My brother passes this interesting little essay along via e-mail. Not sure who wrote it, but I didn't:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a
Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government A
democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves
generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting
facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:

Gore=127 million

Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore=580,000

Bush=2,2427,000

States won by:

Gore=19

Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Gore=13.2

Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

Not entirely an encouraging outlook, and I like to think we in the U.S. are moving in the opposite direction in terms of dependency. Depends on whose figures you use, I guess.

Posted by joe at 06:05 | Permalink

Un-friggin'-believable. (Tip from Allah.)

If it's still there, check out this link for a chuckle. Also, go through Wizbang's updates.

This adds new meaning to that old saw "I know just enough about computers to be dangerous." You're going to get a painful lesson out of this stunt, Doctor.

Posted by joe at 05:38 | Permalink

Despite having a pretty bad record as a prognosticator, I'm going to make a prediction about tonight's debate. And why not? Despite having a relatively uninteresting life and little expertise on any subject, I'm sitting here writing aren't I? I call it 'performing against type' and doing it makes me feel special.

As noted at LGF, things are getting breathlessly desperate over in Democrat-land. But you already knew that. You also know that President Bush comes into the debate with a head of steam in the polls, so naturally he's going to be feeling a little more comfortable than John Kerry.

You also know all these things: Almost nobody likes John Kerry; This will probably be the most-watched debate; John Kerry is weird enough to overspray himself with instant-tan right before the biggest night of his political career; George Bush is more comfortable and passionate about communicating his beliefs; And, finally, almost no debating will take place during the debate.

What this says to me is, John Kerry thinks he needs to pull a stunt of some type in order to have any chance of getting a bounce out of this event. Unless his team has some kind of back-channel deal to ensure Kerry doesn't get pressed on his various contradictory statements or is given some kind of preferential treatment, the contraints posed by the debate format leave Kerry little room to score a breakthrough.

And he is smart enough to know he needs a breakthrough. What are his options?

Well, you can challenge the opponent to sign something you've pulled out of your pocket.

You can whip out your cell phone and make a call.

You can whip something else out.

Or you can suddenly walk over to the other guy like you're going to smack him, just to try and freak him out.

I'm sure there will be some attempts to get the president to re-enact that frozen moment in April when he couldn't name a mistake he'd made, probably using the "I want George Bush to answer this question..." type of challenge. But that can't be the only tactic in their playbook because it's not guaranteed to work.

I'm pretty sure Kerry's handlers have looked at each of these possibilities and many others. I'm predicting fireworks that make headlines tomorrow. And if I'm wrong about that, then I think Kerry is toast.

Posted by joe at 05:09 | Permalink

Well, when the truth comes out it comes out with guns a' blazing. Much to the chagrin of the fairer folk with whom I share my abode, it turns out I'm allergic to cats.

Having a problem with cats! Who'd a' thunk it? Inquiries have come in wondering why we cranky few are so gosh darn cranky. "Can't you be nicer?" they ask. "Isn't life too short?" they plead.

As luck would have it, there may be a good reason this site is positioned as it is. "Cranky old men" may not be a value judgment, but a simple statement of incontestable fact. Got a problem with that? Well here are some of my housemates:

Notice the theme here? If I were to inform you that our entire enterprise is contained within about 1500 sq ft, you could probably figure out that everywhere you go in this house, you are in the company of furry dander-meisters.

So after enduring an extended period of sheer breathing torture, in which my nose would become so stuffed up that talking was almost impossible, I went to the allergist today. He drew a matrix on both my arms and injected me with a veritable candy store of irritating substances, and the diagnosis is: Reduce the cats and dust mites in your life, or sign on to a cocktail of drugs in perpetuity.

How I ended up with a herd of animals sharing my living space is a story for another day, but there is a lesson in it I can share: Don't let animals live IN your house. It's not how we were meant to live. You want animals? Get a yard.

So now I'm taking new drugs, from am to pm. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think some of the past instances of over-the-top posting at this site could be directly attributable to the author's cat-dander-induced irritation. When I look back and read some of it I definitely say, What in the hell was that guy thinking? Maybe now we know. Blame it on the cats. Blame it ALL on the cats. I like the sound of that.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:09 | Permalink

This is from a new article posted at MEMRI. Bottom line: The Sunni Triangle is no place you want to be, but there is hope if everyone else can work together.

If the Shi'ites in the south can be calmed, as appears to be the case, it is possible that a coalition could conceivably emerge between the Shi'ites and the Kurds, both of whom were victims of Saddam and his Sunni minority. Such a coalition could help contain the conflict and reduce its scope to the relatively small Sunni triangle, which would then find itself boxed in from the north and the south by the two groups, both of whom have a long account to settle with the resistance leaders from among Saddam's supporters.

It provides a helpful, important snapshot of the current situation, and lists major players as well as the troublemakers and their respective fiefdoms.

This does not seem to be a major emphasis in public discussion of the strategy in Iraq, but I think it counts for something: Forcing the Sunni Triangle into submission would be a body blow to Islamicists everywhere, a huge wet blanket thrown over the future prospects of political Islam. That right there is probably a worthy goal.

Posted by joe at 07:07 | Permalink

...and it's only going to cost us $35,000!

I wonder what he's planning to talk about. Hmmm, I think I might have an idea.

One of the local good guys is on the case:

September 28, 2004

George Mason University
Attention: Doctor Alan G. Merten
Office of the President (MS3A1), GMU, 4400
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Dear Dr. Merten:

George Mason University is spending $35,000 for Michael Moore to speak at the school on October 28th. Mr. Moore directed the famously anti-Bush propaganda film, Fahrenheit 9-11. Your Office of Media Relations confirmed that Moore�s payment is from university funds.

