Hey, it is off limits to make fun of BO himself, but it looks like his supporters are fair game. I wonder if somebody will come along with a statement more vacuous than "Yes We Can" and give them something to live for?
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Macbook Wheel
I'll buy anything that is shiny and made by Apple ! ;-)
The intuitive type-ahead is pretty good ... "The Aaardvark admitted he was wrong ..." I know that is a sentence that I have typed a good many times in my life!
Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard
The intuitive type-ahead is pretty good ... "The Aaardvark admitted he was wrong ..." I know that is a sentence that I have typed a good many times in my life!
Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard
Death and Sunrise
Parents share heartbreak over death of child - CNN.com
Driving into work this AM I noticed that it was one of those days that the clouds were "just right" to reflect a beautiful golden-orange glow with the coming of the new day. As I did the daily news scan for the day, I noticed this article. My thought of the sunrise, along with the emotional response of "beauty" was: Why should we think it beautiful if we are randomly evolved creatures? What is "adaptive" about finding beauty in a sunrise? Now, I've read enough hard line evolution folks to know that there are ALWAYS "explanations". Maybe guys that found sunrises beautiful had more luck with the ladies (or vice versa). Maybe such artificial "feel good" made people that like sunrises more able to lead, gather food or just not get depressed so they slow down and get eaten by a saber-tooth. God is never going to make one admit that it seems a "gift from above" to be wired such that we can stand in awe of a "simple" sunrise. It is always possible (and even easy) to talk ones self out of faith, love, charity, hope and even beauty. To those so intent, maybe there is some solace in the fact that hate, anger, unbelief, hopelessness, despair and ugliness seem to be much easier states to maintain with little or no effort. In fact, life can make us think that those are the only emotions that are "reasonable".
How easy it is to understand the grief of losing a child from both the view of an ordered creation and a pure random genesis -- "right" and "adaptive" fit just perfectly. There is every reason for an extreme level of bonding with our kids, and every reason for the emotional part of that bond to be strongest and most urgent at the time when they are in the process of leaving the nest. Establishing a solid new identity separate from parents, figuring out how to relate to the opposite sex, figuring out what to do with your life and a host of other emotional, intellectual and physical changes make adolescents hard to get along with, but also very precious. They are no longer irresistibly cute like little kids, but the parental investment of a major portion of our lives and love in them make them dear enough to weather the difficulties of those tasks of separation. We are wired to want them to succeed on their own even while we also dread the day that they are no longer at home with us.
That day is supposed to come with us knowing where they are -- school, job, apartment, married, serving, living. The devastation of it coming with them gone to eternity and leaving us here is too great to really contemplate, and for those who have to bear it, a burden that doesn't leave. Much like the sunrise, the article ends with a hopeful thought of the grief maybe shifting to more a remembrance of the life lived rather than just the death and loss. The article is also completely secular, those with faith can still look forward and live for a better world in which they will be together with those they have lost. None of which is going to "solve" the loss of a child or many other less horrible pains.
Fortunately, that really isn't our task. Our task is to turn from the darkness to the light and meet each new day the best that we can given the lives that we have been dealt with faith that God has a purpose for our life.
Maybe that is why we find sunrise beautiful, it beckons us to look to the light.
Driving into work this AM I noticed that it was one of those days that the clouds were "just right" to reflect a beautiful golden-orange glow with the coming of the new day. As I did the daily news scan for the day, I noticed this article. My thought of the sunrise, along with the emotional response of "beauty" was: Why should we think it beautiful if we are randomly evolved creatures? What is "adaptive" about finding beauty in a sunrise? Now, I've read enough hard line evolution folks to know that there are ALWAYS "explanations". Maybe guys that found sunrises beautiful had more luck with the ladies (or vice versa). Maybe such artificial "feel good" made people that like sunrises more able to lead, gather food or just not get depressed so they slow down and get eaten by a saber-tooth. God is never going to make one admit that it seems a "gift from above" to be wired such that we can stand in awe of a "simple" sunrise. It is always possible (and even easy) to talk ones self out of faith, love, charity, hope and even beauty. To those so intent, maybe there is some solace in the fact that hate, anger, unbelief, hopelessness, despair and ugliness seem to be much easier states to maintain with little or no effort. In fact, life can make us think that those are the only emotions that are "reasonable".
How easy it is to understand the grief of losing a child from both the view of an ordered creation and a pure random genesis -- "right" and "adaptive" fit just perfectly. There is every reason for an extreme level of bonding with our kids, and every reason for the emotional part of that bond to be strongest and most urgent at the time when they are in the process of leaving the nest. Establishing a solid new identity separate from parents, figuring out how to relate to the opposite sex, figuring out what to do with your life and a host of other emotional, intellectual and physical changes make adolescents hard to get along with, but also very precious. They are no longer irresistibly cute like little kids, but the parental investment of a major portion of our lives and love in them make them dear enough to weather the difficulties of those tasks of separation. We are wired to want them to succeed on their own even while we also dread the day that they are no longer at home with us.
That day is supposed to come with us knowing where they are -- school, job, apartment, married, serving, living. The devastation of it coming with them gone to eternity and leaving us here is too great to really contemplate, and for those who have to bear it, a burden that doesn't leave. Much like the sunrise, the article ends with a hopeful thought of the grief maybe shifting to more a remembrance of the life lived rather than just the death and loss. The article is also completely secular, those with faith can still look forward and live for a better world in which they will be together with those they have lost. None of which is going to "solve" the loss of a child or many other less horrible pains.
Fortunately, that really isn't our task. Our task is to turn from the darkness to the light and meet each new day the best that we can given the lives that we have been dealt with faith that God has a purpose for our life.
