As the Senate does what it does best and talks and talks and talks...the war goes on:
From Greyhawk :
As for U.S. forces, one Brigade Combat Team (BCT) involved in "the surge" has been in place since late January:
BAGHDAD (Army News Service, Jan. 22, 2007) - The 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team arrived in Baghdad last week as part of the first wave of a planned escalation of forces in Iraq's capital city.
The paratroopers from the 2nd "Falcon" Brigade, who had been based in Kuwait as a ready reserve since early January, are to be followed over the next several months by four more combat brigades, bolstering U.S. forces in Baghdad by approximately 20,000 Soldiers.
A second will join them soon. The 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division will depart for Iraq over the next few weeks. Technically part of "the surge", the brigade is actually deploying as scheduled months ago. The three remaining "surge" brigades will deploy in March, April and May, a few weeks ahead of their departure dates originally scheduled last fall.
*****
As the surge rolls on, congress continues to pretend to be ignorant of the entire plan.
Debate on rival nonbinding resolutions — notably, one spearheaded by Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, that opposes any troop buildup, and another, led by McCain, that supports the administration's planned increase — is to begin Monday.
Against a backdrop of surge troops already in combat - if rumors from Iraq are true.
To add to the fun, all Republican Senators, including John Warner, have pledged to block the Warner Resolution. Credit them with a great degree of intelligence only if in doing so they at last publicly acknowledge the surge for what it is.
Whatever happens, it's seems likely that news from Iraq will be prominent this week. Regardless of whether increased "security operations" in Baghdad begin or not, violent acts will occur. Twenty thousand additional troops are going in locked and loaded, and the enemy they'll confront is well aware of the enormous propaganda value of any action they take this week. As you read these words, American soldiers are counting ammunition, suicide bombers are preparing farewell videos, reporters are outlining stories, and speechwriters are typing furiously away.
As six million people in Baghdad wait and pray.
I wish them well.
UPDATE: from Pajamas Media
A bipartisan resolution opposing US President George W. Bush’s decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq failed to advance in the Senate on Monday, dealing a serious setback to critics of the war. The resolution, which needed 60 votes to begin Senate debate, got only 49, with 47 voting against.” (Ynet)
ABC News’ Breaking slot is currently playing this vote as: “REPUBLICAN MINORITY BLOCKS DEBATE IN U.S. SENATE ON IRAQ BUILDUP RESOLUTION”
Monday, February 05, 2007
Ersatz JOM Libby Open Thread
Since Typepad and JOM are down, here's an open thread stopgap.
Think of it as methadone.
Think of it as methadone.
Steyn on Global Warming
Mark Steyn is on top of the global warming/change issue in his new Suntimes article.
As we say in the north country, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling," the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.
And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.
The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':
''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who is rich and who is poor."
Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off. Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52.5 years. But Mark Fenn is right: Those l'il malnourished villagers sure look awful cute dancing up and down when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising video.
Read it all, it is worth it.
As we say in the north country, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling," the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.
And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.
The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':
''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who is rich and who is poor."
Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off. Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52.5 years. But Mark Fenn is right: Those l'il malnourished villagers sure look awful cute dancing up and down when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising video.
Read it all, it is worth it.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Three Cheers to Da Coltttttssssssss and MVP Peyton Manning
A great accomplishment for them all.
Flash:
Peyton and Tony can win the "Big One".
At least the old chestnut that they can't is now put to rest.
Flash:
Peyton and Tony can win the "Big One".
At least the old chestnut that they can't is now put to rest.
Statistics needed
Ex-dem ponted out an excellent article in the National Post concerning global warming. of particular interest are these paragraphs:
"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.I find myself totally unsurprised at Wegman's conclusions. The article is well worth reading in light of the attempts to silence those who are pointing at the emperor's saggy posterior hanging in the sunlight.
Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.
Third Party?
I have very little respect for either of the men in the photo above. "Independents" and "mavericks" have very rarely added anything of substance to the field of governance. These two are no exception.
