invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak to students. His introduction (of Ahmadinejad) was crude and cheap. Instead of attacking the Iranian President's ideas, he started by launching ad hominem (personal) attacks. It is intellectually dishonest, and a sign of great weakness.
The Iranian President has a host of absurd positions. He apparently believes there are no homosexuals in the entire country of Iran. He pursues nuclear weapons, restricts the freedoms of his own people, and warmongers. How easy would it have been to simply ask him straightforward questions and allow Ahmadinejad to humiliate himself with his insane answers? Instead, the Iranian President was made to be the dignified and well-behaved one. What a missed opportunity.
It almost makes one envious, though. To see the President of Iran take unscripted questions from a hostile audience in an enemy country. The President of the United States won't even take unscripted questions from his own citizens.
The Iranian President has a host of absurd positions. He apparently believes there are no homosexuals in the entire country of Iran. He pursues nuclear weapons, restricts the freedoms of his own people, and warmongers. How easy would it have been to simply ask him straightforward questions and allow Ahmadinejad to humiliate himself with his insane answers? Instead, the Iranian President was made to be the dignified and well-behaved one. What a missed opportunity.
It almost makes one envious, though. To see the President of Iran take unscripted questions from a hostile audience in an enemy country. The President of the United States won't even take unscripted questions from his own citizens.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Nuclear proliferation
Scary.
The Israelis recently bombed a target of some sort in Syria. It was a unique situation, because the Syrians didn't complain about it other than mentioning a violation of their airspace. Now we know why. They didn't say anything because the Israelis caught them with North Korean nuclear materials.
There are many things I can tolerate rogue states doing. Proliferating nuclear materials isn't one of them. A really big red line was just crossed.
In a related subject, what of the prospect of a dirty bomb attack on an American city? Imagine: a small explosion in New York or Chicago. Suddenly some Joe with a Geiger counter calls up the media and tells them that the readings are off the charts in the proximity of the explosion. Word spreads that the bomb was nuclear, and that a radiation cloud is engulfing the city. Citizens panic and rush to evacuate. There are mass casualties in the chaos, with destruction and violence on a large scale. Imagine Katrina, only worse, and in a bigger city.
This is why our government should have a strong public awareness project concerning dirty bombs. Humans can take a lot more radiation than we do now without having any huge problems. If there was a dirty bomb attack, unless someone purposefully went to the explosion site and started rolling in the bomb's remains, I can't imagine it would be a big deal. The government needs to have a containment plan, a cleanup plan, and a very clear and honest assessment of the danger. People need to understand before the fact that a dirty bomb does not merit the evacuation of an entire city - only a few blocks or so.
Terrorists don't need a nuclear bomb to do massive amounts of damage. All they need is a regular bomb with a tiny bit of radioactive material. The real power behind that weapon would not be the explosion, or the radiation - it would be the ignorance driving the chaos after the fact. People need to understand the dangers, so they won't panic when it happens.
...and given recent developments in Syria, we can assume "when" will be sooner rather than later.
The Israelis recently bombed a target of some sort in Syria. It was a unique situation, because the Syrians didn't complain about it other than mentioning a violation of their airspace. Now we know why. They didn't say anything because the Israelis caught them with North Korean nuclear materials.
There are many things I can tolerate rogue states doing. Proliferating nuclear materials isn't one of them. A really big red line was just crossed.
In a related subject, what of the prospect of a dirty bomb attack on an American city? Imagine: a small explosion in New York or Chicago. Suddenly some Joe with a Geiger counter calls up the media and tells them that the readings are off the charts in the proximity of the explosion. Word spreads that the bomb was nuclear, and that a radiation cloud is engulfing the city. Citizens panic and rush to evacuate. There are mass casualties in the chaos, with destruction and violence on a large scale. Imagine Katrina, only worse, and in a bigger city.
This is why our government should have a strong public awareness project concerning dirty bombs. Humans can take a lot more radiation than we do now without having any huge problems. If there was a dirty bomb attack, unless someone purposefully went to the explosion site and started rolling in the bomb's remains, I can't imagine it would be a big deal. The government needs to have a containment plan, a cleanup plan, and a very clear and honest assessment of the danger. People need to understand before the fact that a dirty bomb does not merit the evacuation of an entire city - only a few blocks or so.
Terrorists don't need a nuclear bomb to do massive amounts of damage. All they need is a regular bomb with a tiny bit of radioactive material. The real power behind that weapon would not be the explosion, or the radiation - it would be the ignorance driving the chaos after the fact. People need to understand the dangers, so they won't panic when it happens.
...and given recent developments in Syria, we can assume "when" will be sooner rather than later.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Prospect of war
Over the last few days I've suddenly become convinced that a war with Iran is likely, and is only a matter of time. News that Israel bombed Syrian nuclear supplies is part of the equation. And when the French of all people begin to speak of war, one starts to wonder when rather than if.
It will be a moral and strategic mistake to initiate a war on Iran. That being said, I don't think it will prove to be as big of a challenge for our military as people think. Iran only has the capability for asymmetric war.