How can GMU justify a $35,000 payment for any college speaker? How can GMU pay one political operative so much for one campaign appearance when families are straining to pay your tuition and fees?

Profligate spending for liberal speakers sets a tone for slipshod financial practices permeating the university system. Tax money is being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes.

Has GMU also invited John O�Neil, author of �Unfit for Command,� to speak at GMU for $35,000? Students would be fascinated hearing John Kerry�s background from this famous swift boat veteran, and I am certain Mr. O�Neil would appreciate a generous gift like that given Michael Moore.

I urge reconsideration of your lavish payment to Michael Moore or cancellation of his appearance at GMU. It is partisan politics at its worst and a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,

Dick

Colonel Richard H. Black (Ret.)
Virginia House of Delegates
32nd District

I have a slightly different take on this. I do agree strongly that GMU would be wasting money at a time when the state university system - last time I heard - was not flush with cash. So GMU really should not be spending that kind of money on Michael Moore.

But from my own perspective, I think that, honorarium or not, this whole 'free speech' concept may need to reexamined with regard to Michael Moore. I just watched the second half of Bowling for Columbine (happened upon it while channel surfing) and the guy is just full of sh*t. I mean really, really full of it, but not everyone knows that, so he can be dangerous if people take him remotely seriously.

When we talk about freedom of speech, then, I think a better formulation than 'freedom of speech for everyone' would be 'freedom of speech for everyone except Michael Moore.' Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Maybe then he would just go live in Canada all the time, and have all the freedoms to which he'd then be entitled.

Posted by joe at 05:26 | Permalink

We're known to appreciate a good cemetery story as much as the next guy.

Once again, it is Straight White Guy who digs out the really bizarre link.

To raise money for the cash-strapped cemetery, whose 60,000 deceased residents outnumber the living in Troy, the cemetery's board lifted an idea from the film "Calendar Girls" and posed some of the Capital Region's most prominent residents seemingly naked in the cemetery.

To this I am only going to say, NO.

We, as a species, have progressed too far to allow this to happen. There are already enough highly questionable activities taking place which might, if One were, say, a Deity looking down on it all, cause One to think "I believe this has gone on quite long enough. Let us send another asteroid and be done with all this nonsense."

Bring in the honor guard, bring in the arborists, bring in the clowns for goodness sakes, but please keep your clothes on at the cemetery.

Posted by joe at 12:53 | Permalink

I lived in southwest Florida for 10 years, so these stories get my attention when they come up. The tragedy here seems to have been a case where someone from out of state did not think the danger was real.

Follow the links from Florida Cracker and you'll learn the whole sad story.

Here's the local news report.

Some kid from out of town went to visit relatives in the Fort Myers area and had a hankering to go swimming in the nearby lake.

Skinny dipping in Florida lakes at night is usually a bad idea. Any such swimming is generally not recommended. There are big reptiles living in these areas. Please don't do this.

Posted by joe at 04:21 | Permalink

First, IT'S A HOAX, GUYS, DO NOT WORRY!

I just got off the phone with Jeri at Weiner & Laurin, LLP - the office where the e-mail titled "Subject: FW: Mandatory Military Draft - 2005" was supposed to have originated - and she said "It's a hoax. We looked into it and none of it is true."

I asked her whether she knew how it happened to be sent out under the law office's name, and she said "We don't know exactly how that happened. We think it might have started out in good faith, but you can tell your daughter not to worry because it is definitely a hoax. We made this point clearly earlier in the year after we looked into it, and we thought we had put it to rest, but for some reason it just resurfaced."

For some reason, indeed.

You will find a variety of resources on this topic below. To summarize: Both of the pieces of legislation were introduced by senior Democrats, in the House and Senate respectively. The lie that it is the Bush administration proposing a return to the draft is being spread by the Democratic candidate for president.

UPDATE: As the New York Times reported on October 19, when pressed the Kerry campaign hastens to admit it's "not alleging that there's a secret plan or anything like that." The Times notes President Bush has steadfastly opposed a draft and "In any event, the chances are extremely remote that Congress would approve a general draft."

UPDATE: Guess who REALLY has the plan to require national service? Hint: It's not George Bush, and the bulletin has now been removed from the John Kerry Web site. But it's archived here, for your convenience. Thanks to Captain Ed for the link. Ed adds:

It seems that Kerry has once again been caught in a severe case of projection, and once again has deleted pages from his web site to cover his tracks. His party squeals about a draft which only they have proposed restarting while trying to back-door a plan for indentured servitude for the teenagers of America.

UPDATE AS OF Oct. 7, 2004: The bill was defeated resoundingly in the House. It was a Democratic-sponsored bill.

Presumably, this is the time when today's college-age kids will realize the Democratic Party is for the uninformed.

Maybe today's college-age kids will be a little bit ticked off to find out they're being lied to about who to vote for, by the Party whose senior members are on record supporting a return of the draft, while the Bush administration is on record opposing a return of the draft?

Anyway, let the debunking begin: There is some good background over at Urban Legends (and, kids, go ahead and bookmark that site because people are going to try and sell you cartloads of crap in the coming years and the folks at Snopes can definitely save you some painful learning-from-experience).

Actually, you will probably figure some of this out if you just follow the instructions in the e-mail. Go to thomas.loc.gov and type HR 163 into the search box. What do you see right there at the top?

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services...

Recognize any of those names? For one thing, they are Democrats. In fact, all 16 sponsors of the bill are Democrats. For another, they are among the most strident and vicious opponents of President Bush, so it is improbable that they would be in a position to work secretly with his administration to get their bill passed. Just like it is improbable that you will climb on the back of a pig and fly over the treetops later today.

