A 73-year-old man has been ordered to clean a veterans memorial with a toothbrush for taking part in a scam to solicit scrap yards for metal, saying it was to be used to build a memorial for soldiers in the Iraq war.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Fitting Punishment
Did the US Sink a North Korean Ship Carrying Nuclear Fuel to Iran?
That's the report from a fringe site that's right as often as it's wrong. Word is that it occurred a few weeks ago:
On July 12, the second intercepted North Korean freighter was sunk in the Arabian Sea by torpedoes fired from a US submarine 100 miles southeast of the Iranian naval base-port of Chah Bahar. Delivery of its freight of enriched weapons-grade uranium and equipment and engines for manufacturing more fissile material including plutonium in its hold could have jump-forwarded Iran's nuclear bomb and warhead project, lopping off at least a year of work. For this Iran's rulers were ready to reportedly pay out a cool $500 million.
A few hours earlier, President Bush received an intelligence briefing on the vessel, its freight and destination. Apparently the shipment was brought forward by several weeks to evade detection by UN nuclear inspectors scheduled to visit Pyongyang this week to verify the dismantling of its nuclear facilities.
One would think this would have significantly ratcheted up the tension at the US-Iran talks a few days ago. Iran's nuclear ambitions were not on the table of course, and it might have been... touchy to add this as an agenda item -- considering the attention these talks have received.
A quick Google News search on Iran and North Korea seemed not to show anything that would support or disprove the allegation. Anyone have reason to think it might be accurate?
Fred Thompson's Pre-Campaign -- As Told by Tim Rice
Fred Dalton Thompson -- one month ago:
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?
Fred Dalton Thompson -- today:
He's a man
He's just a man
And I've had so many
Men before
In very many ways
He's just one more
On Cleavage & Presidential Candidates
I had no comment on the Hillary cleavage 'controversy,' until I heard the definitive remark from my wife.
"Has anyone considered that she might have been trying to look good for a first date?"
Friday, July 27, 2007
Spreading the Good News
There are lots of reasons Catholicism is the healthiest Christian denomination. One is that the Jesuits keep finding new worlds to conquer.
Although I must admit, there seems to be something very... redundant... about carrying the Gospel to Second Life:
In an article in Rome-based Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, academic Antonio Spadaro urged fellow Catholics not to be scared of entering the virtual world which may be fertile ground for new converts wishing to better themselves.
"It's not possible to close our eyes to this phenomenon or rush to judge it," Spadaro said. "Instead it needs to be understood ... the best way to understand it is to enter it..."
"Deep down, the digital world can be considered, in its way, mission territory," he said. "Second Life is somewhere where the opportunity to meet people and to grow should not be missed, therefore, any initiative that can inspire the residents in a positive way should be considered opportune."
Clearly, lots of people are treating MMO RPGs and other virtual domains as an extension of real life. Given how seriously some take it, there must be those who treat it more seriously than their real lives. Where is the spate of articles about those whose lives have been destroyed by addiction to WarCraft, or Second Life, or MySpace? Unless I've missed them, they can't be far off.
Coming this Christmas
Something light for a Friday night -- the must-see movie of the Christmas season:
Worth a viewing, if only because of Jason Lee -- and because it has to be better than this.
Update: And coming next year...
Bloomberg's CIA
Judith Miller has a fascinating look in City Journal at the different anti-terror tactics employed by Los Angeles and New York City. One part of the NYPD anti-terror effort which gets a fair amount of attention is a unit that might be described as New York City's CIA:
The cutting edge of the NYPD’s antiterrorism efforts, though, is David Cohen’s Intelligence Division. “We’re looking at ‘clusters,’ at how and where people get together, what they do and where they go, how they raise funds,” Kelly says during an interview at One Police Plaza. “This analytical work is not being done anywhere else in government. It’s all about prevention.”
Before September 11, the Intelligence Division mainly developed intelligence on narcotics and violent crimes, and sought to protect visiting dignitaries to the city—a glorified “escort service,” Kelly once scoffed. Now, its personnel devote 95 percent of their time to terrorism investigations, the PERF report concludes (and sources confirm). Kelly says that the division has 23 civilian intelligence analysts, with master’s degrees and higher from Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, and other universities; some have come from leading think tanks, even from the CIA—giving the force a capability, he says, “that exists no place else.” The division’s “field intelligence officers,” one assigned to each of the NYPD’s 76 precincts, keep tabs on people, crimes, and arrests that might have terrorism links. “Core Collection” officers develop confidential informants, who could give early warning about people being radicalized by militant associates or websites.