That said, it is an interesting historical note that Joe Lieberman (now wearing that (I) behind his name) is now the most powerful man in the Senate. Senator Tim Johnson's recovery appears to be proceeding well but anyone who understands the potential ramifications of the injury involved would have limited expectations of seeing him on the Senate floor this year. Hopefully, he will make a full recovery but it is a very long process.
Good ol' Independent Joe can stroll accross the aisle in a 50-49 Senate any time he feels.. well, independent, and there is not one damn thing the Dems can do about it. Will the thrill of such independence lead to the creation of an Independent Maverick Party? Given the egos of the men involved, it's a definite possibility - especially if Giuliani is still outpolling McCain by September.
Would such a third party run occasion a vote split that would give us the horror of a third Clinton administration? That would be a very likely outcome. If it occurrs I'll be happy to place the responsibility at the feet of 'Keating Five' Maverick McCain.
Bloomington doesn't know what to do
IT IS THE SUPER BOWL and Bloomington Indiana is in a quandry. It must choose between Peyton Manning, handsome young hero of the Indianapolis Colts who is about to do battle with the Chicago Bears and hometown boy Rex Grossman who betrayed his own kind and became Quarterback of the Chicago Bears. What to do?
I am hoping the Colts win. The Grossman clan of Monroe County will just have to get over it.
Why February?
Why do the Global Warming fanatics always pick the dead of winter to make an issue of global warming? It is 6 degrees outside this early Sunday morning. I for one would not mind a little warming trend.
Dafydd over at Big Lizards has a couple of interesting and entertaining posts up on what he calls globaloney. This is just a small part of it:
Before dealing with the true risibility of the Guardian's charge -- its blind spot about its own side -- let's first get the silly elements out of the way:
The long arm of ExxonMobile
The American Enterprise Institute is "an ExxonMobil-funded [lobby group] with close links to the Bush administration;" thus, one presumes, the AEI simply does the bidding of its evil, corporate, Capitalist masters, without regard to the suffering people of the world (Haliburton!)
The Guardian backs up this attack with a single pair of statistics:
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.
What they don't mention is that the AEI has an operating budget of more than $30 million, all of which comes from grants by private corporations, private foundations, groups, and individuals, mostly by conservative foundations (J.M Olin, JM Foundation), rich conservatives like Richard Melon Scaife, and companies like Coors (run by the right-wing Coors family), though they also get significant funding from Microsoft (run by left-liberal Bill Gates). The AEI is a free-market think tank; who do you expect funds it?
Who funds Brookings? Liberals (duh). Their major contributers are the MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Carnegie. (Unlike the AEI, Brookings does get much of its funding from governments: Japan, the U.K., and the United States.)
That's the way think tanks work: conservative ones are funded by conservatives; liberals ones by liberals. This should not be a shock, not even to the Guardian. But their charge was more specific: they clearly want readers to believe that the AEI is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobile, and the AEI is simply Big Oil's puppet.
What the Guardian fails to mention is that grants from ExxonMobile account for only 5% of the AEI's annual budget. If they had mentioned that, readers would likely be scratching their heads over why this is supposed to be determinative. Besides, more than likely, ExxonMobile gives grants to the AEI because the AEI is free-market on energy issues -- not the other way around. The AEI has been around, with the same philosophy, since 1943.
ExxonMobile did not even exist until 1999, when Exxon merged with Mobile. Exxon did not exist until 1973, when it changed its name from Esso. Esso did not exist until 1941, just two years before the AEI was founded (probably not with any money from Esso); Esso was a brand name for gasoline sold by Standard Oil of New Jersey, one of the "baby Standards" created when Standard Oil was busted up by imperial decree in 1911. ExxonMobile (or even Exxon) would thus have begun funding the American Enterprise Institute long after the latter was in existence and promoting free-market economics.
Ever notice how the left has no sense of history? Read it all.
Dafydd over at Big Lizards has a couple of interesting and entertaining posts up on what he calls globaloney. This is just a small part of it:
Before dealing with the true risibility of the Guardian's charge -- its blind spot about its own side -- let's first get the silly elements out of the way:
The long arm of ExxonMobile
The American Enterprise Institute is "an ExxonMobil-funded [lobby group] with close links to the Bush administration;" thus, one presumes, the AEI simply does the bidding of its evil, corporate, Capitalist masters, without regard to the suffering people of the world (Haliburton!)
