G-Scobe

THE END OF MARSHALL

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:02:00 +0000

THE END OF MARSHALL: It's been a tough few weeks for Talking Points Memo, among the vanguard in the BUSH LIED!! offensive.

Much of the argument began crumbling two weeks ago and his heroic truth teller Joseph Wilson the Brave has become Joe Wilson the "misattributed, misquoted." (The Man on this story is Tom Maquire and his unbeatable Just One Minute blog).

Then Sandy Inadvertent Berger drops on him like a house. You'd think some rethinking of the narrative would be in order? Nope. Only laments...

There's no doubt this Berger imbroglio has thrown the Dems seriously off message for a couple days. And it's embarrassing.

You got it? Don't worry about anything but the "message." Never mind the substance of what he was actually doing, just lament the fact that your side is taking its lumps over it.

How to describe this mindset? Corroded? Narrow-minded? Parochial? Unserious?

FILE UNDER, TYPICAL: African genocide? The UN's on it:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Wednesday Sudan had made little progress in curbing marauding militias in the Darfur region but diplomats said sanctions against Khartoum were unlikely.

When the West beats its brow, ten years hence about the hundreds of thousands killed in the Sudan, remember:

One problem is strong lobbying by the Arab League and others against any kind of sanctions or military intervention. The United States has had difficulty getting a resolution adopted that would threaten a travel and arms ban within a month if Sudan did not comply.
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who along with Germany and France, wants an immediate arms embargo on Sudan, said the council was not yet considering sanctions. Diplomats said Russia, China, Pakistan and others were opposed to even a weapons embargo.

Oh - and Sudan is on the UN Human Rights Commission...

STOCKING STUFFER: So did Sandy Berger stuff documents in his socks - or not?

Reports CNN's Bob Franken: "Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena [say] they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks."

Sock-gate! The whole case doesn't hinge on this bulging sock, of course, but it certainly would put the lie to the "inadvertent" defense trumpeted uncritically by the New York Times.

It's important to keep in mind the political context of when the alleged stuffing occurred. It was prior to Berger's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Thanks in large measure to Richard "The Saudis are Cleared for Takeoff" Clarke and a media eager to pin the blame for the attacks specifically on Bush's negligence (logic or truth be damned), the atmosphere was highly partisan and it was essential for Berger to portray Clinton's national security team as aware, alert and on the ball.

Berger presented the brief for the defense of Clinton's eight years:

Our administration, with growing intensity, gave the fight against terrorism the highest national security priority....Both President Clinton and Vice President Gore were deeply committed to preventing and fighting terrorism at the highest levels; both played a hands-on role in articulating our counterterrorism strategy and both pressed our agenda with foreign leaders on innumerable occasions.

Now we find that in preparation for his defense, he's secreting out documents. Why? The only reasonable conclusion was that there was documentation that ran contrary to the "we were on the ball" narrative so essential to shoring up that crumbling Clinton foreign policy legacy.

Time will tell, but don't look to the major investigative news outlets to do any heavy-lifting. Instead, go to the Source.

MARSHALL, INEXPLICABLY INCONSISTENT: On Sandy Berger's stuffed pants, Josh Marshall has no answers:

"The whole thing seems almost inexplicable."

Ah yes, so hard to discern motive! Considering Berger's stellar anti-terror record, I'd be hard pressed to see why he'd want to secret out sensitive files in his jock strap.

Better to wait for all the facts. It's a fine policy. Too bad it's selectively applied.

After all, this is the same Marshall who is so quick to ascribe the worst motives to the Bush Administration. In no instance does Bush & Co. merit such a studious benefit of the doubt that Sandy "Is-That-A-Classified-Memo-In-Your-Pocket" Berger is getting.

Gscope - a software oscilloscope library

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:29:00 +0000

Gscope is a software oscilloscope library build using the GTK and Gnome toolkits. The scope displays signals in real-time and enables recording and playback of signal data. It can be employed at the same time to display multiple signals as well as for modifying signal parameters on the fly. Generally, the scope can be employed to monitor, display and debug several types of “real-time” data. Besides, the scope can be used for plotting or graphing file data that is in a tuple format.