Cohen’s division also supervises undercover agents who infiltrate potentially violent groups. The identities of these covert warriors, and other details of the program, remain fiercely guarded secrets. But information occasionally turns up in federal prosecutions, such as the NYPD’s use of an undercover agent in helping to foil the June JFK airport conspiracy, and of both a Bangladeshi undercover officer and an Egyptian-born confidential informant in disrupting a 2004 plot by Islamic terrorists to bomb the Herald Square subway station. “I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in one day,” one of the accused told the informant in the subway case, a stunned New York jury heard last year. Though the men had not acquired explosives, police arrested them shortly before the Republican national convention in August 2004, after nearly two years of surveillance. The key plotter, Shahawar Matin Siraj, a 22-year-old Pakistani, recently received a 30-year sentence. “This is the kind of homegrown, lone-wolf case that starts way below federal radar,” Cohen says. “But had these two guys acted on their intentions”—to “fuck this country very bad,” as Siraj threatened on tape—“a lot of New Yorkers would have died and been injured.”
But does the NYPD need to share more?
What Bratton criticizes—and he’s not alone—is the NYPD’s alleged refusal to give other law enforcement agencies access to the intelligence that it has so doggedly gathered. “New York has perfected an array of intelligence-gathering initiatives,” he observes. “My concern is that at the federal level, there are too few dots to connect, and in New York, what they collect is not being shared. As a result, law enforcement is not being formed by this information.”
Read the whole thing. It's fascinating. First off, from a simple political perspective, it will provide the meat of Mayor Bloomberg's presidential platform as regards national security -- if he ultimately chooses to run. Since the 9/11 attacks occurred at the end of the Giuliani mayoralty, Bloomberg will claim credit for all of New York's anti-terror developments since the attacks.
Second, it seems to show the extraordinary difference that an actual terrorist attacks makes in perceptions. Miller looks at Los Angeles, whose anti-terror efforts seem a world away from New York City's -- and one big reason is the urgency in New York as a result of 9/11. Should a successful terror attack occur in Los Angeles, one can imagine officials there being forced to discuss why they did not learn the lessons of September 11, and having to consider an overhaul to government structures and jurisdictions to do more of what New York does.
The piece also illustrates the value of an 'Army of Davids' approach to anti-terrorism efforts. One gets the sense that America's large cities can accomplish as much to check terrorism in the US as does the federal government -- once they combine their efforts.
The NYPD's larger and more comprehensive program in particular, seems to be at the center of a northeast regional anti-terror hub, whose roots in the communities offer the potential for a great amount of intelligence about terrorist activities. With the knowledge they develop from walking the streets and listening to tipsters, these police agencies that make a big difference.
LaHood to Retire
Ray LaHood -- a moderate Republican from Peoria, Illinois, becomes the first Republican Representative in a swing seat to announce that he won't seek re-election in 2008. The Politico regards the seat as GOP-leaning, but winnable for Democrats:
Democrats have said the Peoria-based seat would be a target for them assuming LaHood retired -- particularly if Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is their presidential nominee. The district gave President Bush 58 percent of the vote in 2004. A Democrat hasn't represented the Peoria area since 1917.
State senator John Sullivan would be a likely Democratic candidate, and he has already spoken with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Republicans also have a number of potential candidates in the wings. Tazewell County Attorney Stu Umholtz, who ran for attorney general last year, and 25-year-old state Rep. Aaron Schock -- a protege of LaHood's -- are two of the better-known GOP prospects within the district.
Jonathan Singer over at MyDD (a liberal site) opined a little while back that a LaHood retirement could make this a costly seat to retain for the GOP. Depending on who the nominees are and who is at the top of the ticket, that could be right -- we won't really know for a while.
But more broadly, LaHood's name is the first on a list, the ultimate length of which may determine whether the Republicans have a chance of winning back the House in 2008. That's the list of GOP retirements in swing seats. If that winds up being a short list, the chances could be good. If it grows into double digits, it winds up being a great challenge for the GOP to overcome -- barring long Presidential coattails in their favor.