Maybe that is why we find sunrise beautiful, it beckons us to look to the light.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Good Summary of MN Election Theft
Funny Business in Minnesota - WSJ.com
The local media in MN seems pretty happy with the prospects of Senator Clown -- the WSJ is of course "biased" (unlike the other media) so their opinion ought be discounted. I thought they did a pretty good summary of how every decision went Al's way -- except they missed the BIG early slight of hand that brought Norm's lead down from 700+ votes to 215. That part was really the major coup!
I regularly listen to MPR, and up until today, one of the issues was the "improperly rejected absentee ballots". Today, the rhetoric had changed, and now Coleman wants to count "rejected absentee ballots". Interesting how much difference one word can make, especially if one hears it over and over. Prior to the votes going to Franken, we needed to be told that rejection was "improper" -- now they are just "rejected".
All hail Senator Clown!
The local media in MN seems pretty happy with the prospects of Senator Clown -- the WSJ is of course "biased" (unlike the other media) so their opinion ought be discounted. I thought they did a pretty good summary of how every decision went Al's way -- except they missed the BIG early slight of hand that brought Norm's lead down from 700+ votes to 215. That part was really the major coup!
I regularly listen to MPR, and up until today, one of the issues was the "improperly rejected absentee ballots". Today, the rhetoric had changed, and now Coleman wants to count "rejected absentee ballots". Interesting how much difference one word can make, especially if one hears it over and over. Prior to the votes going to Franken, we needed to be told that rejection was "improper" -- now they are just "rejected".
All hail Senator Clown!
Sunday, January 04, 2009
War and Decision, Doug Feith
This 528 page tome, chocked full of quotes, references and end notes is the book that the left and the MSM would prefer to ban. It ought not be hard to achieve that goal, it is a HARD read, it is detailed, dry, and generally devoid of passion. It is the kind of book that a lifetime bureaucrat would write, and indeed, that is what Feith is.
After 30 years in a major US corporation, my guess is that this book is far more "truth" than anything else written about the War On Terror (WOT) and especially the decision to go to war in Iraq. Why do I think that? Well other than the fact that this one includes copious references and quotes that can be verified, it sounds exactly like big organizations run. Personalities, egos, infighting, CYA (cover your ass), spin, avoidance of responsibility, taking credit where no credit is due, and assigning blame to others. It very much sounds like how a big honkin beauracracy operates.
The core messages are very clear:
After 30 years in a major US corporation, my guess is that this book is far more "truth" than anything else written about the War On Terror (WOT) and especially the decision to go to war in Iraq. Why do I think that? Well other than the fact that this one includes copious references and quotes that can be verified, it sounds exactly like big organizations run. Personalities, egos, infighting, CYA (cover your ass), spin, avoidance of responsibility, taking credit where no credit is due, and assigning blame to others. It very much sounds like how a big honkin beauracracy operates.
The core messages are very clear:
- There was an explicit decision made that the only way to avoid futher attacks on the US without turning the country into an armed camp was to go on offense and fight the terrorists around the world on foreign soil.
- The downside risk of something coming out of Iraq and killing some number of US citizens was simply too high to ignore. EVERYONE -- for over a decade, Democrat or Republican had identified Saddam has a huge threat -- to oil, to Israel and to the US using WMD or passing it to terrorists. Allowing Saddam to stay in power post 9-11 was simply too big a risk. If that was done and something DID happen, nobody would ever forgive the Bush administration -- and they would be right. It was unconscionable that Saddam would be allowed to stay given the post-9-11 world.
- CIA and State could never get on the same page with Defense and generally Bush, BUT, rather than either "win the position", or resign if it was decided that the position taken was something they could not support, both Powel and Tenent were classic "play it all ways" beauracrats and kept fighting -- in the press, by ignoring policy and other ways that caused huge problems in the Iraq effort.
- Richard Armitage (who was the "leak" of Plames name) at state and Scooter Libby (who ended up charged for perjury because he got some dates wrong) were constantly at war about Iraq policy -- very interesting, considering that Armitage kicked off the whole affair, but was (and mostly still is) one of the darlings of the MSM because he was good for quotes from State on how bad the Bush admin was doing. Of course, he was PART of that administration. Bush absolutely needed to fire more people, he was WAY too "loyal" (or maybe just disliked conflict?)
- The biggest actual issue of the war may have been the use of Iraqi exiles vs Iraqis that had stayed in country post '91. Defense wanted the exiles including Chalibi to be installed in an interim government IMMEDIATELY, and they wanted trained exile military folks on the ground immediately.
State and CIA were way against Chalibi and the exiles -- which is the opposite of what we did in Afghanistan. A huge amount of the book is about making the case that State and the CIA were wrong and that was proven by the eventual government voted in, and the conflict over the exiles was what resulted in the disasterous long occupation. A good case is made, I'm not close enough to it and don't know enough of the other side view to make a final determination, but I find it to be a very interesting line of inquiry.
Senator Clown Slithers In
Power Line - Minnesota Senate Recount, Update XV
The Democrats have learned how to win the close ones, at least if they aren't Presidential. QUIETLY! Coleman started out 700 votes ahead, but the hand selected Democrat Secretary of state and Democrats in key districts slowly chipped away with all adjustments going in one direction, and none of them so gigantic that the bulk of the sheep would get suspicious, as long as the lefty press kept the story pretty quiet.
The initial loss of 500 votes of the Coleman lead was probably the most clear vote manipulation, but it happened so rapidly and with the constant assurance that "this was normal", coupled with the fact that Coleman was still ahead, that most people hardly took notice. It was anything BUT normal -- in an extremely close election, the ONLY totals that were significantly modified were Franken's, and they were modified in only one direction in numbers that were far higher than typical "adjustments".
During the rest of the recount, the biggest trick was to decide in Dinkytown, where the election judges were relatively certain that a set of ballots had been run through more than once, that the election night numbers were to be used rather than the recount numbers since there were "missing ballots" (or ballots run through twice, but that was quickly discounted when the direction of the problem was made clear). There isn't any use to have recounts if one isn't going to trust that number more, but almost all those votes were for Franken, so the BIG RULE that "things in Franken's favor get used" won out, and the count from election night was used.
