Congress should fund troops "without telling our military how to conduct this war,
Maybe I'm confused, but considering that Congress is supposedly the only entity that can authorize war and authorize peace accords, it might be important for them to be have some influence over how the military conducts itself beyond just assessing funding. It's truly annoying to have the 'emperor' bothering the general once he has committed to battle, agreed. But the whole committing to battle and not committing to battle is a political question. While it's nice to win battles, it's important to understand what are we fighting for. And it's not clear what that is in Iraq and it never was. First it was WMDs, then freedom, and now. .terrorism? There's a laudable goal somewhere in building a free and stable country, but if you're building something, it helps to have a stable foundation on which to build and build from. A castle made of sand will just blow away eventually. Iran or Lebanon are much more ripe for democracy than Iraq will be for many years. Even Palestine is probably better equipped than Iraq.
Given what I've been seeing, it sounds like the 'surge' is having some effects. But it is not really a surge that is doing anything, because they radically changed tactics. Someone figured out that they were in guerrilla warfare and started behaving accordingly. There's a play book for fighting unconventional warfare. Much of it includes being active and present in communities that are threatened in order to provide at least a semi-positive image of troop disposition. Cooperation with locals allows for cutting off supplies of men and material, better reconnaissance, and a safer working environment for everyone. Sitting on forts and escorting diplomats or supplies through dangerous territory by shooting at anything that moves does not. I'm glad someone at the Pentagon was smart enough to figure that out..after 4 years. Unfortunately they apparently forgot to tell the mercs to behave.
"Bush had "knowingly" disregarded or misrepresented intelligence. "This is ... exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq, in consistently exaggerating the intelligence," -- This on Iran, after reports now that Iran has halted it's nuclear weapons program as of several years ago. It is true that any country with nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities can build a nuclear weapon. But to do it under international scrutiny is fairly difficult. This was principally why I was not committed to Iraq in the first place because it was so difficult to produce such facilities and weapons under both sanctions and scrutiny. Why we rushed to believe intelligence suggests that we were willing to assume that Saddam was a bad guy, which he was. And that he wanted to do something dramatic, which he might. What we really should have done then is just put a bullet in his head or a bomb on the palace he was sleeping in, but that apparently is against our laws. Something about risking assassination of the President, even though that's only happened from domestic sources, and probably will continue to be so long as we have a huge military. If we're that worried about it, we could have taken the case to the UN and said "look the sanctions are only making Saddam and his cronies rich (as well as the UN). Why don't we just take care of this problem the old fashioned way and shoot the guy." Barring that, we could have sent people in to detain him for international tribunal (which if you notice, he was only charged with things that happened before the US started selling him weapons in the 80s to kill Persians but used against his own citizens as well). Occupying a country and attempting to build a regime that was favorable to our positions is not a tenable foreign policy stance (though it worked sometimes during the Cold War for a while, it always backfires; just look at Iran and anywhere in Latin America). Shooting international criminals however is probably fine.
"commented on the case of a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman who was gang-raped and then punished by a Saudi court which sentenced her to 200 lashes and six months in prison."
--- While it is true she was punished, her crime was not being raped. It would do to distinguish the inanity of strict shariah law. Her crime was meeting with an unrelated male alone, not being assaulted and raped by several men. Supposedly shariah law recognizes that rape is rather unpleasant at least, but given that the otherwise strict judicial code did not execute the rapists, or at least castrate them... I might have been mistaken. If they're willing to saw off people's hands for theft, then I'd think the least that could be done is cut off a rapist's tools as well.
04 December 2007
today here and gone
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/04/rip-facebook/?cnn=yes
This would be.. unfortunate? I don't know. It doesn't really have any blogging features and the whole viral advertising is really pretty annoying, if not down right creepy. Granted that gathering information on people is something even grocery stores and gas stations are doing now. The entire ID theft problem became national news when it was discovered that hundreds of thousands of people's confidential data was being accumulated and then sold by dozens of companies to just about anyone who asked for it. So the creepy factor is pretty low, given the environment and the accessibility of the web. The fact that advertisers would walk out on a website with several million members however gives one pause however. If so, I guess I'll have to make due with this teenybopper-infested wasteland and Google's equally creepy blogging sites where I get plenty of spam from Latin America and not much else (bad enough to get spam, but in Spanish?, when did that happen).