The Guardian backs up this attack with a single pair of statistics:
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.
What they don't mention is that the AEI has an operating budget of more than $30 million, all of which comes from grants by private corporations, private foundations, groups, and individuals, mostly by conservative foundations (J.M Olin, JM Foundation), rich conservatives like Richard Melon Scaife, and companies like Coors (run by the right-wing Coors family), though they also get significant funding from Microsoft (run by left-liberal Bill Gates). The AEI is a free-market think tank; who do you expect funds it?
Who funds Brookings? Liberals (duh). Their major contributers are the MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Carnegie. (Unlike the AEI, Brookings does get much of its funding from governments: Japan, the U.K., and the United States.)
That's the way think tanks work: conservative ones are funded by conservatives; liberals ones by liberals. This should not be a shock, not even to the Guardian. But their charge was more specific: they clearly want readers to believe that the AEI is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobile, and the AEI is simply Big Oil's puppet.
What the Guardian fails to mention is that grants from ExxonMobile account for only 5% of the AEI's annual budget. If they had mentioned that, readers would likely be scratching their heads over why this is supposed to be determinative. Besides, more than likely, ExxonMobile gives grants to the AEI because the AEI is free-market on energy issues -- not the other way around. The AEI has been around, with the same philosophy, since 1943.
ExxonMobile did not even exist until 1999, when Exxon merged with Mobile. Exxon did not exist until 1973, when it changed its name from Esso. Esso did not exist until 1941, just two years before the AEI was founded (probably not with any money from Esso); Esso was a brand name for gasoline sold by Standard Oil of New Jersey, one of the "baby Standards" created when Standard Oil was busted up by imperial decree in 1911. ExxonMobile (or even Exxon) would thus have begun funding the American Enterprise Institute long after the latter was in existence and promoting free-market economics.
Ever notice how the left has no sense of history? Read it all.
Remember this
Remember this when Hillary says later that she never ever ever really meant that we should use the [ugh!] military against Iran:
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Saturday, February 03, 2007
1864
Victor Hanson makes an interesting comparison to today and the Civil War:
But now Abizaid, Casey, Khalilzad, and Rumsfeld are all absent — or about to be — from direct involvement in the war. The supposed villain cast of Cobra II and Fiasco has exited, and the purported good guys have entered. David Petraeus will, de facto, be in charge, not just in the strictly military sense, but, given the press and politics of the war, spiritually as well — in the manner that Grant by late summer 1864 had become symbolic of the entire Union military effort that was his to win or lose. Many of those officers involved in the “revolt of the generals” have now largely supported the surge — something Democrats themselves had inadvertently apparently called for when they serially lamented there were too few troops to win in Iraq.
All the old targets of the Democrats are no more, and it will take time for them to re-adjust the crosshairs to aim at men and policies that they have heretofore viewed sympathetically.
Second, there is also a new twist to the Democratic criticism, evident in their increasing attacks on the Iraqi government in general and on Prime Minister Maliki in particular. The Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Code Pink rants are no longer to be echoed by bellowing Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, or Kerry, saying in effect that American troops at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or on patrol in Iraq are somehow akin to Hitler, Pol Pot, terrorists, or Saddam Hussein. Instead, in the new liberal brief, we are dying for incompetent Iraqi sectarians who can’t even conduct a decent execution.
That is, we are getting the Sen. Webb brand of critique of Iraq, given in terms of the national interest. Democrats seem to be saying that the Iraqis aren’t worth another American life, and that the hope of democracy over there was misplaced, making futile the rare opportunity offered by American blood and treasure.
It matters little whether this is factually correct; their only concern is the immediate political ramifications of such a “blame ’em” stance. In terms of the effect on military operations, Bush is, in a weird way, sometimes being attacked from his right by the Left — that the Iraqis are tying our hands, or not doing their own part, or incapable of enlightened government.