It will be a moral and strategic mistake to initiate a war on Iran. That being said, I don't think it will prove to be as big of a challenge for our military as people think. Iran only has the capability for asymmetric war.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
GOP shoe-in
Fred Thompson.
I've said from day one that Guliani is overrated, and who would vote for Romney? Before being destroyed by his position on the war, McCain was the only candidate that seemed reasonably well-rounded - until Thompson entered.
If Iraq was to suddenly turn around, McCain might pull a comeback, but if I was betting it would be on Thompson. Hasn't the right been looking for another Reagan, anyway?
The entry of a well-rounded, seemingly moderate Thompson puts the pressure back on the Democrats. Will they risk fielding a woman or an African American? I'd vote for Obama over just about anyone, but would the nation?
Check out Fred Thompson's blog.
I've said from day one that Guliani is overrated, and who would vote for Romney? Before being destroyed by his position on the war, McCain was the only candidate that seemed reasonably well-rounded - until Thompson entered.
If Iraq was to suddenly turn around, McCain might pull a comeback, but if I was betting it would be on Thompson. Hasn't the right been looking for another Reagan, anyway?
The entry of a well-rounded, seemingly moderate Thompson puts the pressure back on the Democrats. Will they risk fielding a woman or an African American? I'd vote for Obama over just about anyone, but would the nation?
Check out Fred Thompson's blog.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
I'm a feminist. Who knew?
I scored 81% feminist on this quiz:
"You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action."
I 'strongly agreed' with most of the questions. One disagreement I did have was that there is no such thing as "a mans job". Certain types of construction are man's jobs, along with professional football and military combat. In fact, I've had extensive debates about a hypothetical situation regarding a draft. Some of my opponents held that if there was a draft, capable women should be forced into combat along with men. My position, for too many reasons to detail here, is that women should be allowed to serve in combat if they so choose - but should not be forced into combat. I am glad to see, however, that this minor quibble doesn't make me into a bona fide sexist (according to the quiz) as some might have claimed.
Regarding the question, "women should accept their bodies as they are", I was undecided. In case one hasn't noticed, we are having a bit of an obesity epidemic in this country. Nobody should accept their body 'how it is' if they aren't healthy. I'm fairly fit, but I know I'm at least 20 pounds overweight. Weight loss should be pursued primarily in the name of health, with cosmetic reasons being only secondary. That being said, most of the women we see on TV aren't in fact healthy. They're unnaturally skinny. So I wouldn't encourage any woman to pursue that ideal.
It isn't fair to characterize the entire feminist movement based on the positions of certain yahoos, so I will not do that. I will say, however, that I am hostile to radical elements of today's feminist movement. I certainly wouldn't want the results of this quiz to obfuscate that fact - if for no other reason than to ensure my man-credentials do not come into question.
"You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action."
I 'strongly agreed' with most of the questions. One disagreement I did have was that there is no such thing as "a mans job". Certain types of construction are man's jobs, along with professional football and military combat. In fact, I've had extensive debates about a hypothetical situation regarding a draft. Some of my opponents held that if there was a draft, capable women should be forced into combat along with men. My position, for too many reasons to detail here, is that women should be allowed to serve in combat if they so choose - but should not be forced into combat. I am glad to see, however, that this minor quibble doesn't make me into a bona fide sexist (according to the quiz) as some might have claimed.
Regarding the question, "women should accept their bodies as they are", I was undecided. In case one hasn't noticed, we are having a bit of an obesity epidemic in this country. Nobody should accept their body 'how it is' if they aren't healthy. I'm fairly fit, but I know I'm at least 20 pounds overweight. Weight loss should be pursued primarily in the name of health, with cosmetic reasons being only secondary. That being said, most of the women we see on TV aren't in fact healthy. They're unnaturally skinny. So I wouldn't encourage any woman to pursue that ideal.
It isn't fair to characterize the entire feminist movement based on the positions of certain yahoos, so I will not do that. I will say, however, that I am hostile to radical elements of today's feminist movement. I certainly wouldn't want the results of this quiz to obfuscate that fact - if for no other reason than to ensure my man-credentials do not come into question.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Juan Cole - Rewriting History
Juan Cole @ YearlyKos 2007:
Referring to his new book, and sounding quite pretentious: "Western invasions and occupations of Middle Eastern countries often haven't gone very well...this is not a new thing."
Later in the interview: "This (YearlyKos) group has been a major force for rethinking the early tone of the coverage of the Iraq situation. If you wanted to go back to 2003, and check who was saying what, you know, 95% of press commentary was of the cheer-leading sort. And it was the left bloggers who raised questions that began to see problems and who opposed the war in the first place."
Indeed, Juan - let us go back to 2003 and check who in fact was saying what.
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides."
Juan Cole, 3/19/03
I once emailed Professor Cole, asking him about this quote. He said he had taken the position in question 'before he knew that Bush was incompetent'. His explanation doesn't satisfy me for two reasons.