The Gscope library consists of two main widgets, GtkScope and GtkScopeApp that can be used by application programmers. GtkScope is a canvas on which signal data is plotted. GtkScopeApp provides a graphical interface for manipulating the GtkScope widget functionality. An application creates one or more GtkScope or GtkScopeApp widgets to display data. On each GtkScope or GtkScopeApp widgets, one or more signals can be plotted.

The Gscope library lets updating signal and control parameters dynamically. For example, the filter parameter of a low-pass filtered signal can be adjusted from within the scope. In addition, new signals can be added dynamically or signals can be taken out from the scope by an application program. For improved visualization, the range of each plotted signal, its zoom and bias can all be changed.

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST WAR

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:47:00 +0000

"In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11."

Wasn't the Main Response to September 11th the war in Afghanistan?

Let's get this whole Clarke business straight: eight years of Clinton's presidency were spent valiantly fighting al Qaeda. Eight months of Bush's presidency were spent asleep at the switch, which then resulted in September 11th.

Scope

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:27:00 +0000

In 2004 Scope launched the Time to Get Equal campaign to banish disablism, which it defines as "discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others".
The campaign had three aims:
To raise awareness of the problems and barriers faced by disabled people in their everyday lives
To demand an improvement in the attitudes and actions that disabled people experience
To build a mass movement of disabled and non-disabled people campaigning and working for equality.

Scope (computer science)

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:05:00 +0000

In computer programming, a scope is the context within which a variable-name names its variable, or other identifier identifies what it identifies, or within which a declaration has effect. Various programming languages have various different scoping rules for different kinds of declarations and identifiers. Such scoping rules have a large effect on language semantics and, consequently, on the behavior and correctness of programs.

Scopes are frequently tied to other language constructs, but many languages also offer constructs specifically for controlling scope.

G-Scoob

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:44:00 +0000

G-Scobe

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:47:00 +0000

who will defend west

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:07:00 +0000

http://gscobe.blogspot.com/

NOW HE TELLS US: The Shiite cleric Sadr is sounding off:

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:24:00 +0000

April 3, 2004
NOW HE TELLS US: The Shiite cleric Sadr is sounding off:

"I and my followers of the believers have come under attack from the occupiers, imperialism and the appointees," Moqtada Sadr said in a sermon in the southern town of Kufa, outside the holy city of Najaf. "Be on the utmost readiness, and strike them where you meet them."

Where was this when Saddam was in power? Clearly Sadr, more than any Baathist loser in Falluja, represents the most potent threat to the coalition. The WaPo continues:

A particular concern has been Sadr's militia, called the Mahdi Army, which was formed last year and has thousands of members. The United States wants to dissolve the militias affiliated with several Shiite organizations in southern Iraq because of the threat they pose to stability in Iraq after the planned end of the civil occupation on June 30.

And most worrisome:

"From here, I declare my solidarity with the solidarity between Hezbollah and Hamas," Sadr said. "May they consider me their striking hand in Iraq, whenever necessity requires it."

The question is: do we strike now, before June 30th, to defang this or do we hope that the transition eases the trauma of occupation. Regardless of who is nominally in power, it will be our job to quell Sadr's goons if they decide to go jihadi on us. Will the UN step in after June in any meaningful way if Sadr is promising large-scale violence? If Sistani is at least moderately happy with the transition of power, can he muffle Sadr?

The future of the War on Terror's success hinges on the next few months.

TERROR STATES

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:49:00 +0000

TERROR STATES: Fareed Zakaria argues in Newsweek that today's terrorist groups do not need state patrons to do damage:

"Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies."

This is the new face of terror: dozens of local groups across the world connected by a global ideology."

This might be true, as far as it goes, but it's not the whole story. Inspiration implies that mere ideological sympathy is enough to drive radical Islamists to violence, and that might be true in some limited cases (say, for the D.C. Sniper or the July 4th LAX gunmen).

But these disparate groups who have attacked Bali, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have more in common than a shared lunacy: they were lead, or trained, by graduates from Al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. That's an important distinction - they might not follow direct orders from bin Laden, they might choose their own targets and determine their own timing, they are "home grown" to the extent that they operate on their own turf, but they would not have the skills or lethality to conduct Madrid-style massacres without the expertise honed in Afghanistan.