This would be.. unfortunate? I don't know. It doesn't really have any blogging features and the whole viral advertising is really pretty annoying, if not down right creepy. Granted that gathering information on people is something even grocery stores and gas stations are doing now. The entire ID theft problem became national news when it was discovered that hundreds of thousands of people's confidential data was being accumulated and then sold by dozens of companies to just about anyone who asked for it. So the creepy factor is pretty low, given the environment and the accessibility of the web. The fact that advertisers would walk out on a website with several million members however gives one pause however. If so, I guess I'll have to make due with this teenybopper-infested wasteland and Google's equally creepy blogging sites where I get plenty of spam from Latin America and not much else (bad enough to get spam, but in Spanish?, when did that happen).
03 December 2007
32 is a bit much
There are 32 bowl games for college football. By my math, that's 64 teams. Virtually the same as the number for college basketball. I say that's overkill. I know people enjoy watching football. But a bowl game is essentially like a playoff game. Making the playoffs should be relatively hard. Since there are 120 teams in D1 football, over half of them make the "playoffs". This is a frequent problem with say the NBA or NHL playoffs with 16 teams out of 30, but those formats are somewhat different and are more ingrained as a playoff structure, whilst some of these bowls are relatively new. For comparison, if there are 65 teams making the playoffs for college basketball, out of 328, then statistically there should be 24 teams in bowl games. Accepting the consolation NIT tournament as a playoff, that improves the number to 36. 18 bowl games would be manageable and we would have more legitimate representatives. For example: Memphis vs Florida Atlantic? Southern Miss? And so on. About half the teams that are in bowl games did little more than play 6 or 7 cupcakes to get there and did almost nothing on a national scale to deserve attention by playing a game after the season ended, generally losing to the only good team they played all year, plus some conference opponents.
I'm not concerned with the whole 'we need a playoff in college football'. What we need is a more exclusive bowl system. Then we can talk about a playoff between the most elite teams. I personally like the idea of having the bowls first and having the teams reseeded and then having a second round between the top teams who survived those games. That seems like a better plan than letting OSU play LSU without qualification.
I'm not concerned with the whole 'we need a playoff in college football'. What we need is a more exclusive bowl system. Then we can talk about a playoff between the most elite teams. I personally like the idea of having the bowls first and having the teams reseeded and then having a second round between the top teams who survived those games. That seems like a better plan than letting OSU play LSU without qualification.
election results in, hugo is not a villain
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/03/russia.vote/index.html
Following up on the various dictatorial elections. Elections being a facetious term here. As it would appear, Russia still knows how to stage an election. Hugo, despite the pomp and bombast last week, does not. Generally dictators win elections in landslides. Not lose them in 50/50 splits. But oh well.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/03/venezuela.referendum/index.html
Not sure what all 69 referendums were. But I assume most had to do with expansion of presidential authority and nationalization of various industries.
One thought however which came to mind is that term limits really don't seem like a good idea. There's merit in the Cincinnatus tradition of stepping aside to go home and raise crops or some such. I admire that sort of duty and public discipline. But some people seem specially attuned to the spotlight of public discourse and service. I don't see the point in dismissing them automatically because they've 'been there too long'. There's plenty of reason to dismiss people who've been there too long, but it's not because of incompetence, it's usually because of graft, greed or myopia.
On the flip side, the entire premise of the lame duck Presidency during a second term has all sorts of grave consequences in the modern era. Clinton spent his entire second term searching for a legacy, or so the media would tell it. I'm pretty sure a President doesn't need to search for a legacy. But maybe CNN or Clinton himself knows different. In any case, it's not a very good idea to have a President searching for something identifiable instead of merely executing his office. It's actually inherently dangerous.
Following up on the various dictatorial elections. Elections being a facetious term here. As it would appear, Russia still knows how to stage an election. Hugo, despite the pomp and bombast last week, does not. Generally dictators win elections in landslides. Not lose them in 50/50 splits. But oh well.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/03/venezuela.referendum/index.html
Not sure what all 69 referendums were. But I assume most had to do with expansion of presidential authority and nationalization of various industries.