Now we have the "invalidly rejected ballots" -- apparently it seems odd to nobody that a huge percentage of these votes are for Franken. Apparently they got voter lists and called up people and asked them who they voted for and then pushed for those that were for them to be added back in? We find out that is legal, but it seems sort of on the path away from the secret ballot to me. In any case, it seems that it is a fact that by far the majority of the "improperly rejected ballots" are for Franken.
Election theft by Democrats is of course not to be treated as election theft -- else Kennedy would have been an unelected President. It is wrong to say things like that, but of course it was right for all sorts of articles an folks to say that Bush was unelected in 2000, even though EVERY post election study, even by some very partisan left wing researchers showed that he did indeed win that election with no evidence of "shenanigans".
We are even deeper into the "era of change" now -- secret ballots, and even the concept of "fair elections" may well become distant past memories. The nice thing is that the majority of Americans won't even have any thought that anything is wrong, since the MSM will make it seem like things are just fine.
The Democrats have learned how to win the close ones, at least if they aren't Presidential. QUIETLY! Coleman started out 700 votes ahead, but the hand selected Democrat Secretary of state and Democrats in key districts slowly chipped away with all adjustments going in one direction, and none of them so gigantic that the bulk of the sheep would get suspicious, as long as the lefty press kept the story pretty quiet.
The initial loss of 500 votes of the Coleman lead was probably the most clear vote manipulation, but it happened so rapidly and with the constant assurance that "this was normal", coupled with the fact that Coleman was still ahead, that most people hardly took notice. It was anything BUT normal -- in an extremely close election, the ONLY totals that were significantly modified were Franken's, and they were modified in only one direction in numbers that were far higher than typical "adjustments".
During the rest of the recount, the biggest trick was to decide in Dinkytown, where the election judges were relatively certain that a set of ballots had been run through more than once, that the election night numbers were to be used rather than the recount numbers since there were "missing ballots" (or ballots run through twice, but that was quickly discounted when the direction of the problem was made clear). There isn't any use to have recounts if one isn't going to trust that number more, but almost all those votes were for Franken, so the BIG RULE that "things in Franken's favor get used" won out, and the count from election night was used.
Now we have the "invalidly rejected ballots" -- apparently it seems odd to nobody that a huge percentage of these votes are for Franken. Apparently they got voter lists and called up people and asked them who they voted for and then pushed for those that were for them to be added back in? We find out that is legal, but it seems sort of on the path away from the secret ballot to me. In any case, it seems that it is a fact that by far the majority of the "improperly rejected ballots" are for Franken.
Election theft by Democrats is of course not to be treated as election theft -- else Kennedy would have been an unelected President. It is wrong to say things like that, but of course it was right for all sorts of articles an folks to say that Bush was unelected in 2000, even though EVERY post election study, even by some very partisan left wing researchers showed that he did indeed win that election with no evidence of "shenanigans".
We are even deeper into the "era of change" now -- secret ballots, and even the concept of "fair elections" may well become distant past memories. The nice thing is that the majority of Americans won't even have any thought that anything is wrong, since the MSM will make it seem like things are just fine.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Warren Buffett, "The Snowball"
This rather massive book by Alice Schroeder covers the entire life of the current richest man in the world, the super businessman often called the "oracle of Omaha", Warren Buffett from birth to '08 with a huge amount of detail. I've historically not been that much of a biography reader, but maybe age is changing me, I enjoyed the book.
There are 838 pages of text and a bunch of endnotes, so I'm not going to do a lot of quoting and discussion. The biggest things that hit me:
Warren is a huge public propoenent of higher taxes for the wealthy -- but interestingly, he takes a lot of actions to avoid the paying of taxes himself. He has spoken out often and been quoted a lot of being strongly in favor of inheritance taxes, but again, he has transferred many millions to his children using foundations and other mechanisms already and plans to make it a "mere 10%" in the end, constituting a "mere 6 Billion". Apparently, consistency isn't an issue for a liberal no matter how rich you are. I found it especially interesting that he is transferring the remainder of his 60 Billion to the Gates foundation to be spent "as efficiently and well as possible". So why not the US Government? Warren has been outspoken on the need for higher taxes for "the wealthy" -- I assume he MUST believe that those taxes would be well and efficiently spent? Apparently when it comes to taxation the rhetoric and the actions just don't match up even for as succesful, intelligent, and generally admirable a liberal as Buffett. "Do as I say, not as I do".
Buffett is a great study in how captialism allows brilliant people to allocate resources in ways that government would NEVER think of that result in more jobs, stronger business, more money, and while those folks doing there jobs, better allocation of capital for ALL. While guys like Warren and Bill Gates are exceedingly wealthy it is extremely easy to see how they have created far more wealth than they have consumed, and as they allocate that wealth back into the good of all as they get to the end of their lives, they will do even more good. It is a shame that they can't understand that the same principles that have worked so well for them can and do work on a smaller scale for people of far lower wealth, so they continue to espouse political solutions that are likely to kill that golden genie of economic growth that allowed them to amass their great fortunes.
There are 838 pages of text and a bunch of endnotes, so I'm not going to do a lot of quoting and discussion. The biggest things that hit me:
- Simplicity / Models. Relative to business and investing, while clearly a genious, Buffett used a huge focus and passion for business over a LONG time with relatively simply models of price/earnings, only buying businesses that he understood the business model of, and ALWAYS making sure that he had a "margin of safety" built in. Sticking with a few quite simple basic models with a whole lot of intelligence, patience and courgage to "ignore the herd". Allowed the "snowball" of his great wealth to slowly unfold over time.