DHS Working on Light Saber
It's not the light saber from Star Wars; it won't cut the arm off a drunken Mos Eisley bar patron. But it sounds cool nonetheless:
The Department of Homeland Security is funding the creation an LED flashlight that uses powerful flashes of light to temporarily blind, disorient and incapacitate people. Homeland Security's Science and Technology arm hopes government agents can use the "light saber" to arrest people on planes and at the borders without using traditional weapons.
The LED Incapacitator uses a range-finder to measure the distance to a target's eyes and then unleashes continually changing, multi-color light pulses that both blind and disorient the person. Intelligent Optical Systems, a small company in Torrance, CA, is developing the weapon with money from Homeland Security's Science and Technology division, which thinks its possible to have the weapon deployed to cops, National Guard troops and border agents by 2010...
The tool could be scaled up to make a light bazooka that could subdue a crowd, but the company is focusing on miniaturizing the device to make it resemble a traditional D-cell Maglite. Right now the prototype is a non-svelte 15 inches by 4 inches wide.
This sounds cool, but remember the old maxim: Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Trouble for the US-India Nuclear Deal
If we're going to increase our dependence on nuclear power -- and if we're going to enhance our security in South Asia -- it would be good to seal our nuclear deal with India. Looks like that's not going all that well, however:
US lawmakers have warned Bush administration of "inconsistencies" in the 123 agreement after reports that Washington has agreed to allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel under civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi.
The warning came after the agreement between the US and India was finalised in extended talks in Washington last week.
In a letter to President George W Bush, as many as 23 Congressmen-led by Democratic lawmaker Edward Markey expressed their concern that perhaps Washington may have "capitulated" to India's demands on the agreement.
India had sought permission to reprocess nuclear fuel, which would allow it to be used for development of nuclear weapons. Leaders in Congress had indicated that would be a problem -- as seems to be the case now.
For its part, the White House says the deal is kosher:
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Wednesday that a just-completed nuclear deal with India complies with U.S. law, but some experts doubted that, and lawmakers said the agreement could face a rough road in the U.S. Congress.
Congressional sources and other experts told Reuters the agreement reached last week appears to go a long way toward meeting the demands of India's nuclear establishment, giving New Delhi rights only accorded to key U.S. allies Japan and the European Union.
You have to hope we can 'square the circle' and cement a relationship between the US and the world's largest democracy.
Environmentalists Choose Nuclear Power
It's nothing new that nuclear power is becoming more attractive for the environmental community as the concern people used to have about nuclear waste is replaced by concern about global warming. It has seemed for a few years now that nuclear power was poised for a comeback.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, the environmental community has been increasingly successful in blocking coal-fired power plants -- including so-called clear coal:
Even proposals to build so-called "clean coal" plants have been met with skepticism. This new technology, which primarily involves converting coal into a combustible gas for electricity generation, has been touted as a solution to coal's global-warming problems.
A hearing judge at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is urging commissioners to reject a plan for Northern States Power Co., a unit of Xcel Energy Inc., Minneapolis, to buy about 8% of its electricity from a coal-gasification power plant that was proposed by Excelsior Energy Inc., Minnetonka, Minn. The judge concluded the 600-megawatt Excelsior plant wouldn't be a good deal for consumers.
The judge concluded it would cost an extra $472.3 million, in 2011 dollars, to make the power plant capable of capturing about 30% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and another $635.4 million to build a pipeline to move the greenhouse gas to the nearest deep geologic storage in Alberta, Canada. Thus, $1.1 billion in pollution controls had the potential to inflate the cost of power coming from the plant by $50 a megawatt hour, making electricity from Excelsior twice as costly as power from many older coal-fired plants that simply vent their carbon dioxide. The recommendation will be considered by the commission on Aug. 2.
It seems that the environmental movement is now doing to coal power what it once did to nuclear. And while we may not yet have affirmatively chosen nuclear power, we've still made a choice; the 'veto' of coal makes it the only realistic alternative.
Note: OK, that last paragraph was somewhat contrived. But how else am I going to link Rush?
The NYTimes Can't Believe Good Iraq News
Good catch from Dick Morris of all people:
Check out this story.
It’s a piece by Janet Elder, a New York Times reporter, about the paper’s polling. It says that the Times couldn’t believe that its polling showed an increase in the number of people who felt it was a correct decision to invade Iraq in the first place, from 35 percent last month to 42 percent this month. Nor could they believe the finding that the proportion of voters who felt the war was going badly dropped by 10 points.
The newspaper article said the findings were “counterintuitive.” In other words, The New York Times cannot believe good news! Typical.