Not only will the administration bring pressure on Maliki by playing the sympathetic good cop to the Democrats’ bad, but also in the process it will ironically be given, for a time, more leeway to inflict damage on the jihadists. If the old liberal mantra was Abu Ghraib ad nauseam, the new one is that the treacherous Iraqis are releasing those killers that our brave soldiers arrest. While the Democrats may have meant to attack our present tactics in terms of naiveté and incompetence, the charge often translates as insufficient force applied — giving Bush a window to do more, not less.
There was another terrible suicide bomb attack in Baghdad, leaving 121 dead. A truck bomb, primitive and deadly. I do not know that there is anyway to stop all these attacks in Baghdad or Madrid or London, or Mumbai or Manilla or Egypt or Tel Aviv or New York city or Bangladesh or Bali or Pakistan or Kabul or Istanbul.
I can still recall seeing footage from the bomb attack of some time back in Istanbul, Turkey and there was a man in tattered suit wandering through the rubble with a bloody face saying over and over I am English and I am blind. I am English and I am blind. It broke my heart.
I don't think we can stop them all in Baghdad or anywhere else, but we can not allow ourselves to get to the place where these attacks are like car wrecks, just something we have to live with. We can not let ourselves live with this kind of evil as if it were nothing more than a bad accident, a moment of inattention or carelessness...when it in fact it is murder. Calculated, premeditated murder.
But now Abizaid, Casey, Khalilzad, and Rumsfeld are all absent — or about to be — from direct involvement in the war. The supposed villain cast of Cobra II and Fiasco has exited, and the purported good guys have entered. David Petraeus will, de facto, be in charge, not just in the strictly military sense, but, given the press and politics of the war, spiritually as well — in the manner that Grant by late summer 1864 had become symbolic of the entire Union military effort that was his to win or lose. Many of those officers involved in the “revolt of the generals” have now largely supported the surge — something Democrats themselves had inadvertently apparently called for when they serially lamented there were too few troops to win in Iraq.
All the old targets of the Democrats are no more, and it will take time for them to re-adjust the crosshairs to aim at men and policies that they have heretofore viewed sympathetically.
Second, there is also a new twist to the Democratic criticism, evident in their increasing attacks on the Iraqi government in general and on Prime Minister Maliki in particular. The Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Code Pink rants are no longer to be echoed by bellowing Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, or Kerry, saying in effect that American troops at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or on patrol in Iraq are somehow akin to Hitler, Pol Pot, terrorists, or Saddam Hussein. Instead, in the new liberal brief, we are dying for incompetent Iraqi sectarians who can’t even conduct a decent execution.
That is, we are getting the Sen. Webb brand of critique of Iraq, given in terms of the national interest. Democrats seem to be saying that the Iraqis aren’t worth another American life, and that the hope of democracy over there was misplaced, making futile the rare opportunity offered by American blood and treasure.
It matters little whether this is factually correct; their only concern is the immediate political ramifications of such a “blame ’em” stance. In terms of the effect on military operations, Bush is, in a weird way, sometimes being attacked from his right by the Left — that the Iraqis are tying our hands, or not doing their own part, or incapable of enlightened government.
Not only will the administration bring pressure on Maliki by playing the sympathetic good cop to the Democrats’ bad, but also in the process it will ironically be given, for a time, more leeway to inflict damage on the jihadists. If the old liberal mantra was Abu Ghraib ad nauseam, the new one is that the treacherous Iraqis are releasing those killers that our brave soldiers arrest. While the Democrats may have meant to attack our present tactics in terms of naiveté and incompetence, the charge often translates as insufficient force applied — giving Bush a window to do more, not less.
There was another terrible suicide bomb attack in Baghdad, leaving 121 dead. A truck bomb, primitive and deadly. I do not know that there is anyway to stop all these attacks in Baghdad or Madrid or London, or Mumbai or Manilla or Egypt or Tel Aviv or New York city or Bangladesh or Bali or Pakistan or Kabul or Istanbul.
I can still recall seeing footage from the bomb attack of some time back in Istanbul, Turkey and there was a man in tattered suit wandering through the rubble with a bloody face saying over and over I am English and I am blind. I am English and I am blind. It broke my heart.
