It seems a bit counterintuitive, but I think the development of things like non-lethal weapons - area denial devices, sandbag projectiles, etc - is seriously dangerous to active participation in a democracy. These weapons give the bureaucrats and aparatchiks in government the illusion that they can 'control' people; claiming the humanitarian high ground, without using deadly force. Suddenly, they're several steps closer to being able to do whatever they please "in the name of the king and for the good of the state".
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
Moyers and The Wire
Bill Moyers' Journal has a very interesting interview with the creator of HBO's The Wire.
(Be sure to look for the full version - in 2 parts)
The guy has a lot to say about telling a story that journalists should be telling us and aren't - we're only getting some of these stories thru "reality-based fiction". That's a pretty weird concept. I should prob'ly think on that one for a while.
(Be sure to look for the full version - in 2 parts)
The guy has a lot to say about telling a story that journalists should be telling us and aren't - we're only getting some of these stories thru "reality-based fiction". That's a pretty weird concept. I should prob'ly think on that one for a while.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Obama "Loses" Olympics
Obama's trip to Denmark was about something, but it wasn't about making a pitch for a Chicago Olympics. I think he agreed to take a shot at it since he was there anyway, and the IOC meeting provided cover for something else.
Of course, the righty-wingers are trying to make it out to be something like: 'Obama fails in Copenhagen, and that means the IOC will soon have nuclear weapons.'
A couple of things come to mind.
First, he may or may not be going to the Climate Change conference in December. If he's thinking he won't, then now's a good time to touch some bases and make his points face-to-face with people who will be there.
But second, the quickie with Stan McChrystal was prob'ly a lot more than it seemed. I think it was a Come-To-Jesus meeting. I think the general was told straight out that he can shut up and do his job as the president sees fit, or he can resign his commission and run for the office himself.
Of course, the righty-wingers are trying to make it out to be something like: 'Obama fails in Copenhagen, and that means the IOC will soon have nuclear weapons.'
A couple of things come to mind.
First, he may or may not be going to the Climate Change conference in December. If he's thinking he won't, then now's a good time to touch some bases and make his points face-to-face with people who will be there.
But second, the quickie with Stan McChrystal was prob'ly a lot more than it seemed. I think it was a Come-To-Jesus meeting. I think the general was told straight out that he can shut up and do his job as the president sees fit, or he can resign his commission and run for the office himself.
The Power Elite
Try not to get mad enough to start throwing rocks thru their office windows.
Crooks and Liars
"Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object. Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses -- without submitting claim forms to their insurer. Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years."
Crooks and Liars
"Indeed, lawmakers receive top-notch, wait-free care, and money is largely no object. Members pay a flat annual fee of $503, and it covers all expenses -- without submitting claim forms to their insurer. Despite soaring costs throughout the health care system, prices have been largely stagnant in the Office of the Attending Physician for 17 years."
Friday, October 02, 2009
Liberal vs Conservative
"There is no contradiction in having a hard head and a soft heart." -Tom Morris
Inadvertancy
It's a tough gig coming up with something to fill air time every day. I'm not excusing the behavior - I'm just sayin'.
1) There's been a significant increase in the response "NONE" when people are asked about their religious affiliation. Beck sees this and jumps to the conclusion that it means they've all suddenly turned atheist. Because, of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the really shitty things religion has been used for lately, right?
2) Beck bemoans the use of the melody of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" for a 'pro-Obama' song performed by school kids. Does he not realize that for a pretty good chunk of his audience, that tune is all about the Federal Army invading the sovereign states of The Confederacy? Hmm...
1) There's been a significant increase in the response "NONE" when people are asked about their religious affiliation. Beck sees this and jumps to the conclusion that it means they've all suddenly turned atheist. Because, of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the really shitty things religion has been used for lately, right?
2) Beck bemoans the use of the melody of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" for a 'pro-Obama' song performed by school kids. Does he not realize that for a pretty good chunk of his audience, that tune is all about the Federal Army invading the sovereign states of The Confederacy? Hmm...
David Brooks
This is pretty interesting. NYT has an OP-Ed piece by David Brooks today that calls the influence of the Righty-Winger Media (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al) an illusion. Main point is that their rise in popularity has coincided with the decline of the GOP's electoral success.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Stud Mule For Sale
From Mother Jones - The Wall Street Gang rides again.
Idle Observation 1: If every investment instrument can qualify for the same rating (ie AAA, B-, whatever), then we shouldn't be wasting time effort and money on ratings at all.
Idle Observation 1: If every investment instrument can qualify for the same rating (ie AAA, B-, whatever), then we shouldn't be wasting time effort and money on ratings at all.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Meet Aunt Ardi
National Geographic has a new realtive for us.
This adds another 1.2 million years to our evolutionary track., which now stretches back 4,400,000 years.
This adds another 1.2 million years to our evolutionary track., which now stretches back 4,400,000 years.
The Obama Problem
Some freak named John L Perry wrote an opinion piece "speculating" on what it would take to get military officers to stage a coup d'etat here in the US.
It was posted at newsmax.com for a short while yesterday, but by the time I came across the links on the various blogs I check every day, newsmax had taken it down and redirected the traffic to their main page. No disclaimer; no retraction; nuthin'.
Here's the full text:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’ 9/29/09 11:37 PM
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the
“Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
-Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
-Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
-They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
-They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
-They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
-They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
-They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
-They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes,
destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win?
Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty?
Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared
responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would
replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the
president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a
Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal
responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two
presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
It was posted at newsmax.com for a short while yesterday, but by the time I came across the links on the various blogs I check every day, newsmax had taken it down and redirected the traffic to their main page. No disclaimer; no retraction; nuthin'.
Here's the full text:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’ 9/29/09 11:37 PM
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the
“Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
-Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
-Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
-They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
-They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
-They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
-They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
-They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
-They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes,
destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win?
Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty?
Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared
responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would
replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the
president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a
Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal
responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two
presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Every 12 Minutes
One American dies every 12 minutes because they don't have the healthcare insurance they need to cover the cost of their treatment.
865 dead Americans every week
3750 dead Americans every month
What lengths have we gone to; what have we spent, in terms of lives and money and soul, trying to prevent another 9/11?
865 dead Americans every week
3750 dead Americans every month
What lengths have we gone to; what have we spent, in terms of lives and money and soul, trying to prevent another 9/11?
Ad - David Vitter, ACORN and Hookers
It's prob'ly a good idea to take ACORN apart and to let a new umbrella group emerge - I just think we should be careful not to accept much of anything on face value that comes from a noisy minority out on the wing of either political party.
That said, this ad parody is a fair example of a double irony. Dems complain when the Repubs conflate 2 unrelated issues in order to put up a Straw Man, and here they are doing exactly that. I just think the ad's pretty funny.
That said, this ad parody is a fair example of a double irony. Dems complain when the Repubs conflate 2 unrelated issues in order to put up a Straw Man, and here they are doing exactly that. I just think the ad's pretty funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)