1. Nothing in war is a certainty; a historian like Cole should know this better than anyone. It is reprehensible to cheer-lead the march to war and jump ship at the first time of trouble, as Cole did. After failing to stop Saddam's slaughter of the Shia and Kurdish rebels after the '91 war, did America not owe it to the Iraqi people to at least give their elected government a chance to succeed? Our invasion of Iraq opened the gates of hell; did we not have a moral obligation (not to mention strategic imperative) to help close them?
2. Cole constantly speaks retrospectively of reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't linked to Saddam, civil war was inevitable, "Western invasions of the Middle East don't go well". But even if Cole was wrong about Bush, he still should have known all of these things before the fact. He certainly pretends that he did.
I read Cole's blog regularly. He is almost as biased as Fox News, but to the opposite side. That being said, he still does know a lot, and so I will continue to read his blog (as much as I despise his incessant pessimism). Still, to see him pretend to have known all along what would happen in Iraq is too much for me to handle.
Referring to his new book, and sounding quite pretentious: "Western invasions and occupations of Middle Eastern countries often haven't gone very well...this is not a new thing."
Later in the interview: "This (YearlyKos) group has been a major force for rethinking the early tone of the coverage of the Iraq situation. If you wanted to go back to 2003, and check who was saying what, you know, 95% of press commentary was of the cheer-leading sort. And it was the left bloggers who raised questions that began to see problems and who opposed the war in the first place."
Indeed, Juan - let us go back to 2003 and check who in fact was saying what.
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides."
Juan Cole, 3/19/03
I once emailed Professor Cole, asking him about this quote. He said he had taken the position in question 'before he knew that Bush was incompetent'. His explanation doesn't satisfy me for two reasons.
1. Nothing in war is a certainty; a historian like Cole should know this better than anyone. It is reprehensible to cheer-lead the march to war and jump ship at the first time of trouble, as Cole did. After failing to stop Saddam's slaughter of the Shia and Kurdish rebels after the '91 war, did America not owe it to the Iraqi people to at least give their elected government a chance to succeed? Our invasion of Iraq opened the gates of hell; did we not have a moral obligation (not to mention strategic imperative) to help close them?
2. Cole constantly speaks retrospectively of reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't linked to Saddam, civil war was inevitable, "Western invasions of the Middle East don't go well". But even if Cole was wrong about Bush, he still should have known all of these things before the fact. He certainly pretends that he did.
I read Cole's blog regularly. He is almost as biased as Fox News, but to the opposite side. That being said, he still does know a lot, and so I will continue to read his blog (as much as I despise his incessant pessimism). Still, to see him pretend to have known all along what would happen in Iraq is too much for me to handle.
Friday, July 27, 2007
The least surprised I've been all day...
Regarding the next YouTube Debate, only two GOP candidates have agreed to do it: Ron Paul and John McCain. This isn't shocking to me. Paul and McCain will do fine in a debate with unscripted and tough questions, because neither gives politically correct answers - they give honest ones. Speaking truthfully and frankly requires no preparation, just conviction. McCain, for example, has been on the Daily Show many times; he has parried the best that Jon Stewart can throw at him.
McCain and Paul are the only two republican candidates I'd consider voting for, though it is likely that I'll have no such chance for either. The rest of the GOP candidates are garbage. I'm not even sure why Romney was ever considered a "front runner", and it has been especially entertaining as of late to watch everyone come to realize how overrated Guliani is. It doesn't surprise me that they don't want to be asked the difficult questions - they don't have good answers. Still, I predict that the risk of looking completely disconnected from the mainstream will force them to show up to the debate, even if they are loath to.
A last comment. I think, perhaps wishfully, that McCain is going to make a turnaround. He really is the only solid player that the GOP has at this point (enter Thompson?). If McCain changes his Iraq policy to something more reasonable to the general public, I think he will have a 'surge' of support. And why wouldn't he (change his Iraq policy)? The situation in that country a year from now is going to be vastly different than it is now.
McCain and Paul are the only two republican candidates I'd consider voting for, though it is likely that I'll have no such chance for either. The rest of the GOP candidates are garbage. I'm not even sure why Romney was ever considered a "front runner", and it has been especially entertaining as of late to watch everyone come to realize how overrated Guliani is. It doesn't surprise me that they don't want to be asked the difficult questions - they don't have good answers. Still, I predict that the risk of looking completely disconnected from the mainstream will force them to show up to the debate, even if they are loath to.
A last comment. I think, perhaps wishfully, that McCain is going to make a turnaround. He really is the only solid player that the GOP has at this point (enter Thompson?). If McCain changes his Iraq policy to something more reasonable to the general public, I think he will have a 'surge' of support. And why wouldn't he (change his Iraq policy)? The situation in that country a year from now is going to be vastly different than it is now.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Addendum
Why should we bomb Iran? The internal movement to bring down their government is intensifying (as it is here in the USA, incidentally). The Iranian government just beat up and arrested a bunch of students. We'll see that more and more. But not if we do the Ayatollahs a favor by uniting the people around the government after an air strike!