"Inspired" is far too loose a word. "Facilitated" is far more accurate. The terrorist skills acquired in Afghanistan have been dispersed across the globe, methodically before 9/11 and quickly and haphazardly since the camps closed down for good (we hope) in October 2001.

And how did this happen? How does this inspiration spread?

It's true that Al Qaeda is not a proxy arm of any one state's intelligence service (like Hezbollah is for Iran). Al Qaeda does not take its marching orders from any one government. But it's counter-factual to argue, as Zakaria does, that states don't matter. States were instrumental in the rise of al Qaeda, according to former Clinton counter-terrorism officials Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin. If it were not for states, these "home grown" fanatics inspired and trained by bin Laden would not be nearly so dangerous.

According to Simon and Benjamin in The Age of Sacred Terror, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan played important roles in the development and strengthening of al Qaeda. They provided money, training, logistical support and havens for bin Laden's jihadists. bin Laden's tenure in Sudan is instructive: thanks to his close cooperation with the government (which invited him after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia), al Qaeda members were able to get Sudanese papers for international travel, as well as the luxury to establish front companies to raise the needed capital for terrorist attacks and camps to train their warriors.

They trained in Afghanistan with the help of the Pakistani government and according to the new book Ghost Wars by Washington Post reporter Steve Coll, enjoyed significant cooperation with Saudi Intelligence services.

If this isn't "state support" than the term is meaningless.

The 1998 bombing of the Sudanese "Military Industrial Company" by President Clinton is another example of the importance of, if not direct state sponsorship, than state cooperation with al Qaeda. Clinton alleged, and Simon/Benjamin flesh out, that al Qaeda, Sudan and Iraq were working together to produce VX nerve gas.

But that was pre 9/11. Zakaria argues that with Afghanistan flushed out and the world on alert, al Qaeda is even less dependent on states than before.

Perhaps. But they cannot travel without official state documentation. They can be forged, but obvious forgeries lead to arrests. The cannot operate or train en-masse without the tacit support of a government. The whole emphasis on failed states proves this point: weak states cannot prevent terrorists from setting up shop or drive out terrorists from their borders. Stronger states, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, can.

Five lone, angry Islamists might be able to wreak unimaginable destruction. But you do not form a dispersed global network of highly trained killers without the overt assistance or acquiescence of states. Without this support, al Qaeda is unambiguously weaker, though far harder to destroy.

WHAT WOULD KERRY DO

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:31:00 +0000

So Clarke's argument is thus: for the first eight months in office Bush did what Kerry is proposing to do, put terrorism on the back-burner so that he can be a "jobs president, a healthcare president," and on and on.

The laughable aspect of Le Affair Clarke is that the Democrats can't wrap themselves in his argument (though they try). They're even less concerned about terrorism than Bush was.

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST WAR:

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:31:00 +0000

The eternally myopic Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate:

"In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11."

Wasn't the Main Response to September 11th the war in Afghanistan?

Let's get this whole Clarke business straight: eight years of Clinton's presidency were spent valiantly fighting al Qaeda. Eight months of Bush's presidency were spent asleep at the switch, which then resulted in September 11th.

Oh, and he's got a book out.

HE WOULD KNOW:

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:29:00 +0000

Arafat has watched The Passion and has declared that it is not anti-semitic.

I guess that settles that.
MARCH OF THE MORONS: Saddam nostalgia was running high today:

"From Sydney to Tokyo, Madrid, London, New York and San Francisco, protesters condemned U.S. policy in Iraq and said they did not believe Iraqis are better off or the world safer because of the war."

Obviously, they're entitled to their beliefs, no matter how stupid and uninformed. Like good ole Reeves here:

"The thing they all object to is Bush," said demonstrator, Reeves Hamilton, 30. "It doesn't make sense to bomb countries that have nothing to do with Sept. 11."

What's your point? We bombed Germany and they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. This is a global conflict and it will take more than flushing out a few jihadists from the mountains to roll back the greater tide of Islamic madness.

The essence of the protestors beef is that we failed to remove the splinter from our own eye before stopping bin Laden from ramming a stake through our skull.