Follow the instructions for the Senate version of the bill and you'll find the same result.

Likewise, if you follow the links for sss and hslda you'll see that the documents do not in any way support the contentions made in the e-mail.

Whoever created the hoax e-mail apparently believed that the college students who receive it will be A) Too lazy to follow the links, or B) Too uninformed to understand what they would be reading, or C) All of the above.

In case you have not seen it, here is a copy of the e-mail my daughter received, which is apparently being circulated at her college:

Subject: FW: Mandatory Military Draft - 2005

Guess what is QUIETLY being put through the House and Senate - a DRAFT starting 2005. If you are against this, you better pass this on IMMEDIATELY. If you are for it, you can rejoice. I was not aware of this until I received this today and yes, I just verified it.

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about.

This literally effects everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.

There is pending legislation in the house and senate (companion bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been made very difficult.

Actions

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. . .

And let your children know - - it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this website

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an agreement with the Canada which will no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay within it's borders.

This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those that are currently active.

If you go to the select service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the military in case of terrorism. This is a critical piece of legislation, this will effect our undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren.

Please take the time to write your congressman and let them know how you feel about this legislation.

www.house.gov www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the Selective Service System annual performance plan, fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December, 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in.

Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30 point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.

Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

What to do: Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and ask them to oppose these bills

Just type "congress" into your search engine such as Google or Yahoo. Click on the link and input your zip code. A list of your reps will pop up with a way to email them directly. We can't just sit and pretend that by ignoring it, it will go away. We must voice our concerns and create the world we want to live in for our children and grandchildren.

Richard L. Weiner, Esq.
Weiner & Laurin, LLP
rweiner@wllaw.com
Tel: (818) 501-8898
Fax: (818) 501-8897
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1727
Encino, California 91436

Again, this controversy was addressed earlier in the year, but desperate people do desperate things.

President Bush heads into the first presidential debate with a solid lead over John F. Kerry, boosted by the perception that he is a stronger leader with a clearer vision, despite deep concerns about Iraq and the pace of the economic recovery, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll and interviews with voters in battleground states.

I hope this has cleared things up, and you are better informed for at least one of the decisions you will be able to make in the voting booth on November 2. It is not my intention to tell you who to vote for, but rather to simply provide information...

Well, check that, actually. On second thought, I'm telling you to vote Republican, ok? Just do it - you will thank me in ten years, I promise you. I'm not going to pummel you with a bunch of BS, but just think about the fact that the Democratic Party thinks you are stupid sheep who can be led in any direction through the use of lies, celebrity endorsements, hip slogans and edgy visuals.

The Republicans are not gods or angels by a long shot, but between the two parties the GOP respects your intelligence way more than the other guys.

Now, if you share the concern of so many of today's youth's that it cannot be in any way fun or fashionable to support Republicans, please do this: Visit Allah and read a bunch of his stuff, then visit Frank J., and read a bunch his stuff, and follow some of the links on our World O' Blogs list on the right side of this page. Kids - I'm going to let you in on a secret that the Democratic Party is working desperately to keep you from learning: Conservatives are having all the fun. And on top of that, they tend to be making more of the sense.

Welcome aboard.

Thanks to Sparrows Fall for some of the links in this post - there is a good deal more information on this topic over there so please go and check it out.

UPDATE: BTW, that 'good faith' remark from the attorneys office follows in a proud tradition of good faith efforts which went mysteriously askew.

UPDATE II: Also, on the topic of 'fun', visit Ace. He's usually good for a chuckle or two, when he's not scaring you to death.

UPDATE III: Wes Pruden weighs in on the subject, and you've got to love an old white guy who really knows how to skewer the old white guys.

UPDATE IV: And whatever your age, you should stay informed on the most significant issues of the day. This requires a daily visit to Blogs of War. This Web site is the premier Internet resource for news relating to international conflict. Visit regularly to stay apprised of the world you live in.

UPDATE V: FactCheck addressed this back in June.

UPDATE VI: Then, of course, there is the CBS Angle on this story. Y'know, I must be getting slow in my old age, because when I was typing the word 'hoax' the other day, Dan Rather never crossed my mind....guess that's why I'm still waiting for MY pajamas to arrive. Oh well. You can read more about this developing and rather humorous side-story by visiting a REAL pajama guy:

Posted by joe at 03:51 | Permalink

With today's USA Today/Gallup poll giving President Bush an 8 point lead over John Kerry, and even the stingy Rasmussen

finally giving Bush a 2 point lead, it seems like a good time for a few pre-debate comments.

Although we'll cut Rasmussen some slack because today also brings the news that most Americans seem to have figured out that Iraq is an important front in the War.

As a Bush supporter, you tend to watch debates a little like you'd watch someone walking a tightrope over Niagra Falls: It's exciting, but you're a little twitchy hoping he doesn't fall. I don't know why I would think that way, after watching W defeat Al Gore in one debate after another in 2000. I guess I am not immune to the drumbeat of criticism that says Watch out, this guy is capable of gaffes that will make you cringe. I have never even cringed after reading about his gaffes, but you keep on hearing about it so I suppose some of that viewpoint has stuck with me at least subconsciously.

But really, I think you have to be able to verbally defend your positions, so if a guy can't stand up in front of a camera and say what he thinks and what he plans to do, he probably doesn't deserve to be president. Making one's case also reflects inner convictions, and viewers can pick up on that. Even when we don't know who is stating the correct facts, most of us can sense when a speaker is dissembling.