- While unquestionably having simple tastes in diet and lifestyle, Buffett is a complex man in his dealings with people. He is insecure, hates conflict, loves to push things that he doesn't like off on others (but is generally brilliant at selecting folks that can handle it well and motivating them well). In many ways, it is his "weaknesses" that make him a great business executive--he delegates what he isn't good at well, and focuses like an effective laser on what he is definitely the best in the world at -- selecting the best available businesses and weaving them together into a money making machine.
- The "sweep of history" relative to business is discussed in a very "inside business" way that is enlightening. The constant of different sets of people "certain" of some trend or another -- expensive money, cheap money, stocks never going up, stocks always going up, fuel prices always going to be low -- or high, "new models" that would "never change" -- the "Nifty Fifty", Junk Bonds, Techs, Derivatives, etc. The ditches are littered with all sorts of "new paradigms" that fall on hard times wiping out billions and trillions of dollars in their wake. Meanwhile -- people still eat candy, buy furniture, jewelry, insurance, food, mobile homes, Dairy Queen, Coke, etc -- those are Warren's businesses, the ones that are "always going to be around", the ones that are "boring", unless you want to amass a fortune of billions of dollars from a start of a 100K over a period of 50 years.
Warren is a huge public propoenent of higher taxes for the wealthy -- but interestingly, he takes a lot of actions to avoid the paying of taxes himself. He has spoken out often and been quoted a lot of being strongly in favor of inheritance taxes, but again, he has transferred many millions to his children using foundations and other mechanisms already and plans to make it a "mere 10%" in the end, constituting a "mere 6 Billion". Apparently, consistency isn't an issue for a liberal no matter how rich you are. I found it especially interesting that he is transferring the remainder of his 60 Billion to the Gates foundation to be spent "as efficiently and well as possible". So why not the US Government? Warren has been outspoken on the need for higher taxes for "the wealthy" -- I assume he MUST believe that those taxes would be well and efficiently spent? Apparently when it comes to taxation the rhetoric and the actions just don't match up even for as succesful, intelligent, and generally admirable a liberal as Buffett. "Do as I say, not as I do".
Buffett is a great study in how captialism allows brilliant people to allocate resources in ways that government would NEVER think of that result in more jobs, stronger business, more money, and while those folks doing there jobs, better allocation of capital for ALL. While guys like Warren and Bill Gates are exceedingly wealthy it is extremely easy to see how they have created far more wealth than they have consumed, and as they allocate that wealth back into the good of all as they get to the end of their lives, they will do even more good. It is a shame that they can't understand that the same principles that have worked so well for them can and do work on a smaller scale for people of far lower wealth, so they continue to espouse political solutions that are likely to kill that golden genie of economic growth that allowed them to amass their great fortunes.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Let's Worry About the President Again!
The Associated Press: Blagojevich questioning takes up Obama's time
Hey, imagine this, the President's time is precious! What a concept! The last time I recall this it was when Slick Willie was defending the Presidential right to oral sex by the underling of his choice in the oval office! The press was mighty concerned then as well!! What a shame to be taking up the mans time when it might be better spent with an adoring big haired intern of his choice providing "personal office service".
Now we have the good Saint BO from the political fever swamp of IL, and horror of horrors, somebody thinks that just because your political career was spawned in a swamp, you may have gotten just a wee bit of muck on you. How could they think such a thing! The very concept--why has the MSM says here, BO has SAID that "he and his folks are clean"! Why, what more could one possibly want?
Now somehow I don't recall exactly the same sort of concern for Bush's time. Let's see -- Valerie Plame affair, which never even came close to the oval office? I don't recall much concern over that consuming Presidential time with meaningless questions? Why, I'm sure that Bush even said that he wasn't involved -- now the press was pretty quick to get worried about his time being taken up once he said that, right?
Nice to see the press all concerned that the poor President elect can "keep focus"--would be nicer if there was just a tiny bit of such concern for the POSITION rather than just for "the president of the MSM's choice".
Hey, imagine this, the President's time is precious! What a concept! The last time I recall this it was when Slick Willie was defending the Presidential right to oral sex by the underling of his choice in the oval office! The press was mighty concerned then as well!! What a shame to be taking up the mans time when it might be better spent with an adoring big haired intern of his choice providing "personal office service".
Now we have the good Saint BO from the political fever swamp of IL, and horror of horrors, somebody thinks that just because your political career was spawned in a swamp, you may have gotten just a wee bit of muck on you. How could they think such a thing! The very concept--why has the MSM says here, BO has SAID that "he and his folks are clean"! Why, what more could one possibly want?
Now somehow I don't recall exactly the same sort of concern for Bush's time. Let's see -- Valerie Plame affair, which never even came close to the oval office? I don't recall much concern over that consuming Presidential time with meaningless questions? Why, I'm sure that Bush even said that he wasn't involved -- now the press was pretty quick to get worried about his time being taken up once he said that, right?
Nice to see the press all concerned that the poor President elect can "keep focus"--would be nicer if there was just a tiny bit of such concern for the POSITION rather than just for "the president of the MSM's choice".
The "Southern Strategy"
Here we have a standard little "assertion that requires no support" from the NYT recent Nobel Prize winning "economist".
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves.Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.Let's look at a little number relative to the Civil Rights act of 1964:
The original House version:
- Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
- Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
- Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
- Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Yes, the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses of congress, but it was really REPUBLICAN VOTES that allowed this to happen. The DEMOCRATS from the south were filibustering, and 46 votes isn't going to break a filibuster! 82% voting for the act is a lot better than 69%! One might have some idea that the party that fought the bill tooth and nail and had 30% of it's members in the Senate voting against it might be seen as less than "a champion of the black man in America"--but one would not have taken the media and general lack of public interest in critical thought into consideration. Something repeated enough times tends to become true to most people, so the idea that Republicans are some sort of racists has become "truth" to many Americans.