I don't think we can stop them all in Baghdad or anywhere else, but we can not allow ourselves to get to the place where these attacks are like car wrecks, just something we have to live with. We can not let ourselves live with this kind of evil as if it were nothing more than a bad accident, a moment of inattention or carelessness...when it in fact it is murder. Calculated, premeditated murder.
Could you do it?
Michael Yon at the scene of a suicide bombing in Mosul, with a tale of true martyrdom, one who gave his life to blunt the force of a murderer’s attack:
As the murderer dressed in women’s clothes walked purposefully toward his target, there was a village man ahead. But under the guise of a simple villager was a true Martyr, and he, too, had his target in sight. The Martyr had seen through the disguise, but he had no gun. No bomb. No rocket. No stone. No time.
The Martyr walked up to the murderer and lunged into a bear hug, on the spot where we were now standing.
The blast ripped the Martyr to pieces which fell along with pieces of the enemy. Ball-bearings shot through the alley and wounded two children, but the people in the mosque were saved. The man lay in pieces on the ground, his own children having seen how his last embrace saved the people of the village.
Do you think you could do it? Have the presence of mind and the willingness to sacrifice yourself like that?
Via Jules Crittenden
I honestly don't know. What about you dear reader? Could you embrace death to save the lives of others?
Friday, February 02, 2007
I See Dead People
I know that the dead don't give up their right to vote in New Jersey but isn't it a bit cruel to make them keep working? Perhaps this is a partial explanation of the parlous state of education in the US. I've always considered references to 'deadbeats' in the educational bureacracy to be a figure of speech.
I wonder what the parties are like when they finally retire?
Speaking of New Jersey - is there any sign of nest construction in preparation for the arrival of the '07 model of Ospring I?
I wonder what the parties are like when they finally retire?
Speaking of New Jersey - is there any sign of nest construction in preparation for the arrival of the '07 model of Ospring I?
I have a problem at JOM
When this is resolved, or at least addressed, I will delete this entry.
Last night I was merrily commenting away at JustOneMinute on the Libby case. Suddenly, about 10 or 11PM I could no longer post. I can read everything, I just can't post a comment, nor even preview one. The page won't come up that lets me type in the security letters.
Looks like my IP address was suddenly blocked? I dropped Tom a note, not sure if the email address is one he looks at frequently. I can log in to typepad...no problem. (I had had a problem at Roger L. Simon's which was eventually resolved and turned out not to be any blocking by typepad at all.)
I'm computer literate (yeah, I know that claim covers a lot of ground LOL) and have checked various things on my end to no avail.
Can someone just post a comment to Tom's attention over there? Let folks know I can't participate? (yeah, big yawn, I know.)
If I were the paranoid type......I had just posted my 'theory' about the CIA stonewalling fitz investigation by not giving him definite information on Plame's status. Fitz doesn't know. The judge don't know. Only Plame's hairdresser knows for sure.
The reason fitz didn't indict on the leak itself (Armitage, or anyone else for that matter) was because fitz had no evidence of her status to use in court. I had figured the CIA didn't want to give Val the satisfaction. :)
Then....bye-bye.
Heh.
Update: It seems several people have the same problem on JOM and/or other typepad sites. Meltdown! If you wish to comment on Libby related stuff, feel free to join the comments here...or not.
Last night I was merrily commenting away at JustOneMinute on the Libby case. Suddenly, about 10 or 11PM I could no longer post. I can read everything, I just can't post a comment, nor even preview one. The page won't come up that lets me type in the security letters.
Looks like my IP address was suddenly blocked? I dropped Tom a note, not sure if the email address is one he looks at frequently. I can log in to typepad...no problem. (I had had a problem at Roger L. Simon's which was eventually resolved and turned out not to be any blocking by typepad at all.)
I'm computer literate (yeah, I know that claim covers a lot of ground LOL) and have checked various things on my end to no avail.
Can someone just post a comment to Tom's attention over there? Let folks know I can't participate? (yeah, big yawn, I know.)
If I were the paranoid type......I had just posted my 'theory' about the CIA stonewalling fitz investigation by not giving him definite information on Plame's status. Fitz doesn't know. The judge don't know. Only Plame's hairdresser knows for sure.
