Wednesday, September 21, 2005
If this is true, it sucks. And it makes the current Able Danger inquiry all the more, shall we say, poignant.
I always am suspicious of stories that require a belief in government conspiracies to cover up the truth. If given a choice between "hiding something" and "too stupid to find it right under their noses," I favor the latter, based pretty-much on experiences with a few federal officials who, once they've developed a theory, will employ the entire might of the federal government to confirm their theory. No matter how implausible, boneheaded, or flat impossible.
But I don't think we've ever heard a convincing explanation of McVeigh's and Nichols' motivation in blowing up the Murrah Center. I mean, when you go through considerable premeditation and preparation, you have to have a purpose in mind, right? Or else, you have employers who have a purpose and you merely have a job to do and your only purpose is to get the job done.
I don't know what it is, but something isn't right.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
It isn't entirely a matter of priorities.
We assuredly face many problems: the coming caliphate, illegal immigration, obesity, the 2nd amendment, homelessness, viral plagues, the IRS, hurricanes, deforestation, too many abortions, looters, too few abortions, politicians, a permanent underclass, the war on terror, North Korean bellicosity, Iranian religiosity, 17 year locusts and the French. But we are not so impoverished that we can only figure out what's important and try to knock down each problem one at a time, in order of importance. We are a great nation and we can afford to take on the top two or three problems at once.
Remember? LBJ said that we could have both guns and butter.
Well, now we can do a lot better than that. Nothing else will explain this.
I've got a little list.
When does the bombing start?
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Mostly, I think I just like thinking about how this would set off the tools who yelp about the electoral college without a clue about what is really going on, except for the political slogans so thoughtfully supplied by their handlers.
You know, when you consider politics as a circus performed solely for your amusement and diversion, it's not quite so bad. It's only if you think what politicians do might be important that revulsion sets in.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
What does this do to the statistics underneath the use of forensic DNA testing?
Obviously, if the DNA matches that left at the scene, a suspect can be placed at the scene even if the individual is a chimera.
But will this nevertheless throw off forensic DNA testing for identification? That is, can we now rule out that an individual is the crook or the source of future child support just because his DNA sample doesn't match DNA left at the scene?
Guess we'll just have renew the search for the old Cloak of Truth, or else learn how to do the Vulcan Mind Meld thing that Spock used to do.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
The rules of atomic bombs in the U.S. have changed. We are changing the rules we've imposed for ourselves pretty much since we last used atomic bombs. (Just the two of them. Little ones.)
For years, back when we and the U.S.S.R were rattling sabers in their scabbards and pounding shoes on the podium, it was U.S. policy never to initiate a first strike with atomic weaponry, but to retaliate massively in response to an atomic strike at us by anybody else.
Probably the Kremlin had its doubts about whether we could be trusted, so I think they had a similar policy. Thus we two superpowers controlled nuclear exchanges by a policy of mutual assured destruction. In short, our governments held our civilian populations in hostage to a promise that neither country would survive should any country initiate a nuclear strike.
They were grim times. I remember the "duck and cover" drills in school, and I knew at the time that no elementary school desk was going to protect me from the flash burns, the concussion, and the sucking up of all the oxygen in the flames of an atomic strike. We had ICBMs aimed at strategic targets. We had submarines on station with atomic strike capability. And we kept at least one plane high in the air at all times with air force generals on board with the ability to survive a strike on SAC in Omaha, and to give the command to sterilize Russian cities. And we kept everything in readiness for year after year, to blast antagonistic powers back to the stone age if they launched nuclear strike at us. For years, we were ready to counterstrike.
As repulsive as this policy was, it worked. We Americans and Russians are still here, and there's room for both our populations on the earth. We are doing fine.
The reason why it worked is that while we believed that Kruschev was serious about his intentions when he said, "We will bury you," we also knew that the leaders of the U.S.S.R. were fundamentally rational. Once convinced that the other side really does possess the capability of mutual assured destruction, only a supremely stupid or dangerously crazy person would initiate an atomic exchange. And our opponents in the government of the U.S.S.R. were certainly not stupid or crazy. Neither were we -- except we did idealize smelly hippies but that is another story.
Now, consider Iran and North Korea. When was the last time their leadership did something that struck you as rational?
When it is certain that your butt will fry if you launch a nuke, and you have accepted the necessity of crispiness as a consequence of striking the U.S. with a nuke, well, we might as well take out the danger to ourselves with a pre-emptive strike. No sense in all of us getting fried when only some of us are crazy. So, we are changing our rules to accommodate the stupid and crazy governments of the world.
Watch what happens. Iran or North Korea is going to announce that our change in policy is proof that they really, really need atomic bombs, because we are getting ready to lauch against them.
As if we've never had any good opportunities to launch a nuclear strike since about 1950.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco today said that state response to the Katrina disaster was hamstrung by "a federal penal system that incarcerates many of Louisiana's best public servants."
"There are literallydozens of top state officials who wanted to roll up their sleeves and pitch in with help, but the US Justice Department would not grant them parole or even weekend furloughs," complained Blanco.
"We need these veteran public servants back in action now," said Blanco. "With federal aid money arriving soon, somebody's going to have to know where to best direct it."
Of course, Iowahawk was just kidding in the above post. Wasn't he?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Monday, September 05, 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
Think that among the thousands squatting in the dome that they could have found a few hundred willing to try their hand at driving a bus?