One thought however which came to mind is that term limits really don't seem like a good idea. There's merit in the Cincinnatus tradition of stepping aside to go home and raise crops or some such. I admire that sort of duty and public discipline. But some people seem specially attuned to the spotlight of public discourse and service. I don't see the point in dismissing them automatically because they've 'been there too long'. There's plenty of reason to dismiss people who've been there too long, but it's not because of incompetence, it's usually because of graft, greed or myopia.
On the flip side, the entire premise of the lame duck Presidency during a second term has all sorts of grave consequences in the modern era. Clinton spent his entire second term searching for a legacy, or so the media would tell it. I'm pretty sure a President doesn't need to search for a legacy. But maybe CNN or Clinton himself knows different. In any case, it's not a very good idea to have a President searching for something identifiable instead of merely executing his office. It's actually inherently dangerous.
30 November 2007
hugo isn't a good name for a villain
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/30/venezuela.protest/index.html
I like how there's already a plan to deal with the imminent voter fraud. Well, we'll just cut off the oil. That amuses me. Why do we have to put up with that, oh that's right. .because we're still dependent on oil. Why is this? Because 1) we're not drilling off our own coast and instead letting China do that. And 2) because we haven't set up anything approaching an energy policy to overhaul or convert over to more renewable resources.
I like how there's already a plan to deal with the imminent voter fraud. Well, we'll just cut off the oil. That amuses me. Why do we have to put up with that, oh that's right. .because we're still dependent on oil. Why is this? Because 1) we're not drilling off our own coast and instead letting China do that. And 2) because we haven't set up anything approaching an energy policy to overhaul or convert over to more renewable resources.
tv ads begin, one year early
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_po/campaign_negative_ads
I'm confused. Why don't more campaigns use the internet? I'd think it'd have to be cheaper and much easier to design items without as much constraint (30 seconds for example is a pretty short time frame). I'll buy that TV is a non-participatory arrangement that people more or less sit and be brainwashed by. That certainly lends some credibility for using TV spots. But the fact that the critical undecided/swing vote portion of the country doesn't generally watch commercials, or have tivo type devices that skip them anyway, probably means that TV isn't going to necessarily decide this election.
I do find the conservative frenzy over CNN stacking the youtube 'debate' amusing. For one thing, democrats are going to pose silly questions and accusations anyway. For another, I was under the mistaken impression that having a public forum for debate would mean that an actual question would be asked. That hope was dashed. Here's what I want to see in any debate: a debate. That's it. Is that too much to ask for? Too much to ask people with deliberate positions on leading the country (potentially) to argue over those positions rather than their childhood experiences and whether or not they inhaled?
I suppose we could resolve things the way Algerian (Muslim) immigrants do in France and start shooting at policemen.. for.. I don't know why. Just because. I suppose if one of the candidates passes out from all the running and screaming, I'd have something to hang my hat on. But it still wouldn't add much intellectually to this problem.
I'm confused. Why don't more campaigns use the internet? I'd think it'd have to be cheaper and much easier to design items without as much constraint (30 seconds for example is a pretty short time frame). I'll buy that TV is a non-participatory arrangement that people more or less sit and be brainwashed by. That certainly lends some credibility for using TV spots. But the fact that the critical undecided/swing vote portion of the country doesn't generally watch commercials, or have tivo type devices that skip them anyway, probably means that TV isn't going to necessarily decide this election.
I do find the conservative frenzy over CNN stacking the youtube 'debate' amusing. For one thing, democrats are going to pose silly questions and accusations anyway. For another, I was under the mistaken impression that having a public forum for debate would mean that an actual question would be asked. That hope was dashed. Here's what I want to see in any debate: a debate. That's it. Is that too much to ask for? Too much to ask people with deliberate positions on leading the country (potentially) to argue over those positions rather than their childhood experiences and whether or not they inhaled?