The Soviets supported the Vietcong, just as Iran supports Iraqi insurgents. We didn't bomb the USSR in response; furthermore, it didn't take an act of war to bring down the Soviet Union, a far greater oppressor and rival than tiny Iran. Lets keep up the containment, keep up the isolation, and their theocratic government will fall on its own. It took only 40 years to bring down the mighty Soviet Union, without a shot fired from our end. Its already been 30 years since the Iranian revolution. Their government doesn't have long.
The Soviets supported the Vietcong, just as Iran supports Iraqi insurgents. We didn't bomb the USSR in response; furthermore, it didn't take an act of war to bring down the Soviet Union, a far greater oppressor and rival than tiny Iran. Lets keep up the containment, keep up the isolation, and their theocratic government will fall on its own. It took only 40 years to bring down the mighty Soviet Union, without a shot fired from our end. Its already been 30 years since the Iranian revolution. Their government doesn't have long.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Around the world in 500 words
Update on a whole bunch of things:
1. I really hope things settle down in Pakistan. Right now theres a standoff with some students in an important mosque. Depending on how Musharraf handles it, this thing could spiral out of control. Political instability in a nuclear-armed nation makes me somewhat uneasy. Not only that, but if an anti-American government was to come to power, we might as well pack up and quit Afghanistan.
2. Only a short time ago, I had outright dismissed the proposition that Bush would attack Iran. The idea is such that no rational individual would seriously be advocating it. For one, why would we? The Iranian government is on the ropes as it is. In fact, it is my belief that the Iranian government actually wants us to bomb them. They are in a huge mess, with the state of the economy, gasoline rationing (in IRAN!), and international isolation. The people are tired of it all. A bombing campaign would unite all of the people around that government, without accomplishing anything of note.
And yet, Bush suddenly scares me. Do we remember in 1998 when Bill Clinton randomly bombed Iraq as the news of his affair with Lewinsky was breaking? Well, Bush is in a similar position. His aides are going to court. Republicans are bailing on Iraq. 48% of Americans want him impeached, and above half want Cheney impeached. Hes like a wounded animal, looking for a way out. Desperation can lead to irrationality.
Congress should revoke his power to attack Iran unilaterally.
3. I can't believe that France elected a pro-American, right wing president. They certainly needed one. Hopefully he'll implement some much needed economic reform, but I disagree with his Turkey policy. He has stated that Turkey should never belong to the EU.
4. Speaking of whom. The Turkish military has massed 150,000 troops on the border of Iraq. They seem poised to invade Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) to chase PKK terrorists that have been hiding in Iraq. Not unlike the way Al Qaeda hid out in Afghanistan.
Kurdistan is the one success story we have in Iraq, and its about ready to be destroyed. There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't be able to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis between the Turks and Kurds. It boggles my mind that its even an issue at this point. The Turks and the Kurds have both been important US allies for years now, and they rely on us as well (especially the Kurds). This one is a no-brainer, but is in my estimation the most serious crisis facing the region at this time. These groups are the only two examples of Muslim democracy in the entire world. Obviously, its extremely important that we ensure that they are both peaceful and prosperous.
5. The war in Iraq is over. My post-occupation plan would involve withdrawing some of the troops to Kurdistan (40k or so) and sending the rest home. This entire plan breaks down if point 4 isn't resolved soon. But from bases in Kurdistan, we can help contain the civil war in the south and can help fight Al Qaeda. And, when they are ready, we'll be there to help negotiate a peace between the warring Sunni and Shiite factions.
6. My presidential predictions were based on wishful thinking. McCain is getting creamed. Word on the street is Fred Thompson gets the GOP nod. I personally don't think the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary (they do want to win the election, don't they?). I could be wrong, though. Edwards seems like the best pick, as much as I'd love to see Obama instead. The race factor might be too powerful. Still, those campaign finance results of Obama's were very impressive.
1. I really hope things settle down in Pakistan. Right now theres a standoff with some students in an important mosque. Depending on how Musharraf handles it, this thing could spiral out of control. Political instability in a nuclear-armed nation makes me somewhat uneasy. Not only that, but if an anti-American government was to come to power, we might as well pack up and quit Afghanistan.
2. Only a short time ago, I had outright dismissed the proposition that Bush would attack Iran. The idea is such that no rational individual would seriously be advocating it. For one, why would we? The Iranian government is on the ropes as it is. In fact, it is my belief that the Iranian government actually wants us to bomb them. They are in a huge mess, with the state of the economy, gasoline rationing (in IRAN!), and international isolation. The people are tired of it all. A bombing campaign would unite all of the people around that government, without accomplishing anything of note.
And yet, Bush suddenly scares me. Do we remember in 1998 when Bill Clinton randomly bombed Iraq as the news of his affair with Lewinsky was breaking? Well, Bush is in a similar position. His aides are going to court. Republicans are bailing on Iraq. 48% of Americans want him impeached, and above half want Cheney impeached. Hes like a wounded animal, looking for a way out. Desperation can lead to irrationality.