(I don't apply this rule to press conferences and other venues where Bush is surrounded by wolves. I read the Washington Post A-section occasionally so I know very well what "professional" journalists want to happen to this president and I can sympathise with his tendency to be less than forthcoming in that situation. I think most viewers know what the deal is with the mainstream news organizations.)

In the debates, though, both candidates will have plenty of time to state their case and recover from any mistatements. It's three times 90-minutes (and - let me get to the calculator - that means 4.5 hours) which should be plenty of time to get the measure of each man. I can't really see any scenario in which either side will be able to cry 'foul' when all is said and done.

John Kerry is supposed to be a tenacious debater. With the way the polls on the War are going, though, I think if the president states his case clearly on Thursday, the polls that come out next week will pretty accurately foreshadow the election results on November 2.

It all comes down to three debates, and possibly the first could decide it. Shouldn't that be a kick in the teeth to MoveOn, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore, et. al? Think of all the money and effort that has been spent by these guys - think of how much good that money could have done feeding the poor.

Posted by joe at 05:35 | Permalink

The conventional wisdom has been that most of John Kerry's supporters are voting AGAINST the president, while most of President Bush's voters will be voting FOR him. I sort of put myself in the middle, because while I do like President Bush as a person and hope he is able to be successful, it's really from comparing the two viable candidates that I can say with certainty: I support Bush.

I'm a single issue voter this year, and the issue is security. Though Bush has been far from perfect, as we've readily acknowledged in posts here and in most issues of the President George W. Bush Report, he seems more perfect than the alternative.

What I think: I think the conflict in Iraq needs to end in a U.S. victory over the terrorists and Baathists there; terrorists who may be inclined to attack the U.S. should be hit preemptively; we should be skeptical of the notion that negotiations with Iran or North Korea will result in a safer world; and we should be extremely skeptical of the United Nations in every case and on all possible issues. Bush seems to me the candidate who best reflects my own views.

That is not to say I think a President Kerry would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, particularly if there is a Republican-controlled Congress. As a practical matter I think the war against Islamofascism would continue under Kerry. I don't give a crap what happened in Vietnam and I don't even have any personal acquaintances who were hurt by what Kerry did after the war. I don't care that much about his liberal voting record in the Senate. But I don't believe anything he says, and I find much of what he says - especially the constant references to his own heroism in Vietnam - really irritating.

More than anything, though, based on his statements I think he would be less effective to lead the war effort, and I see it as a bona fide World War; therefore, I'm doing whatever I can to help get George W. Bush re-elected.

For the moderates who have not made up their mind and who do not think Bush is evil, this post by Ann Althouse may be helpful in organizing your thoughts on John Kerry.

(Hat tip to the blog from which we are careful not to accept too many incoming links, in order to maintain our sense of self-reliance.)

UPDATE: I forgot about this article from last week's Weekly Standard, but it is reprinted in today's NY Post and it goes to the heart of my point above: Fallujah is arguably the biggest problem facing the U.S. military today, and Kerry's got nothing to say about it (except now, maybe, that he wouldn't have gotten us there in the first place).

Posted by joe at 04:37 | Permalink

Go read Michael Ledeen's column today. No dilly-dallying in the Alpaca Burger Forum, no checking your wrist watch or glancing at the appointment book, no taking one more bite of that sandwich. Just go read the column carefully - it will take no more than 4 minutes - and then you can get on with your life. Here's the topic:

We cannot wage an effective war unless we understand the nature of our enemy. If we do not grasp that the terrorists' ranks are full of people who are there precisely because they are thrilled by the prospect of beheading human beings, we will fail to see the war through to its necessary conclusion. The beheadings are about them, not us. They show us very important things we need to know: What they are, what they want, what they will do if we do not stop them.

Thanks for visiting.

Posted by joe at 11:01 | Permalink

This is an attention getter. I'd read about it recently but didn't put two and two - ie, how it affects ME - together:

Microsoft Windows JPEG component buffer overflow

Original release date: September 16, 2004

Last revised: --

Source: US-CERT

Systems Affected

This vulnerability affects the following Microsoft Windows operating systems by default:

-Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1

-Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Service Pack 1

-Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003

-Microsoft Windows Server 2003

-Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64-Bit Edition...

Microsoft's Graphic Device Interface Plus (GDI+) contains a vulnerability in the processing of JPEG images. This vulnerability may allow attackers to remotely execute arbitrary code on the affected system. Exploitation may occur as the result of viewing a malicious web site, reading an HTML-rendered email message, or opening a crafted JPEG image in any vulnerable application. The privileges gained by a remote attacker depend on the software component being attacked.

So either patch your Windows OS, and risk breaking a bunch of the programs you currently use, or try to avoid Web sites on which these trojan horse graphics might reside - and try to be lucky.

Being as how that second option sounds roughly comparable to the rhythm method in terms of effectiveness and reliability, it's looking like time to update XP. Pretty grim prospect.

Posted by joe at 10:55 | Permalink

Hey, let me say at the outset: Da Bear's da bomb.

But when a solitary, big, white, furry dude has established the mondo cool benchmark for link resonance, any disruption in the bear's universe can get the ecosystem inhabitants a' tweakin'.

Well, such is the case this hale Sunday morn. I don't know about you, but I'm feeling a little bit shrunken on the grand old chain of being:

Not to say I don't deserve it - I'm sure I do - but I just hope it doesn't end up as my epitaph.

Posted by joe at 04:11 | Permalink

We sure don't do enough of it. James at Dummocrats has a post that says a lot more than you get from the first read.