I suppose we could resolve things the way Algerian (Muslim) immigrants do in France and start shooting at policemen.. for.. I don't know why. Just because. I suppose if one of the candidates passes out from all the running and screaming, I'd have something to hang my hat on. But it still wouldn't add much intellectually to this problem.
ouch
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2007112902
Ouch. I almost don't care KG only played 20 minutes. New York has not had a good year in sports. Boston, on the other hand. .is getting out of hand.
Ouch. I almost don't care KG only played 20 minutes. New York has not had a good year in sports. Boston, on the other hand. .is getting out of hand.
29 November 2007
haircut boy hates wal-mart and free will
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-weighs.html
In case anyone else needs further proof that Edwards is an idiot.
Some thoughts.
One: Obama has a plan that 'doesn't cover everyone'. Who doesn't it cover? Rich people? Middle class working kids? If we must attack it, the idea that it 'doesn't cover everyone' isn't a selling point by itself that makes me nervous. In fact it's likelier to make me agreeable with it, depending on who 'isn't covered'.
Hillary has a mandate. What a shock, given the details of hillarycare v1.0. But it can't be enforced. Also, not much of a surprise. Anyone care to guess what the non-compliance rate with car insurance is even when it's mandated by law. Any idea how to enforce it? I'll give a hint. There isn't a way to do it in the American governance system. We could do it, but it would be a bit fascist and people who actually comply with the law and have insurance would get annoyed at having to demonstrate this fact all the time.
Which means Edwards idea is rather silly on its face. We would be required to purchase health care insurance. Oh, okay. So maybe that's fine, but then how do some people pay for it. You know, poor people. And second, we are required to purchase it.. .but from where.. ? The government? Anyone checked a line at the DMV lately? How about looked at how Medicare or SS are doing fiscally over the next decade? What about public schools? No? Again a hint, the government is not very good at running things. In fact it's actually quite bad at it. Are we to expect that a government which cannot educate children at anything approaching world standards, can't provide a reliable pension from money we and our employers gave them to provide us in retirement (how that got messed up is a long story, suffices to say, they stole it), and can't even competently take our photos and issue us a tag for our cars in a reasonable amount of time is going to run an effective health care service? I don't think so.
It's the last line of the article that really gets under my skin. "You don't have that choice". Really? We're that unevolved that we don't get options anymore. Great idea.
The proposal at the bottom which appeared to be from a user was somewhat more palettable. Though I'm still holding out for someone who wants to gut the current free market insurance companies in general rather than replace them with a government payment system. I don't see how we should need a middleman to pay for our health care. The only advantage of insurance is that group rates allow for a discount in the event of actual needs for care. Largely this is because most people do not need care, or at least not in the large amounts that insurance is providing for. We should not be concerned about the visit to the doctor in a yearly or semi-annual checkup as a major spending decision. What is a good idea is something like a hospital price list. To give people an idea of the rates and charges so they can decide what they (and their insurance co) can afford. Two other issues. One, people should be able to purchase from any state or even another country for cheaper, more competitive rates on insurance (in general the reason the cost is so high is supply is constricted and demand is ridiculous, but if the supply is loosened up, this will help). And two, insurance should be flexible and simple enough to administer (ie, fewer and simpler forms for both patients and doctor's offices) so that HMOs go away. I don't see how in a digital era that forms can't be standardized and simplified by some regulatory body, even one within the insurance industry itself.
In case anyone else needs further proof that Edwards is an idiot.
Some thoughts.
One: Obama has a plan that 'doesn't cover everyone'. Who doesn't it cover? Rich people? Middle class working kids? If we must attack it, the idea that it 'doesn't cover everyone' isn't a selling point by itself that makes me nervous. In fact it's likelier to make me agreeable with it, depending on who 'isn't covered'.
Hillary has a mandate. What a shock, given the details of hillarycare v1.0. But it can't be enforced. Also, not much of a surprise. Anyone care to guess what the non-compliance rate with car insurance is even when it's mandated by law. Any idea how to enforce it? I'll give a hint. There isn't a way to do it in the American governance system. We could do it, but it would be a bit fascist and people who actually comply with the law and have insurance would get annoyed at having to demonstrate this fact all the time.