Congress should revoke his power to attack Iran unilaterally.
3. I can't believe that France elected a pro-American, right wing president. They certainly needed one. Hopefully he'll implement some much needed economic reform, but I disagree with his Turkey policy. He has stated that Turkey should never belong to the EU.
4. Speaking of whom. The Turkish military has massed 150,000 troops on the border of Iraq. They seem poised to invade Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) to chase PKK terrorists that have been hiding in Iraq. Not unlike the way Al Qaeda hid out in Afghanistan.
Kurdistan is the one success story we have in Iraq, and its about ready to be destroyed. There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't be able to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis between the Turks and Kurds. It boggles my mind that its even an issue at this point. The Turks and the Kurds have both been important US allies for years now, and they rely on us as well (especially the Kurds). This one is a no-brainer, but is in my estimation the most serious crisis facing the region at this time. These groups are the only two examples of Muslim democracy in the entire world. Obviously, its extremely important that we ensure that they are both peaceful and prosperous.
5. The war in Iraq is over. My post-occupation plan would involve withdrawing some of the troops to Kurdistan (40k or so) and sending the rest home. This entire plan breaks down if point 4 isn't resolved soon. But from bases in Kurdistan, we can help contain the civil war in the south and can help fight Al Qaeda. And, when they are ready, we'll be there to help negotiate a peace between the warring Sunni and Shiite factions.
6. My presidential predictions were based on wishful thinking. McCain is getting creamed. Word on the street is Fred Thompson gets the GOP nod. I personally don't think the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary (they do want to win the election, don't they?). I could be wrong, though. Edwards seems like the best pick, as much as I'd love to see Obama instead. The race factor might be too powerful. Still, those campaign finance results of Obama's were very impressive.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Total Scumbags
This is one of the most disgusting things I think I've ever seen. That a news outlet would presume to decide for us who won the debate is beyond arrogant. What is worse, even after winning the poll, those snakes suggested that Paul should not be allowed to debate again. Its been obvious to me for years that Fox News has been biased. I noticed it first in 2002; the debate on Fox News was when, not if, we should invade Iraq. But this latest thing goes beyond the relm of mere propaganda. It was a blatent attempt to subvert democracy. It was an attempt to forcibly alter the course of the electoral process by going above the heads of the American people. Luckily Paul made enough of an impact that they failed, but it still makes me extremely angry to have seen Republican party bosses try this stunt.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ron Paul is getting serious support?
*** Update. Ron Paul discusses the recent debate, where he was in a tiff with Guliani. Everything Dr. Paul says is spot on. Guliani was made to look like a complete fool. This clip is a must see.
I am best described as a libertarian, so I enjoyed watching Ron Paul in the first Republican debate. But I haven't cited him as a favorite candidate because I assumed that he was the Ralph Nader of the Republican Party - loved by a small group of people but nationally unelectable. However, a Fox News poll showed him having significant support. Maybe we should take him more seriously? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so.
Well, I'd still say hes unelectable. But one can dream, right? Maybe he would be a good running mate? I'm looking at you, Senator McCain.
I am best described as a libertarian, so I enjoyed watching Ron Paul in the first Republican debate. But I haven't cited him as a favorite candidate because I assumed that he was the Ralph Nader of the Republican Party - loved by a small group of people but nationally unelectable. However, a Fox News poll showed him having significant support. Maybe we should take him more seriously? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so.
Well, I'd still say hes unelectable. But one can dream, right? Maybe he would be a good running mate? I'm looking at you, Senator McCain.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Attacking Kurdistan
There have been two truck bombs in Kurdistan in the last month. Kurdistan is the northern region of Iraq that has been largely autonomous since the first Gulf War. It is peaceful, politically unified, and its economy is booming. In other words, its the only success story of the entire campaign. What is the significance of these recent bombing attacks by insurgents? I can think of three possibilities.
1. These particular insurgents have no greater strategic objectives, and are just attacking targets of opportunity - there is no real significance to the attacks. This is a possibility. We can't assume that all of our enemies have ulterior motives to every attack. It would, however, definitely be a mistake to assume they don't. Hence the following two possibilities.
2. This is part of the Kurd-Arab dispute over Kirkuk. Kirkuk is a city sitting on top of a massive oil field. In the 1980s, Saddam kicked out all of the Kurds and settled Arabs in the area. Now the Kurds want their homes back. The city is ethnically diverse, like Baghdad, and is probably going to be fought over at some point or another. Yet, these bombings didn't happen in Kirkuk. Maybe the insurgents (probably Sunni Arabs) are sending the Kurds a message of what to expect in the future if they don't cede Kirkuk?
3. The insurgents are trying to influence the American government. This is what first came to my mind when I saw the news headline. Not many people are talking about "staying the course" anymore. The 'surge' appears to be failing. What is plan B? Some people are saying we could keep forces in Kurdistan, other people are saying we should get all US troops out of Iraq completely, including out of Kurdistan. Perhaps the insurgents are trying to strengthen the hand of the latter group of politicians. If Kurdistan can be portrayed as being instable like the rest of Iraq, then redeployment of US forces to the north looks like a less viable option.