I don't understand how people do it - they excel at work, they have a strong family life, they maintain an active social life, they remain physically active, etc. I try to do half of those things and I have a hard time keeping up...

I think about my Grandfather who fought in WWII on a naval carrier in the great Pacific. I think of my other Grandfather, a Pollock who fought as a Pole, was defeated with the Poles, and was forced into German slave labor as a Pole. I think of my father, who was born in Europe, in the aftermath of the great war, and was lucky enough to make it to America with his family. As I run, and take all of this in, I know that he didn't have anything close to the opportunities that I have before me. He worked his entire short life so that his kids could have the opportunites that he never had.

I take all of this in, and I finally settle into a rhythm.

'Would you like to know what the rhythm of my stride is? You can guess. It's "Thank you, God, thank you God, thank you God." There is nothing I ever did to merit such a life.'

It's really worth reading in its entirety.

For me, the day to day grind can become absolutely oppressive. Months fade into years. I have faith, but it's not a magical bath in fairy dust that makes all the difficulties go away. I worry, lose sleep, lose my temper, and long for a more irenic mindset amidst the stress of the day. Sometimes there is pure emotional peace; but most times the peace of God is something I only recognize when the fog of stress and exhaustion parts and I glimpse the Order that underlies my chaos.

I'm working on that fog situation, though. That's a problem I need to solve.

Posted by joe at 03:43 | Permalink

In our recent post suggesting the anti-Swift Boat whiners should take their complaints to the courtroom; or, really, that the John Kerry campaign should put up or shut up by challenging the Swifties in court, we repeated an assertion we've made a number of times already.

Commenter Johnny Walker Red points out that there's a downside to the courtroom:

Problem is, sometimes they do sue, and just the threat of the legal costs involved is a huge problem for the ones being sued. Take NRO; they were recently sued by a Muslim group. NRO won, but the legal costs have reduced them to begging for donations like Andrew Sullivan.

First: I totally understand the insanity of wishing oneself into a courtroom, especially when a monetary judgment is involved. Second: Far be it from me to suggest to anyone to take on the financial cross that Andrew bears.

Another way to look at it, though, is through the briar-patch.

I think the Swift Boat guys have made it clear they don't fear the courtroom, to say the least. They present their case unapolagetically.

My point in that post was simply that John Kerry seems to be AFRAID of the Swifties and therefore would never challenge them in court, because of what would come out. In the discovery process he would have to unseal his hidden medical and service records which would, one must assume, work against him. Also, I am guessing, he would be faced with witness testimony damaging to him which he could not refute.

Of course, no one knows the full truth except for John Kerry and the Swifties. But if you look at their respective postures - Kerry avoiding the courts, and the Swifties publishing the book and running the commercials and saying 'Let's go to court' - you have to think Kerry is the one who has to hide the truth.

On that basis, I think it is appropriate to laugh at Media Matters for what looks like another lame crusade. The question of why the Swift Boat controversy is not being addressed in court would seem to cut them off at the knees. I'm guessing that the innumerable publishers and producers who have been on the receiving end of their many, many carping letters are laughing at Media Matters, just as we are.

Posted by joe at 02:58 | Permalink

Finally: I think we can say it's time to put this nonsense to bed. This was last year:

The Washington Redskins, again facing off against American Indians who find the team's name offensive, asked a judge to overturn a ruling that revoked the team's federal trademark protection.

"My clients honor -- they don't ridicule,'' said Redskins lawyer Robert Raskopf, echoing the team's long-held contention that its use of the nickname is meant as a tribute.

Seven American Indians successfully argued otherwise in 1999, when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board granted their petition to cancel the team's trademark registrations because of a federal law that prohibits registering "disparaging'' names.

This, thank goodness, is this year:

Ninety percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend them, according to a new national survey.

As a Dallas Cowboys fan living in the Washington, DC area for over 30 years, I of course reserve a special place in my heart for the Redskins. Knowing well the bittersweet epithets hurled my way, usually by a homogeneous gallery of Redskin-loving acquaintances, Sunday after Sunday over the years, I could not easily bear to have my lifelong rivals defaced.

Oh, we entertained ourselves at times - in the catacombs and tawdry alehouses where Cowboys fans can congregate safely here - with jokes about potential new monikers for the hometown team. Irreverant suggestions such as 'Foreskins,' 'Deadskins' and 'Fanny-Boys' invariably came up. But deep down inside, none of us truly wished for the Native Americans' 'defenders' to prevail. Not because we could not appreciate their ire. But because, even when both teams sucked, the great mannichean dichotomy of Washington, DC has always consisted of the Cowboys on one side and the Redskins on the other. Screw around with that, and you're messing with the cosmos.

Posted by joe at 02:36 | Permalink

Those indefatigable gadflies of the right-wing-dominated U.S. media are carping big time about the Swift Boat ads still being allowed to run. 'Stop running these ads' is pretty much the argument. It's their prerogative to protest, but you get the sense that maybe these guys have lost perspective.

Specifically, instead of all the whining and breathless revealing of new indignities, why not just sue the bastards?

Urge John Kerry to sue the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

If their book, Unfit for Command, is full of lies, Kerry should be able to get an injunction against the publisher and the authors and get it pulled from the shelves, and if the television ads are lies he should be able to raise quite a stink about it and get them pulled, and eventually hit those Swift Boat liars where it really hurts.

Save your energy on this useless complaining, Media Matters. It makes you seem petty and inconsequential - because everyone knows that if there are solid grounds for your complaints, the issue will be dealt with in a courtroom, not through a flurry of shrill, impotent protestations.