Which means Edwards idea is rather silly on its face. We would be required to purchase health care insurance. Oh, okay. So maybe that's fine, but then how do some people pay for it. You know, poor people. And second, we are required to purchase it.. .but from where.. ? The government? Anyone checked a line at the DMV lately? How about looked at how Medicare or SS are doing fiscally over the next decade? What about public schools? No? Again a hint, the government is not very good at running things. In fact it's actually quite bad at it. Are we to expect that a government which cannot educate children at anything approaching world standards, can't provide a reliable pension from money we and our employers gave them to provide us in retirement (how that got messed up is a long story, suffices to say, they stole it), and can't even competently take our photos and issue us a tag for our cars in a reasonable amount of time is going to run an effective health care service? I don't think so.
It's the last line of the article that really gets under my skin. "You don't have that choice". Really? We're that unevolved that we don't get options anymore. Great idea.
The proposal at the bottom which appeared to be from a user was somewhat more palettable. Though I'm still holding out for someone who wants to gut the current free market insurance companies in general rather than replace them with a government payment system. I don't see how we should need a middleman to pay for our health care. The only advantage of insurance is that group rates allow for a discount in the event of actual needs for care. Largely this is because most people do not need care, or at least not in the large amounts that insurance is providing for. We should not be concerned about the visit to the doctor in a yearly or semi-annual checkup as a major spending decision. What is a good idea is something like a hospital price list. To give people an idea of the rates and charges so they can decide what they (and their insurance co) can afford. Two other issues. One, people should be able to purchase from any state or even another country for cheaper, more competitive rates on insurance (in general the reason the cost is so high is supply is constricted and demand is ridiculous, but if the supply is loosened up, this will help). And two, insurance should be flexible and simple enough to administer (ie, fewer and simpler forms for both patients and doctor's offices) so that HMOs go away. I don't see how in a digital era that forms can't be standardized and simplified by some regulatory body, even one within the insurance industry itself.
26 November 2007
lott gone
Good bye Sen Lott. We are most pleased to see you go. I'm personally quite tired of bigoted free spenders hiding as conservatives. Along with Hastert quitting, it looks like someone decided to usher out the GOP leadership that brought itself down. It might have helped if these people had some inkling as to limited government, the limitations extending to things like drug controls and sexual reproductive rights. But then, who am I to argue with it.
23 November 2007
black friday or are we insane
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/23/news/economy/black_friday/index.htm?cnn=yes
Funny how there was already a story analyzing the chaos. Know why? Because the chaos started on Thanksgiving night or, for some people, the afternoon of as they camped out. I was not one of those. I do enjoy some bargains, but I possess enough sanity not to place myself in the frigid snowstorm all night.
Instead waiting about a half hour to get into a store after it has already opened and get a few items and get out, while never going anywhere near a Walmart, is a bit smarter, if only slightly crazy. I shall call during this time the Vortex of Hel (yes, I'll go Norse on you) the store formerly known as the Mart of Wals. I don't believe in a fiery maw, or an icy shelf, but I do believe that legions of frenzied Christmas shoppers with no remaining shreds of human decency, bumping and clawing over meaningless products are undoubtedly a form of unmitigated human suffering, in this case, self-imposed. And for Jesus, no less. Ironic. So I will go nowhere near a Vortex and stick to groceries and online vendors for the next month now.
Funny how there was already a story analyzing the chaos. Know why? Because the chaos started on Thanksgiving night or, for some people, the afternoon of as they camped out. I was not one of those. I do enjoy some bargains, but I possess enough sanity not to place myself in the frigid snowstorm all night.
Instead waiting about a half hour to get into a store after it has already opened and get a few items and get out, while never going anywhere near a Walmart, is a bit smarter, if only slightly crazy. I shall call during this time the Vortex of Hel (yes, I'll go Norse on you) the store formerly known as the Mart of Wals. I don't believe in a fiery maw, or an icy shelf, but I do believe that legions of frenzied Christmas shoppers with no remaining shreds of human decency, bumping and clawing over meaningless products are undoubtedly a form of unmitigated human suffering, in this case, self-imposed. And for Jesus, no less. Ironic. So I will go nowhere near a Vortex and stick to groceries and online vendors for the next month now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