Plentiful Proliferation:

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:11:00 +0000

August 26, 2003 Iran's nuclear weapons program proceeds apace, and the UN drives its head deeper into the sand. If the conventional wisdom is correct, North Korea already has about 2 nukes. Iran will have a working bomb in about 2- years. At some point in the next ten years, a major city (Haifa, Tel Aviv, New York, London?) will be on the receiving end of one of those bombs. Unless... Unless Bush goes back to the UN Security Council and puts both the North Korean and Iranian issues on the table in such a way as to force the most vigorous inspections. This will be that "last, last chance" for the Security Council to be an effective non-proliferation body. We can afford to be a bit more patient with Iran than we were with Iraq; but North Korea has already reached the point of no-return. Nothing short of regime change is going to end Pyongang's bomb production. But is regime change on the table?

August 25, 2003

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:21:00 +0000

August 25, 2003
A renewed interest in Afghanistan, coupled with a new offensive against the remaining Taliban/al Queda elements is a positive sign but there's still the question of Pakistan's cooperation, and it needs to be dragged out into the open.

There's this from the New York Times:

Afghan officials say Taliban fighters have regrouped in Pakistan and are organizing the attacks from there, sending militants across the border in increasing numbers to attack government soldiers and offices. Mr. Khan, the Zabul governor, said one of the captured prisoners admitted to being offered money in Pakistan to go to Afghanistan to fight.

In a sign of the concern caused by a possibly resurgent Taliban, a group of Americans led by Senator John McCain raised the issue last week.

On his way to a meeting in Pakistan with President Pervez Musharraf, Mr. McCain told journalists in Kabul that Pakistan was "not doing as much as it can" to stem the cross-border infiltration.

"We are appreciative of the help that Pakistan has given us in the war on terror and in other ways, but we believe that more measures can be taken," he said, after meeting with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, in Kabul on Friday.

Add to that the massive bombing in India today (no official word yet on the culprit but Pakistan's terror groups loom large) and you've got the making of an issue.

If there's a Democratic nominee not on the Howard Dean party suicide bandwagon, there's hay to be made hammering Bush on both the Saudi and Pakistani governments and his seeming acquisence to their foot dragging.
// posted by Greg @ 3:12 PM
Ok, this is disturbing.
// posted by Greg @ 3:00 PM
I spoke with a member of the National Guard last night. His observations:

1. We do need more troops in Iraq, and we can spare at least another division's worth.
2. The troops are stretched thin, but the new rotation schedule should ease some of the morale problems.
3. The tuna was excellent. (We were at a wedding).

August 24, 2003

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:20:00 +0000

The 'neocons' are getting nervous about the situation in Iraq, particularly the Bush administration's commitment. And so are a few editorial allies.

It largely boils down to a simple question: are we at War (and not war, or "war") or are we not? If the answer to the first is yes, then priorities must change, both domestically and abroad. We must stop carping about troops being "stretched thin" and recognize that casualties, sacrifice and burden come with the territory. We mustn't complain, as Joe Biden does, that there are "too many" Americans invovled - after all we were the ones attacked on September 11th, not the Indians or Pakistanis or any other country being courted to send more troops into the theatre. If the U.S. is at War, then it's U.S. troops that will largely do the fighting.

But if the answer is no, than all these hardships in Iraq are far, far harder to justify. And the failure opens up Bush for a tidal wave of criticism.

This present state of confusion has been born by a muddled message from the President. Bush wants to split the difference, a war footing abroad with nothing to upset the domestic applecart and the orgy of social spending at home. This is untenable. He was right to declare September 11th an act of War. Now it's time to tell the American people that we are still, deeply, immersed in this War and that the burden falls on us to win it.

UPDATE: The administration responds.

August 23, 2003

noreply@blogger.com (Margaret James) — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:19:00 +0000

Once again, Steyn is money.

I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. A heat wave in a modern, industrial country (a European one no less, so-called land of superior - read socialized - medicine) kills 10,000. Read that again. 10,000.

// posted by Greg @ 4:55 PM
If you're interested in consumer electronics, and you should be, check this out.
// posted by Greg @ 9:19 AM
So here is the first post, and predictably, it's a test.