We should redeploy to Kurdistan. Complete withdrawal would be a huge mistake.
It has become clear that we can't referee the civil war in Baghdad and the other Arab regions of Iraq. But there is no reason to not station a sizeable US force in Kurdistan, not unlike what we have in Afghanistan to chase the Taleban. From our position up north, we can do three major things. One, we can have a local base from which to chase Al Qaeda. Two, we can prevent invasion by Iraq's neighbors (Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular), helping to prevent a wider regional war. Three, and perhaps most importantly, we can negotiate a cease fire between the factions after the civil war has run its course a bit.
The last time you heard any politician talk about Iraq, what word was repeated more often than any other? Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy. But to have any diplomatic leverage, you need to have force backing it up. Thats why nobody cares what Europe says anymore. The European Union has greater economic power than the US, but without anything hard to back it up, they are ignored. Having a force in Kurdistan gives the U.S. a huge amount of diplomatic leverage. We'll regret not having it, once the ethnic cleansing starts.
1. These particular insurgents have no greater strategic objectives, and are just attacking targets of opportunity - there is no real significance to the attacks. This is a possibility. We can't assume that all of our enemies have ulterior motives to every attack. It would, however, definitely be a mistake to assume they don't. Hence the following two possibilities.
2. This is part of the Kurd-Arab dispute over Kirkuk. Kirkuk is a city sitting on top of a massive oil field. In the 1980s, Saddam kicked out all of the Kurds and settled Arabs in the area. Now the Kurds want their homes back. The city is ethnically diverse, like Baghdad, and is probably going to be fought over at some point or another. Yet, these bombings didn't happen in Kirkuk. Maybe the insurgents (probably Sunni Arabs) are sending the Kurds a message of what to expect in the future if they don't cede Kirkuk?
3. The insurgents are trying to influence the American government. This is what first came to my mind when I saw the news headline. Not many people are talking about "staying the course" anymore. The 'surge' appears to be failing. What is plan B? Some people are saying we could keep forces in Kurdistan, other people are saying we should get all US troops out of Iraq completely, including out of Kurdistan. Perhaps the insurgents are trying to strengthen the hand of the latter group of politicians. If Kurdistan can be portrayed as being instable like the rest of Iraq, then redeployment of US forces to the north looks like a less viable option.
We should redeploy to Kurdistan. Complete withdrawal would be a huge mistake.
It has become clear that we can't referee the civil war in Baghdad and the other Arab regions of Iraq. But there is no reason to not station a sizeable US force in Kurdistan, not unlike what we have in Afghanistan to chase the Taleban. From our position up north, we can do three major things. One, we can have a local base from which to chase Al Qaeda. Two, we can prevent invasion by Iraq's neighbors (Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular), helping to prevent a wider regional war. Three, and perhaps most importantly, we can negotiate a cease fire between the factions after the civil war has run its course a bit.
The last time you heard any politician talk about Iraq, what word was repeated more often than any other? Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy. But to have any diplomatic leverage, you need to have force backing it up. Thats why nobody cares what Europe says anymore. The European Union has greater economic power than the US, but without anything hard to back it up, they are ignored. Having a force in Kurdistan gives the U.S. a huge amount of diplomatic leverage. We'll regret not having it, once the ethnic cleansing starts.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Making predictions 1.5 years out:
The straight-talk express, John McCain, gets the republican ticket. McCain beats Hillary if she gets the dem ticket. McCain loses to Obama if he gets the dem ticket. If the race came down to McCain vs Obama, I wouldn't need to vote. Well lets face it, I'm from Indiana so I dont *need* to vote anyway.
More elaboration when I'm done with finals. Just wanted it on the record!
More elaboration when I'm done with finals. Just wanted it on the record!
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
My diatribe against the global warming fuss: 10 reasons why I dont care.
1. The only thing capable of pulling the poorest 3,000,000,000 people out of poverty is global economic growth. While there is definitely some room to cut excesses, a lot of anti-warming propositions would neuter the global economy. We already have a high standard of living in the West, so apparently economic stagnation doesn't concern us.
2. Many are suggesting we begin to make the transition to biofuels. Biofuels are derived from crops. What happens when demand for farm products goes through the roof? The price of food goes up. That might be a good thing for Americans. It would be a bad thing for Africans.
3. Al Gore has shown us that one can lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle with the technology we have today. Irrelevant! Humans derive no satisfaction from emitting carbon dioxide (aside from respiration). We get satisfaction from using energy, which happens to be coupled to CO2 release in most cases. Al Gore with his millions has proven that he can be carbon neutral, but he has unfortunately revealed that he cannot cut his energy consumption. In fact, he requires 20 times the energy than the average American.