So Krugman feels that the worm has turned--ding dong, the evil Republicans are dead, long live king BO! Hopefully we have entered an era where facts are no longer a factor and we can all prosper by being bailed out!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Forever War, Dexter Filkins
I have to thank NPR for this book, I heard a few minutes of an interview with the author on I believe "Fresh Air", and it was obvious that while a NYT reporter, Dexter was a WAR CORRESPONDENT first and foremost and taking tidy political positions wasn't part of what he saw in the position. REPORTING -- on what he saw, the people he was with, all of that was what he did. To some degree, war was where he reported because he saw that as "the best and worst" of humanity -- war was a "laboratory" that was always going on around the globe somewhere, and it allowed him to see humans in a concentrated form available nowhere else.
So he starts out in Afghanistan -- during the time of the Taliban, talking of how the Taliban brought "order" to Afghanistan which sorely needed it. People didn't "like them", but it is a realative world -- compared to complete disorder, they were preferable. We in the west are at least SUPPOSED to be "honoring of other cultures". Dexter gives us a little detail on how these cultures work: "I joined the Taliban because they were stronger," Gulimir said. "I'm joining the Northern Alliance because they are stronger now." Yesterday my enemy, today, my brother". It seems that often times the Arab culture is far more pragmatic than our western culture.
He points out matter of factly much of the violence that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam -- all the people taken and tortured, sometimes killed, sometimes not, often "lost", dead or alive. However, he makes it clear --"there was no entering an Iraqi home, no matter how hostile your relationship with it's host, without being embraced by a hospitality that would shame anything that you would find in the west." Again, a cultural difference. What does it mean?
The whole book is great and very well written, and he very much doesn't tell you what to think. He lets you in on the massive amount of "gray" that permeates the Iraqi situation, but I just couldn't forget the chapter titled "Blonde". One of the US troop companies had the job of searching for guns in the little Iraqi towns. Thanks to the co-ed services, they happened to have a hot blonde in the company, so knowning the local culture, they put her out on the hood of the Bradley with her blonde tresses flying in the breeze and broadcast over the PA "Blonde woman for sale". They would drive into the town square and every male of close to age was bidding like crazy ... goats, trucks, all their money, children -- everything. Meanwhile, the rest of the company is searching the houses.
Once they are done, the Captain says, "not enough, no deal" and drives off. The Iraqi's aren't happy, but it is "just business". Think about this just a bit -- it is a muslim country, women have no status, and "infidel women" don't even count -- if you can pick one up it is a "freebie". Needless to say, the Captain ended up getting a repramand--not the kind of innovative use of the co-ed military that the brass had in mind. Sort of puts US innovation and Arab culture in a light that one would not be very likely to hear from the MSM.
It is a book that can't really be quoted and dissected because it isn't trying to "make a case" -- it is reporting what this guy saw and heard. They end up getting a Marine killed trying to get some pictures of a dead Al Quaeda guy. They obviously didn't mean to, but the reporters still feel responsible and it points out that Al Quaeda has their operational imperitives, and some of them (we don't leave our dead behind) aren't all that different from ours.
I highly recommend the book -- in some ways it would be better to read it not knowing what the outcome of the Surge was going to be -- because Dexter didn't, and I doubt that anyone truely did. Bush made a decision which a huge number of people, including Obama, were CERTAIN had no way of working. Dexter wasn't certain -- he saw the potential for hope, but it still worked better than even he expected (not covered in the book, covered on the interview). I consider the Bush decision on the Surge to be one of the great calls EVER by a US politician, especially since although it has become clear that it was an incredibly right call, there is as close to zero credit as possible given to him for it.
Dexter gives an insight that the Iraqi people and our soliders that have fought there are worth something -- maybe even more than a bunch of folks being able to say that "Bush was wrong, AGAIN".
So he starts out in Afghanistan -- during the time of the Taliban, talking of how the Taliban brought "order" to Afghanistan which sorely needed it. People didn't "like them", but it is a realative world -- compared to complete disorder, they were preferable. We in the west are at least SUPPOSED to be "honoring of other cultures". Dexter gives us a little detail on how these cultures work: "I joined the Taliban because they were stronger," Gulimir said. "I'm joining the Northern Alliance because they are stronger now." Yesterday my enemy, today, my brother". It seems that often times the Arab culture is far more pragmatic than our western culture.
He points out matter of factly much of the violence that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam -- all the people taken and tortured, sometimes killed, sometimes not, often "lost", dead or alive. However, he makes it clear --"there was no entering an Iraqi home, no matter how hostile your relationship with it's host, without being embraced by a hospitality that would shame anything that you would find in the west." Again, a cultural difference. What does it mean?
The whole book is great and very well written, and he very much doesn't tell you what to think. He lets you in on the massive amount of "gray" that permeates the Iraqi situation, but I just couldn't forget the chapter titled "Blonde". One of the US troop companies had the job of searching for guns in the little Iraqi towns. Thanks to the co-ed services, they happened to have a hot blonde in the company, so knowning the local culture, they put her out on the hood of the Bradley with her blonde tresses flying in the breeze and broadcast over the PA "Blonde woman for sale". They would drive into the town square and every male of close to age was bidding like crazy ... goats, trucks, all their money, children -- everything. Meanwhile, the rest of the company is searching the houses.
Once they are done, the Captain says, "not enough, no deal" and drives off. The Iraqi's aren't happy, but it is "just business". Think about this just a bit -- it is a muslim country, women have no status, and "infidel women" don't even count -- if you can pick one up it is a "freebie". Needless to say, the Captain ended up getting a repramand--not the kind of innovative use of the co-ed military that the brass had in mind. Sort of puts US innovation and Arab culture in a light that one would not be very likely to hear from the MSM.