John Kerry should, by your account, have abundant grounds to take this complaint to the courts, and since so much is at stake we have to think he would do so - assuming the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are not telling the truth.

Posted by joe at 02:04 | Permalink

Life in so many ways is too mundane to even contemplate. But rather than obsess over that, I'm drawn to those obscure bits of information which somehow sharpen one's appreciation for the cozy, day-to-day banality of it all. How we often forget, that things could be much, much different.

You are not insulated from the horrific - it could happen to me, and it sure could happen to you:

The product, imported from Bulgaria by Fried Leonid and originally labeled "chicken for dogs," was given two different fraudulent labels: "Domestic Birds liver pate. Producer: S.E. Grenot, France" and "Pate foie gras. Producer: Lovmit General Toshevo."

Trust in authority is ALWAYS a bad idea:

A British businessman was jailed on Friday for making up the results of more than 100 paternity tests after his lucrative DNA analysis business became swamped with work.

In all, 118 people who paid �660 for a definitive scientific answer to paternity questions instead received a guess from Simon Mullane, the court was told.

Once again, Straight White Guy provides one of those links to make us wonder, Are these the End Times?

The Sinulator is a device that lets you connect a sex toy to your computer so that other people can control it for you over the internet. After announcing to the room that I had one of these, I really had no choice but to open the box and pass the thing around.

If you've ever been to a baby shower, you're familiar with the "oooohs" and "aaaaahs" that ensued...

The final days...dogs and cats, living together...

...it's all enough to get one thinking about protection.

UPDATE: You cannot spell 'The Alternate Reality' without Allah!

Posted by joe at 01:10 | Permalink

I just received a machine-gun blast of those 'Please forward this to everyone in your address book' e-mails, about 12 of them. Not sure why. Usually I don't spend much time on these and I NEVER forward them, but this two part message got my attention. The first I've never seen; the second is an Ollie North column from last month. Here they are.

First, from an Air Force guy:

WE ARE HONORING A TRAITOR ?

This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers, mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century."

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam.

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. In '78, the AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the "Hilton"- the first three of which he was "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned, fed, clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation" visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived.

Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like:

"Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?"

Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat.

At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings.

Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi.

My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient."

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me.

This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..." 100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.

Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.

RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431
COMM: 883-6343

And this is by Ollie, in case you hadn't seen it:

Bring it on, John

Oliver North

August 27, 2004

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions . the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

After seeing an interview with John O'Neill, I have the impression that, unfortunately, the window for apologizing has closed as far as the Swift Boat guys are concerned. Which, for Kerry, has to rank up there with the biggest miscalculations of the year.

Posted by joe at 04:52 | Permalink

Once again, while I'm flailing about in search of just the right way to formulate a position, Wes Pruden steps in and states the case perfectly.

I highly recommend all sentient creatures take the time to read Wes' column at the Washington Times site, every Tuesday and Friday.

In this case, I'd spent a couple days ruminating and seeking supporting materials to help me say, essentially, "I don't think President Bush is perfect, and I think the conduct of operations in Iraq so far has been far from perfect, but hopefully our military-strategist-guys are learning from their mistakes, because it's important the U.S. succeed. Maybe some other hypothetical president of the United States could have made a few better decisions or had better advisors along the way, but I sure as hell do not think John Kerry is THAT hypothetical president.

Also, I strongly believe that unexpected things were expected to happen - 'no war plan survives the first contact with the enemy' and all that - and all along the president has warned the war is going to be a long one and there is much more to be done.

So you get the idea of what I was going to talk about, and you also see why I am not published in the Washington Times every Tuesday and Friday. Here's Wes Pruden on the same topic - this is a snippet and I recommend going over and reading it all:

If money is the mother's milk of politics, luck is the red meat on which winners feed. George W. Bush is only a few ancestors shy of being an Englishman, but he inherited the luck of the Irish.

He gets to run against John Kerry...

George W. can be thankful that Monsieur Kerry is who he is and his party is what it has become, a tattered shrinking tent dominated by a collection of embittered sad sacks who imagine that America is always the problem, never the solution. Another Democrat, of the kind now all but extinct, could be running away with this election by running to the right of the president.

George W.'s vulnerability is the Republican instinct to make nice with the unforgiving enemy, the urge to persuade skeptics that "we're really not as bad as you think." The president's reluctance to go for the kill in Iraq, to retreat from the vandals and thugs trying to become an insurgency, is a fair target for criticism. But Monsieur Kerry, who wants above all to be thought well of by Old Europe, is not the man to attempt it. The anti-war party of Mr. Magoo and the little Duke would rise up against him if he tried.

Nothing would rally the nation like teaching the Islamists (and the many sympathizers among mainstream Muslims) who shoot children and behead innocents with hands tied behind their backs a lesson they wouldn't forget, like unleashing the Marines to clean out Fallujah. The Muslims are not like Methodists, only different, and every time the president says they are, his friends gag and console themselves that he doesn't really believe it any more than the rest of America does.

George W. seems determined to rebuild Iraq the hard way, as an example to the Arabs of how to live in the 21st century, which is too bad. But John Kerry doesn't want to do it at all, which could doom civilization to endless retreat from reality. Not a winning prospect.

It's frustrating to watch mistakes being made, although to be honest I rarely recognize them as mistakes until some time after events have played out. When Bremer dissolved the Iraqi military I thought, 'damn straight, dissolve their asses and send 'em scurrying back to their farms or whatever.' Turns out that was pretty stupid because they apparently didn't have farms or paychecks and started shooting at our guys. You can look at a number of decisions and say 'Damn them - DAMN THEM for making that mistake!' - and then you can visit the local DMV or watch Congress in action and you say 'Hmm, it's somewhat amazing that the government ever does ANYTHING right at all.'