What does this mean? Al Gore is proof that you can't ask people to reduce their energy consumption. The challenge is to get them energy that doesn't come from buring fossil fuels. The only real option we have here is nuclear power on a much grander scale. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has opposed any expansion of our nuclear power sector. So what, do anti-warming crusaders expect the average American to cut their energy usage while Al Gore uses twenty times the norm? Not going to happen. People need to get serious about nuclear power, or there isn't even a chance!
4. No doubt, there is a lot of things we could do to streamline our energy consumption. More public transit, hybrid cars (nevermind the enormous energy costs in making them, or the environmentally destructive mining process to harvest the minerals for batteries), solar power. These things are at best delaying the inevitable, unless we come up with a miracle source of energy. Don't forget - regardless of what we do in the 1st world, the poor farmer in the Amazon is going to still need to choose whether to feed his family or burn down a forest. It would be awefully pompous for us here in the West to blame him for doing the latter.
5. Speaking of the third world. What if we in the West stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow? The price of oil, gas, etc would plummet, which means that people in the third world could afford to use more of it. The fossil fuels are going to get used, unless we start building nuclear power plants all over the world. Not that we have enough uranium for that sort of thing.
6. Disregarding the fact that we've all been wrong before, there are just too many unknowns with the warming hypothesis. How severe will the warming be? A few degrees might even be pleasant. How long do we have? If the answer is a few hundred or thousand years, who cares? Is it too late to stop it? Nancy Pelosi suggests that "the next ten years are crucial". That is total speculation on her part. Nobody could possibly know the consequences of inaction over a ten year period. In fact, its far more likely that we either have many years yet to turn the process around, or that its already too late to reverse what we've started. In either case, the panic is unwarranted.
7. Have people forgotten how policy in this country works? We are a reactive society, and we always have been. You would think that something as obvious as putting enough lifeboats on a cruise liner would be obvious, but it took the Titantic and 2000 dead to get it in our heads. You'd think that some airport security would be a no-brainer, but it took 9/11 to get that one going. You'd think that if levees are the only thing protecting your city from the ocean, maybe make sure they work? But Katrina came and went, and now we know better. I'm not usually a pessimist, but lets face it, we will never do anything serious about climate change until an iceberg slaps us in the face. Its fad, and it will pass. When's the last time you heard about bird flu? That threat is still lurking, and is definitely a bigger threat than global warming. The last serious flu pandemic killed 100 million people in 1920. Think about how many more people there are today, and how much faster everyone travels. Another pandemic could kill hundreds of millions, and it could happen next year.
8. Here is another reason to be pessimistic about countering global warming. The two biggest CO2 emitters, the USA and China, will be affected the least by warming, according to climate models. Actually, due to warming China may have increased productivity. Hmmm. Two hugely bloated bureaucracies face an enormous challenge with little incentive. Yes, lets be optimistic!
9. What species are we talking about here? We are talking about homo sapiens! Name a climate that we cant survive in. Name a situation we cant adapt to. Some of us, thousands of years ago, decided it would be a great idea to live on the ice caps in igloos, and others thought that the desert looked like fun. We are the most adaptable single species that this planet has ever produced. Sure a little climate change might shake things up, wash away a city here or there, cause a bunch of people to move inland a few miles. It'll likely happen over decades. We'll survive. Civilization will survive. Our cities are dirty anyway.
10. Humanity faces plenty of problems for which we can develop strategies that will actually produce tangible results. The third world continues to be ravaged by diseases like malaria, and yet we continue to outlaw DDT. Environmentalists will throw a fit when one discusses usage of DDT, but unfortunately I have moral qualms about valuing the lives of animals above humans. If it were their children dying of malaria, they might think differently. Hunger is still a major problem. The population explosion is an issue, and its a problem with only one cure - economic growth. Finally, a Middle Eastern nuclear arms-race is right up there at the top of my list of things we should be avoiding.
In short, why spend so much time and money, on solutions that may not work - for a problem that might not even be one?
After all of that, one might be surprised to learn that publicly, I'm to some extent supportive of the anti-warming campaign. I would like to see a great reduction in our use of petroleum in particular. There wouldn't *be* a war on terror if we weren't reliant on gasoline. I'm sick of American dollars going to Saudi Arabia, funding the most intolerant (Wahhabi) branch of Islam there is. I'm sick of American dollars funding Hugo Chavez' Boliviarian Socialism. Thus I would support some 'anti global warming' measures for purely geopolitical reasons.
We have the solutions right in front of us. The most obvious as I mentioned is nuclear power. Another fantastic solution has been put forth by economist Greg Mankiw: The Pigou Club. Alas, not a single politician will sign up. I really am an optimist - just read my Iraq posts if you don't believe me. But not about all of this.
2. Many are suggesting we begin to make the transition to biofuels. Biofuels are derived from crops. What happens when demand for farm products goes through the roof? The price of food goes up. That might be a good thing for Americans. It would be a bad thing for Africans.