It answers a lot.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
When All You Have Is a Hammer...
Or something like that...
Speaker Pelosi proudly hails House passage of legislation to bar the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq:
Today, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.As I pointed out over here -- and as Ms. Pelosi implicitly concedes in this victory statement -- this legislation is frivolous and pointless.
While the Bush Administration has indicated it would not seek permanent bases in Iraq, Administration officials have recently remarked that the President envisioned a continued military presence in Iraq similar to our presence in Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years. Speaker Pelosi explained that “today’s vote can again make clear to the President, to the Administration, to the American people, to the people in the Middle East, to the people in Iraq — that the American people are opposed to a permanent military presence in Iraq.”
The United States has no permanent military bases; they all exist subject to agreements with the host nation, which can be terminated. So the House legislation does not affect the potential establishment of long-term bases in Iraq. Ms. Pelosi mentions Korea as a negative example; if she wants to avoid a long-term presence such as that one, then the House ought to have considered legislation to bar bases that will be in place for 50 years -- or 40, or 20, or 10 years. But to ban permanent bases won't affect our position in Iraq any more than it would our position in Korea.
Meanwhile, Mr. Murtha says that the House may soon consider legislation to require troop withdrawals. Good for him. That measure could not pass the Senate, so whatever the House does with it is pointless.
This all goes to prolong the fiction that Democrats are seriously trying to end the Iraq war. Had they wanted to do that, they would have denied funding for it. As Dennis Kucinich (of all people) pointed out in the debate the other night:
The answer to your question, ma'am, is: Yes, it is politics. The Democrats have failed the American people. When we took over in January, the American people didn't expect us to give them a Democratic version of the war. They expected us to act quickly to end the war.
Take it from our next President: this is all about politics, not about the war.
It's beginning to seem as if the only issue that this Congress is interested in is Iraq. And while that's clearly our nation's primary concern, it will be resolved one day. What will the Congress have then? God help the Democrats if it is resolved one way or the other before the election; there'll be nothing for them to talk about or take credit for.
Update: Looks like the House might not vote on Murtha's measure, since it would represent 'a step backward' on Iraq. Ironically that's right, but not for the reasons the opponents believe.
"Worst President Ever"
A little perspective, please. James Madison's historical reputation hinges on his absolutely phenomenal work at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and as an author of the Federalist Papers, but his subsequent political career culminated in a presidency which saw the threatened secession of New England (the Essex Junto and Hartford Convention--little taught in modern public schools), the capitulation of an entire American brigade under General Hull on U.S. soil, and the occupation, looting and destruction of the U.S. Capitol and the White House.
And yet, in spite of this, the Democrats succeeded in holding the White House, electing Madison's Secretary of State, James Monroe, in the elections of 1816. In fact, it was the opposition party, the Federalists who had opposed the war, which was destroyed in the subsequent election.
How did this occur?
First of all, the Democratic Party clung tenaciously to its support for the war in principle, while actively taking steps to conclude it on the best possible terms. Jackson's fortuitous victory at New Orleans was a significant part of this equation, but the Democrats grasped the nettle and concluded a completely ambiguous peace (the best for which could be hoped, given the astonishing bungling of the war up to that point) which merely restored the status quo ante.
What saved them was their willingness to claim victory on that basis, and the clear unwillingness of the Federalists to endorse the war in principle. Once the ongoing costs of the war had ended, a positive note was seized and pounded relentlessly as evidence of the ultimately correct logic of going to war in the first place.
In Iraq, then, the question will be, was the war a mistake or not, and was its termination (almost everyone agrees that active U.S. campaigning will be ended sometime next year) on the best possible terms? History suggests that the ability of the Republican Party to effectively answer those two questions will determine the likely Presidential prospects of the Republican and Democratic parties.
Willie Horton Reappears
If the Willie Horton ad was racist, why are Democrats using it in South Carolina against Barack Obama?
Presumably, anyone involved in politics knows how the Willie Horton ad is now viewed; it represents an unacceptable form of politicking. To specifically reference that ad in an attack such as this one would have to be seen as an attempt to stir up that hornet's nest and make a racist appeal, right?
It's unlikely that this attack would come from someone sympathetic to Obama -- trying to air the attack in a way that would tend to discredit it -- isn't it? That leaves us with one of the other Democratic campaigns -- or just some troublemaker.
Hat Tip: Marc Ambinder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