You take what you can get, and I consider the Bush administration highly preferable to the alternative.

Posted by joe at 10:17 | Permalink

That's what I'm talkin' about! Boy this happens too rarely:

Study: Red wine cuts risk of prostate cancer

Drinking four or more glasses of red wine a week chops the risk of prostate cancer in half, according to a new study from researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Red wine had the greatest impact on the most aggressive, fast-spreading prostate tumors, leading to a 60 percent reduction in such cases, researchers found.

About time. Now, I'm still waiting for some positive studies regarding jalepeno pepper consumption and watching football (American - let's not get silly).

Posted by joe at 03:50 | Permalink

I hope this word gets out. The notice is from Blogs of War and the action plan follows:

Jack Hensley was in Iraq for his family. It is true he sincerely wanted to help the Iraqi people, but it was the need to help his family that took him to a war zone. Jack left behind a wife and thirteen year old daughter. Ty was determined to do everything he could to help them, so the day he learned of his brothers death he boarded a plane for New York to run the media gauntlet. Ty did this with the hope of promoting a web site some of his friends (me included) helped him to quickly set-up. The purpose of the site was to raise money for Sarah Hensley�s college fund, and hopefully, help pay-off some the financial burdens that had sent Jack to Iraq. This was the plan....

Originally when I set up the web site I had a PayPal donation button. It was the only thing we knew to do. Once the bank stepped in, however, it was thought best to take the PayPal button off since it feed to a different account. We had not spoken to a lawyer yet and wanted to be sure things were handled correctly. Big mistake.

The small, local bank was not prepared to handle such an international out pouring of sympathy. I do not have the full story, but suffice it to say many generous people who tried to donate were turned away or became frustrated and quit trying. As of this afternoon $2,500 had been collected by the bank. The web site experienced 1.2 million hits but unfortunately for Sara & Pati Hensley that did not translate into much needed help. I have since added a PayPal button to the site and almost immediately kind hearted souls began to help. It is unfortunate we missed the cresting wave, but perhaps there is still hope.

To help, please go here.

Posted by joe at 03:35 | Permalink

Every once in a while, and - coincidentally - often while I'm metabolizing heavy analgesics, I receive comments at this site. Most tend to be simple in nature, along the lines of 'Ha! You're funny!' or 'You are such a moron, at least nobody reads this stupid blog!'

Sometimes, though, I get the pesky ones which A) require thought to digest, and B) aren't wholly supportive of one or more of my posts.

In response to the post from the other day about Vietnam and Iraq, a commenter makes a number of points, including the observation that certain things written here might suggest the author is living in a video-game-world and believes our enemies are best dealt with as geographical units which are best cleared via the slash-and-burn method.

This set me to thinking, and after careful reflection and dutiful excavation of our archives, going back roughly 48 hours prior to this moment, I can see that posts like this, this, and especially this, do give the impression of an extremist approach to the current international conflict.

That being said, I'll let the commenter speak his peace before going on:

Goodness, the tone has changed a bit. In any event, if you think that, after some ten years of fighting, 50,000-plus American soldiers dead, millions of collaterally-damaged Vietnamese, more ordinance dropped in that small country than during all of World War II ... if you think, after all that, our troops were not there "to win," and victory was undermined by Kerry's "secret" meetings in Paris (and the like), well, then I can only say you've been on the Smearboat too long and there's nothing I can do for you. Yes, I suppose we could have "won" the war in Vietnam -- if we were prepared to firebomb or nuke the country and decimate the population. Judging from some of the other posts on this blog, you probably have gone along with that. I, however, am not a fan of Pyrric victories. This ain't Gameboy, you know. One of the elements of a "just" war -- a concept developed by Christian intellectuals, by the way, and invoked by partisans today prior to the invasion of Iraq -- is proportionality. Kill-them-all fails that test, then and now. It strikes me that today's partisans have already brought the stab-in-the-back argument out of the closet, and are deploying it again against Kerry, then as now. I missed being drafted and having to dodge/evade/serve, by about 4 or 5 years, and I'm not at all sorry that I missed the opportunity. I have Kerry, among others, to thank for that.

A number of points are made here, but I will only address what I see as the key areas of difference between the commenter and myself.

First, regarding tone, it changes here all the time. This at times has been reflected with the employment of separate 'authors,' but it is overall just the way this vehicle was envisioned from the outset. It is, in part, a place for me to rant, which is healthier than yelling and throwing shoes at the television. The ranting tends to increase in direct proportion to the heat of public statements that I consider outrageous, and the atrocities committed by certain bad guys. But most of the time this blog does not consists of wild ranting. You have happened upon us during a rough week.

Next, regarding Vietnam, I do not believe our strategy was adequate to win - and by that I don't mean the entire country needed to be leveled. (I don't really think Fallujah needs to be leveled, either - but the political process which forced our military to 'attack, wait three days, repeat' was seriously flawed). In Vietnam, military strategy may have been suboordinated to political concerns - I'm not sure of the 'why' of the U.S. military failure - but the 'what' is well-documented: Lack of the will to win, and poor strategy.

This is from an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

I read somewhere once that one problem was the U.S. treading too lightly because of the fear that China would get involved. Another writer talked about the basic flaw of an incremental approach to combat and the one-step-forward, one-step-back tactics our troops on the ground were limited to.