3. Al Gore has shown us that one can lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle with the technology we have today. Irrelevant! Humans derive no satisfaction from emitting carbon dioxide (aside from respiration). We get satisfaction from using energy, which happens to be coupled to CO2 release in most cases. Al Gore with his millions has proven that he can be carbon neutral, but he has unfortunately revealed that he cannot cut his energy consumption. In fact, he requires 20 times the energy than the average American.
What does this mean? Al Gore is proof that you can't ask people to reduce their energy consumption. The challenge is to get them energy that doesn't come from buring fossil fuels. The only real option we have here is nuclear power on a much grander scale. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has opposed any expansion of our nuclear power sector. So what, do anti-warming crusaders expect the average American to cut their energy usage while Al Gore uses twenty times the norm? Not going to happen. People need to get serious about nuclear power, or there isn't even a chance!
4. No doubt, there is a lot of things we could do to streamline our energy consumption. More public transit, hybrid cars (nevermind the enormous energy costs in making them, or the environmentally destructive mining process to harvest the minerals for batteries), solar power. These things are at best delaying the inevitable, unless we come up with a miracle source of energy. Don't forget - regardless of what we do in the 1st world, the poor farmer in the Amazon is going to still need to choose whether to feed his family or burn down a forest. It would be awefully pompous for us here in the West to blame him for doing the latter.
5. Speaking of the third world. What if we in the West stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow? The price of oil, gas, etc would plummet, which means that people in the third world could afford to use more of it. The fossil fuels are going to get used, unless we start building nuclear power plants all over the world. Not that we have enough uranium for that sort of thing.
6. Disregarding the fact that we've all been wrong before, there are just too many unknowns with the warming hypothesis. How severe will the warming be? A few degrees might even be pleasant. How long do we have? If the answer is a few hundred or thousand years, who cares? Is it too late to stop it? Nancy Pelosi suggests that "the next ten years are crucial". That is total speculation on her part. Nobody could possibly know the consequences of inaction over a ten year period. In fact, its far more likely that we either have many years yet to turn the process around, or that its already too late to reverse what we've started. In either case, the panic is unwarranted.
7. Have people forgotten how policy in this country works? We are a reactive society, and we always have been. You would think that something as obvious as putting enough lifeboats on a cruise liner would be obvious, but it took the Titantic and 2000 dead to get it in our heads. You'd think that some airport security would be a no-brainer, but it took 9/11 to get that one going. You'd think that if levees are the only thing protecting your city from the ocean, maybe make sure they work? But Katrina came and went, and now we know better. I'm not usually a pessimist, but lets face it, we will never do anything serious about climate change until an iceberg slaps us in the face. Its fad, and it will pass. When's the last time you heard about bird flu? That threat is still lurking, and is definitely a bigger threat than global warming. The last serious flu pandemic killed 100 million people in 1920. Think about how many more people there are today, and how much faster everyone travels. Another pandemic could kill hundreds of millions, and it could happen next year.
8. Here is another reason to be pessimistic about countering global warming. The two biggest CO2 emitters, the USA and China, will be affected the least by warming, according to climate models. Actually, due to warming China may have increased productivity. Hmmm. Two hugely bloated bureaucracies face an enormous challenge with little incentive. Yes, lets be optimistic!
9. What species are we talking about here? We are talking about homo sapiens! Name a climate that we cant survive in. Name a situation we cant adapt to. Some of us, thousands of years ago, decided it would be a great idea to live on the ice caps in igloos, and others thought that the desert looked like fun. We are the most adaptable single species that this planet has ever produced. Sure a little climate change might shake things up, wash away a city here or there, cause a bunch of people to move inland a few miles. It'll likely happen over decades. We'll survive. Civilization will survive. Our cities are dirty anyway.
10. Humanity faces plenty of problems for which we can develop strategies that will actually produce tangible results. The third world continues to be ravaged by diseases like malaria, and yet we continue to outlaw DDT. Environmentalists will throw a fit when one discusses usage of DDT, but unfortunately I have moral qualms about valuing the lives of animals above humans. If it were their children dying of malaria, they might think differently. Hunger is still a major problem. The population explosion is an issue, and its a problem with only one cure - economic growth. Finally, a Middle Eastern nuclear arms-race is right up there at the top of my list of things we should be avoiding.
In short, why spend so much time and money, on solutions that may not work - for a problem that might not even be one?
After all of that, one might be surprised to learn that publicly, I'm to some extent supportive of the anti-warming campaign. I would like to see a great reduction in our use of petroleum in particular. There wouldn't *be* a war on terror if we weren't reliant on gasoline. I'm sick of American dollars going to Saudi Arabia, funding the most intolerant (Wahhabi) branch of Islam there is. I'm sick of American dollars funding Hugo Chavez' Boliviarian Socialism. Thus I would support some 'anti global warming' measures for purely geopolitical reasons.
We have the solutions right in front of us. The most obvious as I mentioned is nuclear power. Another fantastic solution has been put forth by economist Greg Mankiw: The Pigou Club. Alas, not a single politician will sign up. I really am an optimist - just read my Iraq posts if you don't believe me. But not about all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)