It is a book that can't really be quoted and dissected because it isn't trying to "make a case" -- it is reporting what this guy saw and heard. They end up getting a Marine killed trying to get some pictures of a dead Al Quaeda guy. They obviously didn't mean to, but the reporters still feel responsible and it points out that Al Quaeda has their operational imperitives, and some of them (we don't leave our dead behind) aren't all that different from ours.
I highly recommend the book -- in some ways it would be better to read it not knowing what the outcome of the Surge was going to be -- because Dexter didn't, and I doubt that anyone truely did. Bush made a decision which a huge number of people, including Obama, were CERTAIN had no way of working. Dexter wasn't certain -- he saw the potential for hope, but it still worked better than even he expected (not covered in the book, covered on the interview). I consider the Bush decision on the Surge to be one of the great calls EVER by a US politician, especially since although it has become clear that it was an incredibly right call, there is as close to zero credit as possible given to him for it.
Dexter gives an insight that the Iraqi people and our soliders that have fought there are worth something -- maybe even more than a bunch of folks being able to say that "Bush was wrong, AGAIN".
Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)
https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132
This book by Carol Tavaris and Eliot Ar0nson is one that I ought not have wasted the time to read all the way through, but I did.
In summary, humans don't like to recognize our mistakes and admit them -- so we end up with something called "cognitive dissonance" when our natural tendencies try to blame others, say that "everyone does it, and I'm no worse", "the choice I made was the best at the time", etc, etc. Strangely, this writing duo barely seems to realize that "universal" means "universal", so the fact that they seem to be able to see the foibles of conservative politicians much better than their own, or those of the more liberal ilk would seem to be a corollary that they fail to point out. "While it is hard to see faults in yourself or those you agree with, it is EASY to see them in others, and especially those that you disagree with".
To insure that we understand this piece of breakthrough thinking (known at least since "cast the log out of your own eye before going after the mote in your brother's eye"), we have to go through Watergate, the recovered memories movement, police interrogations, and other matters. Yes, yes, at least WE "get it" -- although these folks found a lot of bad cops, interrogators and even psychologists, they "somehow" failed to remember that Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno was one of the early heavy users of recovered memories as a DA. Strange, one might jump to the conclusion that these folks are more correct than they realize they are.
They finally have some good advice -"By looking at our actions critically and dispassionately, as if we were observing someone else, we stand a chance of breaking out of the cycle of action followed by self-justification, followed by more committed action. We can learn to put a little space between what we feel and how we respond, insert a moment of reflection, and think about our actions."
WOW ... and who would be MOST likely to be able to do that? Those of the left who tend to pride themselves on being "in touch with their feelings" and therefore "more genuine", or those evil righties who seem to think that one needs criteria, reasons and supporting data for making decisions? I guess I'm too biased to think that one out.
This book by Carol Tavaris and Eliot Ar0nson is one that I ought not have wasted the time to read all the way through, but I did.
In summary, humans don't like to recognize our mistakes and admit them -- so we end up with something called "cognitive dissonance" when our natural tendencies try to blame others, say that "everyone does it, and I'm no worse", "the choice I made was the best at the time", etc, etc. Strangely, this writing duo barely seems to realize that "universal" means "universal", so the fact that they seem to be able to see the foibles of conservative politicians much better than their own, or those of the more liberal ilk would seem to be a corollary that they fail to point out. "While it is hard to see faults in yourself or those you agree with, it is EASY to see them in others, and especially those that you disagree with".
To insure that we understand this piece of breakthrough thinking (known at least since "cast the log out of your own eye before going after the mote in your brother's eye"), we have to go through Watergate, the recovered memories movement, police interrogations, and other matters. Yes, yes, at least WE "get it" -- although these folks found a lot of bad cops, interrogators and even psychologists, they "somehow" failed to remember that Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno was one of the early heavy users of recovered memories as a DA. Strange, one might jump to the conclusion that these folks are more correct than they realize they are.
They finally have some good advice -"By looking at our actions critically and dispassionately, as if we were observing someone else, we stand a chance of breaking out of the cycle of action followed by self-justification, followed by more committed action. We can learn to put a little space between what we feel and how we respond, insert a moment of reflection, and think about our actions."
WOW ... and who would be MOST likely to be able to do that? Those of the left who tend to pride themselves on being "in touch with their feelings" and therefore "more genuine", or those evil righties who seem to think that one needs criteria, reasons and supporting data for making decisions? I guess I'm too biased to think that one out.
Looking Back 40 Years
I happen to be about 1/2 way through the Buffet Biography, "Snowball", and one of the sections recently covered touched on 1968. While turning 12 in the fall, I certainly have recollections of the year -- more Bobby Kennedy being shot than MLK, and of course the big Apollo 8 moon orbit, but other than a general recollection of all the folks in the Baptist Church being pretty much sure that "this had to be the end times", I don't remember the emotional nuance.
I do get to read a lot of columnists on how AWFUL Bush has been and he really ought to be "the worst president". Reading about '68 and other aspects of the LBJ term and thinking just a bit has made me wonder some on that point. Do we have any criteria? Vietnam is pretty much an "LBJ war"-- over 50K dead and absolutely nothing accomplished. Maybe the WOT might get to 10K if it goes on long enough, but can anyone really look at it from the perspective of today and compare it even in the same ballpark as Vietnam? Let's see, we had two major assassinations and riots across the country--see any of those lately?
Add to that the "slight difference" that LBJ was a one-term president that realized there was no way for him to win a 2nd term, so he declined to run. Of course LBJ had gigantic Democrat majorities in both the house and senate -- from my perspective, that may make him a lot less responsible for the disaster of his years in office, but I hardly think that those MSM columnists would agree with me?
I don't even need to get into Jimmy C ... another classic "one termer". Seems that not a lot can be said for his short tenure other than "it was short".