The reason fitz didn't indict on the leak itself (Armitage, or anyone else for that matter) was because fitz had no evidence of her status to use in court. I had figured the CIA didn't want to give Val the satisfaction. :)
Then....bye-bye.
Heh.
Update: It seems several people have the same problem on JOM and/or other typepad sites. Meltdown! If you wish to comment on Libby related stuff, feel free to join the comments here...or not.
This is a test
I made the potential mistake of letting blogger put me over to the New Blogger for my personal blog --- which is a test blog largely full of greeking --- but became unable to post to the old-style blogs ... like Flares.
It looks like this has been fixed. But I ain't impressed.
It looks like this has been fixed. But I ain't impressed.
McCain/Lieberman Resolution
Here is the text of the Resolution introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman. Even Hugh likes it.
It is hopeless. YAY!
With a headline stating: "Warming likely 'man-made', unstoppable" the AP hands us this....
I'm expecting the op-ed in the New York Times any day now: "What I didn't find in Antarctica".
Of course this only means the politicians masquerading as scientists can shift their focus from destroying the economies of the most successful nations by essentially taxing emissions, to suing them for the cost of proposed infrastructure changes necessary due to the warming. Of course, what the changes entail and how much they should demand will take years and years of funded research to determine.
And we can all blame Bush. Of course.
PARIS (AP) - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that the world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries," no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.Kyoto is dead. Fer sure. See, there's a consensus among scientists that it doesn't matter anyway. So take back those words in your SOTU, Bush. They should never have been put in the speech.
I'm expecting the op-ed in the New York Times any day now: "What I didn't find in Antarctica".
Of course this only means the politicians masquerading as scientists can shift their focus from destroying the economies of the most successful nations by essentially taxing emissions, to suing them for the cost of proposed infrastructure changes necessary due to the warming. Of course, what the changes entail and how much they should demand will take years and years of funded research to determine.
And we can all blame Bush. Of course.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Doing it for "the Children"
How wonderful of the UN to put out a kiddie book to explain all the evils of global warming. Tore and the Town on Thin Ice will probably set new standards for Child fiction.....ummmm...nonfiction....right? Well, let's let the blurb say it all:
Tore and the Town on Thin Ice is part of the Tunza Environmental Series for Children sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme. Tore is a child character who seeks solutions to global warming, an environmental problem that tangibly affects his community.
Now don't you feel better. T minus one day to Groundhog day....ummm.....WG1. Been there, done that.
Now We Need'em, Now We Don't
What page is Gen. Casey reading from as he strives to reach the pinnacle of Peter Principledom? The proposed Army COS is going to argue against the President's decision in a public hearing on his 'elevation'?
The administration is headed toward P.T. Barnum center ring status if this type of idiocy continues. Public disagreement with the CIC is a helluva start for the new Zinni. Promoting an incompetent never pans out as well as arranging their transfer to someone else's responsibility. This is just sad.
The administration is headed toward P.T. Barnum center ring status if this type of idiocy continues. Public disagreement with the CIC is a helluva start for the new Zinni. Promoting an incompetent never pans out as well as arranging their transfer to someone else's responsibility. This is just sad.
Speaking of assholes
From Power Line :
William Arkin writes on "national and homeland security" for the Washington Post. Yesterday morning, in his blog titled Early Warning on the Post's website, Arkin wrote a post that has to be read to be believed. Titled "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People," the post comments on an NBC program in which soldiers expressed dismay at the lack of support for their mission manifested by some people back home. Arkin appears to take the position that the U.S. military is not worthy of the nation that it protects. Some highlights:
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Arkin's indulgence, for one, is apparently stretched pretty thin. One thing I don't understand, though. If Abu Ghraib and Haditha were the result neither of "bad apples" nor of a "command order," what did cause them? Is Arkin suggesting that they manifest an inherent or widespread depravity among the troops? If not that, then what is his point?
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
Yes, I think that's a fair characterization of what our soldiers have in mind when they ask for our support. I'd be curious to know, too, what Arkin has in mind when he refers to "obscene amenities." Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan--how cushy can you get?
If you can understand this next paragraph, you're smarter than I am:
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.