Maybe you are operating from different information about why the U.S. failed in Vietnam but, really, who gives a crap now? That was 35 years ago. The only part of the story that is relevant in my view is that John Kerry is being vilified by a bunch of guys who saw him as part of the problem. I think they're within their rights to do it, and I think it's no more than a wee bit over the top to level the charge of 'unpatriotic' at the candidate after the way he has positioned himself. It was conceived as an attention-getting title for the post, and certainly I'm not going to go on record saying John Kerry hates America, but he upped the ante so he can deal with the consequences.

This type of story and this type of story express the sentiment well. Here's a good summary:

Over 30 years ago they put away their medals and their uniforms. They buried their anger and bitterness and moved on with their lives--and they waited...

They buried their anger and the bitterness --and they waited. Most of them didn�t know who or what would be the signal to make their move, but they knew they would recognize it when it happened.

On July 29, 2004, it happened. John Forbes Kerry came to the podium at the Democratic Convention and uttered three words that made many Viet Nam vets skin crawl: 'Reporting for Duty!' At last the time had come for these long-suffering veterans.

The past was staring back at these wrongly disgraced vets from their television sets. The face it bore was that of John Kerry, the man who had shredded their honor without a thought and climbed over the bodies of their fallen friends to launch a political career. Kerry had striped them of their dignity the day he sat before Congress in his fatigues and portrayed them as 'baby killers' and 'murderers.' Kerry did the unspeakable. He had publicly turned on his fellow vets while they were still in harm�s way and American prisoners were still in the hands of the enemy. Kerry accused them all of being out-of-control animals, killing, raping, and pillaging Viet Nam at will. The anti-war movement--the protesters--had their hero and he was a Viet Nam War veteran, an officer, a medal winner, a wounded warrior: John Forbes Kerry.

But this is turning into a rather long post. You have brought up some points of disagreement in a basically civilized manner, and I appreciate that. It does make me realize it would be good to do more posting on the ugly events that reflects what I really think rather than just the emotions of the moment. I will, however, first need to square that goal with my really bad temper, which may take some doing.

Posted by joe at 02:41 | Permalink

Just finished watching O'Reilly. He taped the interview with President Bush (the stupid idiot) yesterday I think and is hyping it for a few days until next week, when it will run in three parts from Monday through Wednesday. I'm betting, based on the hints O'Reilly has given, that the president (chimpster) handles the tough questions pretty well and his (shrubness) attitude will present a pretty stark contrast to the eminently superior though understandably dour Mr. Kerry.

The much more thoughtful Mr. Kerry has thus far declined to appear on The Factor during this campaign, and O'Reilly - who has not missed an opportunity to state this fact - took it up another notch tonight.

After teasing with a brief clip from the interview with Bush (the puppet), O'Reilly went ahead and ran a 5-minute interview he conducted with the astonishingly brilliant Mr. Kerry - from Dec. 2001.

In it, Kerry, he of many and bold insights, was positively Bush-esque: He said Saddam "is and has acted like a terrorist�. I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11. But I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way. ... The important thing is that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein fired weapons on Israel! ... In addition to that he has refused to live by the terms of the treaty that he signed at the end of the war in which he agreed to do certain things."

Now, I am sure the skilled exegetes among us could dig out other quotes by the undeniably admirable Mr. Kerry demonstrating that his position on Iraq has been consistent all along, with the gritty determination of those who battle encroaching floodwaters with teaspoons. But that is not the point. The immediate point here is that Kerry the Wise is being painted into a corner with his own words, and he is looking weaker and weaker as a man when juxtaposed with President Bush (the big dope).

So the man who cannot form a sentence, President Bush, is going on the big stage before a massive television audience for three consecutive nights, while Mr. Kerry, about whom no list of fawning adjectives could ever be sufficient, appears to be cowering.

I'm no Bill O'Reilly fanatic, but I think that gang of corrupt thieves in the White House is going to score major points next week. The swing state of New Jersey, indeed.

Posted by joe at 12:43 | Permalink

God bless MEMRI. I don't know how else most of us nobodies out here in the hinterlands, with our headaches, mis-matched shoes and grimy kitchen counters would ever have access to an honest picture of Middle Eastern media. The reality is almost as likely to be better than you might expect as to be worse. It's always fascinating to me and their most recent project is just incredible.

Now you can actually sit down in the comfort of your office, take a couple ibuprofen, kick back and watch Arab television subtitled and unsugarcoated. It's pretty interesting, if you ask me.

Want a taste? This partial transcript is from an interview conducted September 9, 2004, on Iran's Al-'Alam TV. The speaker is Muhammad Kan'an, Head of Sunni Religious Courts in Lebanon:

Islam is far too great for its enemies to damage its reputation. Besides, as the saying goes, even if we accepted all their demands the Americans, English and Jews would not be satisfied with us...

Our religion is very clear about the rules of war and the treatment of prisoners, of the wounded and even about the treatment of the dead. Our religion is very clear on this.

But we are currently in a war we didn't launch, but was waged against us.

We didn't go to the Jews to kill them in their countries, they came and killed us. We didn't go to America to kill it, but America killed us even before the events of 9-11. The English colonized us for centuries, as did the Italians, the Belgians, the Dutch and the French.

The annihilated us, looted us, stole our resources, killed us, and made us ignorant. They caused us to lag hundreds of years behind the world.

After all this, we still say, 'Islam is tolerant...damaging Islam's reputation.'

My brother, no one should fear for Islam, it is Allah's religion.

I think there is some exaggeration in the American response to the events of 9-11...mostly (by) the American media. At the end of last year, I was in New York and asked many people, even Muslims who live there, what the situation was like after 9-11.

They replied: 24 hours of burying the dead, and that was it.

You really do have to go watch the video to get the full effect. They've got a bunch of them. I'm hooked.