I do get to read a lot of columnists on how AWFUL Bush has been and he really ought to be "the worst president". Reading about '68 and other aspects of the LBJ term and thinking just a bit has made me wonder some on that point. Do we have any criteria? Vietnam is pretty much an "LBJ war"-- over 50K dead and absolutely nothing accomplished. Maybe the WOT might get to 10K if it goes on long enough, but can anyone really look at it from the perspective of today and compare it even in the same ballpark as Vietnam? Let's see, we had two major assassinations and riots across the country--see any of those lately?
Add to that the "slight difference" that LBJ was a one-term president that realized there was no way for him to win a 2nd term, so he declined to run. Of course LBJ had gigantic Democrat majorities in both the house and senate -- from my perspective, that may make him a lot less responsible for the disaster of his years in office, but I hardly think that those MSM columnists would agree with me?
I don't even need to get into Jimmy C ... another classic "one termer". Seems that not a lot can be said for his short tenure other than "it was short".
The Dark Side, Are We Safer?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dark-Side-Inside-American/dp/0307456293
I've read three books on roughly the Iraq, War on Terror theme this fall, I'm trying to catch up on my book reporting. I've been reading well, just not writing about it much. The thesis of this book is basically that the Bush administration has committed all sorts of torture crimes, none of which have netted any information and all of which have hurt the US, probably irreparably in the world. The book could have had one of those 1-2--09 "The End of an ERROR" bumper stickers on it.
Interestingly, as books like this often do, page 114 says:
Page 137 has another tidbit:
1). The thoughts and policies carried out in the Bush Administration nearly all have their genesis in the Clinton Administration, '98 or earlier.
2). Carrying over George Tenent as CIA director from Clinton was a fateful decision for Bush. One can't really tell if he was incompetent or something more sinister, but many of the pieces of information on which decisions were made turned out to be either "wrong", or "not possible to prove/defend given the infighting with CIA/State and the Bush Administration". Very clear statements made by the CIA that can't be verified by facts on the ground once the invasion happens are taken as "Bush failings".
3). The same policy and in some cases, even actions ("renditions", military action in Iraq, wiretaps, etc) taken under Clinton suddenly become somehow "sinister" under Bush.
Mostly the book is dedicated to the evil of David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, but Doug Feith and the Rumsfeld pentagon get in for some blame as well. Naturally, "the claim that needs no support" -- that "all the efforts of the Bush administration made us much less safe" runs throughout the book. As the last sentence of the book says "fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools".
As I've argued before, one might think that such thinking might require some sort of objective measure. My statement has been since we had the Cole attack in Oct of 2000 and then 9-11 the year Bush took office, if we are indeed now less safe, we ought to have had something similar to Cole in late '08 and be looking for something, or some group of things worse than 9-11 in similar timing in 2009. Perhaps someone can suggest "better criteria" -- although when one realizes that there were a number of attacks during the Clinton administration (first WTC, Covar Towers, Embassy bombings and Cole), and NONE during the post 9-11 Bush administration, it seems that the statement of us being "less safe" would at least be open to question by those thinking in less than purely ideological terms.
It is a hard book to recommend -- the summary is pretty much "Bush, Cheney really really bad, torturers, failures, incompetent, did nothing helpful, everything wrong -- they ought to be prosecuted as war criminals". If you believe that, then you would likely enjoy the book -- and like most of the folks that agree with you, be willing to overlook the odd little things thrown in about "renditions" in '98, CIA stated connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda and such.
My sense is that we are due for a lot of willful ignorance of factual information for a good long while now. Hopefully whatever it was that has kept us safe from attacks since 9-11 was either something unrelated to Bush, or something that Obama will be willing to keep going on the sly so the string continues. If not, then there will likely be terrorist attacks and the need to respond to them in some way that is "without fear and anxiety, by moderate and capable thinkers". If that time comes, I'm sure his worshipfulness BO will step right up, take responsibility, and give us clear direction as to the "smart way" to handle a terrorist attack.
I've read three books on roughly the Iraq, War on Terror theme this fall, I'm trying to catch up on my book reporting. I've been reading well, just not writing about it much. The thesis of this book is basically that the Bush administration has committed all sorts of torture crimes, none of which have netted any information and all of which have hurt the US, probably irreparably in the world. The book could have had one of those 1-2--09 "The End of an ERROR" bumper stickers on it.
Interestingly, as books like this often do, page 114 says:
"On August 5, 1998 a month after the Albanian rendition, in what was to take on the aura of a very personal vendetta, an Arab-language newspaper in London published a letter from Zawahiri threatening retaliation against the United States--in a "language they will understand". He warned that America's "message has been received and that the response, which we hope they will read carefully is being prepared" Two days later, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, killing 224 people.I guess that would be "very early" in the evil Bush administration. A lot of the book is more supposed detail than one would ever want to know about the supposedly secret "renditions", where a terror suspect is jetted to an intermediate country for "intensive interrogation" -- or "torture" depending on your perspective. The book is certain at least during the Bush administration it was torture -- I'd assume that the standards that they applied to "early Bush" in '98 would be more lenient.
Page 137 has another tidbit:
"When Tenet dropped the bombshell. He said that they had a high-level Al Quaeda figure who just told them that Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein's secret police trained together in Baghdad--and chemical and biological weapons were involved."When one reads the detailed record of Iraq, a few things hit very hard:
1). The thoughts and policies carried out in the Bush Administration nearly all have their genesis in the Clinton Administration, '98 or earlier.
2). Carrying over George Tenent as CIA director from Clinton was a fateful decision for Bush. One can't really tell if he was incompetent or something more sinister, but many of the pieces of information on which decisions were made turned out to be either "wrong", or "not possible to prove/defend given the infighting with CIA/State and the Bush Administration". Very clear statements made by the CIA that can't be verified by facts on the ground once the invasion happens are taken as "Bush failings".