I have absolutely no idea what Arkin is talking about here. Who are the "Hoover's" and "Nixon's"? And why doesn't someone who writes for the Washington Post know the elementary rules of grammar and punctuation?
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
In other words, I guess, "screw them." I still don't get it, though: what is the "price we pay" for having a volunteer army? The fact that soldiers are disappointed if the folks back home don't support their mission? Wow, that's a heavy price all right!
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
I saw that NBC video on You Tube and the troops were a lot less obnoxious than this bozo. Maybe he would like to go to over to Iraq and tell them face to face what he thinks of them. Nahhh, too much of coward for that. He was in the service himself from 1974 to 1978. No doubt another lefty baby boomer. I am a baby boomer and even I am getting sick of my generation.
BTW, Hoover did not send Americans off to fight, in fact during WW1 when he was not even a registered Republican, he oversaw the largest humanitarian mission the world had ever seen. Nixon was the pragmatic President who went to China. Other than the fact that they are Republicans what is this about?
Let them know how you feel email executive@washingtonpost.com. H/T blackfive.
Did we overreact to 9/11?
Big Lizards says no to David Bell's assertion in the L.A. Times that we did. After all they can not kill us all. Read the whole thing.
I say no as well. King George was not an evil man, the colonists would not have been slaughtered without a Revolution. They just would not have been free of the monarchy.
Thomas Jefferson did not take on the Muslim pirates because he thought they could kill every last of one us, but because Americans do not pay blood money to fanatics.
The war with Mexico was not a defenseive war waged to save New England from Mexican invasion. It was fought both for territory and to minimize the power of Europe in America.
The Civil War could have been avoided, if we have been willing to give up the Union. Lincoln was not, because he knew that without the union there would be no America.
In WW1 the Kaiser was not going to invade from the south and in WW2 the possibility that the Japanese and the Germans could destroy our government and occupy our mainland was not the issue.
The issue was our liberty, not just our lives. I would bet that Mr. Bell would say today that we went overboard when we fire bombed Tokyo after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But then again, maybe not...the president was a Democrat.
One of my favorite writers was John Steinbeck. I remember reading in one of his books, I think it was East of Eden that the thing that makes America unique is our willingness to fight for an ideal. A concept, liberty.
And now we have an enemy that is willing to fight for an ideal as well, the Caliphate. And like the anarchists of old his goal is chaos. And while it is true that they are madmen who in all likelihood can not kill us all... it is also true that if I smacked you up side the head every other day with the back of my hand I probably would not kill you...but I bet that after awhile any person with an ounce of self respect would get kind of tired of that kind of treatment. Some of us anyway. Maybe Mr. Bell would just say to himself, what the hell...it can't kill me so what do I care?
I say no as well. King George was not an evil man, the colonists would not have been slaughtered without a Revolution. They just would not have been free of the monarchy.
Thomas Jefferson did not take on the Muslim pirates because he thought they could kill every last of one us, but because Americans do not pay blood money to fanatics.
The war with Mexico was not a defenseive war waged to save New England from Mexican invasion. It was fought both for territory and to minimize the power of Europe in America.
The Civil War could have been avoided, if we have been willing to give up the Union. Lincoln was not, because he knew that without the union there would be no America.
In WW1 the Kaiser was not going to invade from the south and in WW2 the possibility that the Japanese and the Germans could destroy our government and occupy our mainland was not the issue.
The issue was our liberty, not just our lives. I would bet that Mr. Bell would say today that we went overboard when we fire bombed Tokyo after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But then again, maybe not...the president was a Democrat.
One of my favorite writers was John Steinbeck. I remember reading in one of his books, I think it was East of Eden that the thing that makes America unique is our willingness to fight for an ideal. A concept, liberty.
And now we have an enemy that is willing to fight for an ideal as well, the Caliphate. And like the anarchists of old his goal is chaos. And while it is true that they are madmen who in all likelihood can not kill us all... it is also true that if I smacked you up side the head every other day with the back of my hand I probably would not kill you...but I bet that after awhile any person with an ounce of self respect would get kind of tired of that kind of treatment. Some of us anyway. Maybe Mr. Bell would just say to himself, what the hell...it can't kill me so what do I care?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)