3). The same policy and in some cases, even actions ("renditions", military action in Iraq, wiretaps, etc) taken under Clinton suddenly become somehow "sinister" under Bush.
Page 167, "Sexual humiliation was a regular feature of the SERE program. In addition, the notion that Arabs were particularly vulnerable to it became an article of faith among many conservatives in Washington."Uh, just conservatives? The idea that countries where women trundle around in packs covered from head to toe in cloth 10 steps behind, might expose the males to some "vulnerability" to sexual humiliation by women? One would expect that it would be at the very least "different" from their standard experience, and I know I've read a number of articles in the MSM that apparently have that same misconception as those poor simple Washington conservatives supposedly had.
Mostly the book is dedicated to the evil of David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, but Doug Feith and the Rumsfeld pentagon get in for some blame as well. Naturally, "the claim that needs no support" -- that "all the efforts of the Bush administration made us much less safe" runs throughout the book. As the last sentence of the book says "fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools".
As I've argued before, one might think that such thinking might require some sort of objective measure. My statement has been since we had the Cole attack in Oct of 2000 and then 9-11 the year Bush took office, if we are indeed now less safe, we ought to have had something similar to Cole in late '08 and be looking for something, or some group of things worse than 9-11 in similar timing in 2009. Perhaps someone can suggest "better criteria" -- although when one realizes that there were a number of attacks during the Clinton administration (first WTC, Covar Towers, Embassy bombings and Cole), and NONE during the post 9-11 Bush administration, it seems that the statement of us being "less safe" would at least be open to question by those thinking in less than purely ideological terms.
It is a hard book to recommend -- the summary is pretty much "Bush, Cheney really really bad, torturers, failures, incompetent, did nothing helpful, everything wrong -- they ought to be prosecuted as war criminals". If you believe that, then you would likely enjoy the book -- and like most of the folks that agree with you, be willing to overlook the odd little things thrown in about "renditions" in '98, CIA stated connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda and such.
My sense is that we are due for a lot of willful ignorance of factual information for a good long while now. Hopefully whatever it was that has kept us safe from attacks since 9-11 was either something unrelated to Bush, or something that Obama will be willing to keep going on the sly so the string continues. If not, then there will likely be terrorist attacks and the need to respond to them in some way that is "without fear and anxiety, by moderate and capable thinkers". If that time comes, I'm sure his worshipfulness BO will step right up, take responsibility, and give us clear direction as to the "smart way" to handle a terrorist attack.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Creatures and Christmas
A plague of iPhone flatulence - Apple 2.0
Having had the Christmas season marred by the invasion of the flu to both my home and person and being an iPhone owner, this little article hit my strange connection circuits. The Christmas story where the God of all takes on the oh so humble existence of a human baby to be completely dependent and lacking any control over the basic functions of body and emotion, to literally become "a creature", worse yet, a sacrificial creature (and God), seems to much for a human to even imagine.
Nothing went as planned over the Christmas season due primarily to flu, so it was in many ways in keeping with 2008. When "change" is the order of the day, it stands to reason that "plans" are not. Disorder, once it comes calling, is a very powerful house guest, and the flu, followed by a sinus infection is very disorderly indeed. I fear that a lost week of flu may not be nearly as disorderly as maybe a lost decade of national meandering, but being creatures, we play the best we can with the hand that is dealt.
Conservatives of the stripe that believe in transcendence have as much appreciation of a creaturely fart as the most human-worshiping lefty on the planet. In fact, I'd argue that it is really the concept of infinite souls tethered to biological power packs able to heap all manner of indignity on their clearly very human "hopeful transcender" that provides the spark of humor to "iFart". Put that juxtaposition in the context of the descent of Christ to be Emanuel "God with us" and the miracle stretches our creaturely brains to even concieve it at all.
Having had the Christmas season marred by the invasion of the flu to both my home and person and being an iPhone owner, this little article hit my strange connection circuits. The Christmas story where the God of all takes on the oh so humble existence of a human baby to be completely dependent and lacking any control over the basic functions of body and emotion, to literally become "a creature", worse yet, a sacrificial creature (and God), seems to much for a human to even imagine.
Nothing went as planned over the Christmas season due primarily to flu, so it was in many ways in keeping with 2008. When "change" is the order of the day, it stands to reason that "plans" are not. Disorder, once it comes calling, is a very powerful house guest, and the flu, followed by a sinus infection is very disorderly indeed. I fear that a lost week of flu may not be nearly as disorderly as maybe a lost decade of national meandering, but being creatures, we play the best we can with the hand that is dealt.
Conservatives of the stripe that believe in transcendence have as much appreciation of a creaturely fart as the most human-worshiping lefty on the planet. In fact, I'd argue that it is really the concept of infinite souls tethered to biological power packs able to heap all manner of indignity on their clearly very human "hopeful transcender" that provides the spark of humor to "iFart". Put that juxtaposition in the context of the descent of Christ to be Emanuel "God with us" and the miracle stretches our creaturely brains to even concieve it at all.
A Lost Decade?
Get Ready for a Lost Decade - WSJ.com
Some excellent points on the fact that the Great Depression was "one off" at least so far. All this supposed confidence that we won't have another "Great Depression" is pretty meaningless. First of all, whatever we have, it likely won't be "the same"--we would hope it would be "better", but there is no real information to make those kinds of assumptions. There are indeed some very good reasons to make opposite assumptions -- we didn't enter the Depression with 50-100 Trillion of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations!
Some excellent points on the fact that the Great Depression was "one off" at least so far. All this supposed confidence that we won't have another "Great Depression" is pretty meaningless. First of all, whatever we have, it likely won't be "the same"--we would hope it would be "better", but there is no real information to make those kinds of assumptions. There are indeed some very good reasons to make opposite assumptions -- we didn't enter the Depression with 50-100 Trillion of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)