The Shield of Achilles

Michael Moore is the very thing that he condemns

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:14:00 +0000

Michael Moore is currently promoting his latest film: "Capitalism: A Love Story". Not surprisingly, the focus is bashing greed, capitalism, and Wall Street in general. Predictably, liberal pundits are praising it already. But this is not a review.

During a recent interview with Larry King, we hear this:

Moore: Who's got the money? And whoever has the money has the power. And right now, in America, tonight, Larry, the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

King: You're in that 1 percent, though?

Moore: I don't think I'm in that 1 percent, but I make documentary films. But I mean, obviously, I do well because my films have done well. But, you know, even if I were, I think it's my responsibility -- my moral duty that if I've done well, that I have to make sure that everybody else.

Moore is right. He's not just in the top 1%. He's in the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1%). He makes more than 90% of the people in that top 1% category. In short, he's the elite of the elite - while attempting to deny it.

Using 2005 data, the top 1% of earners earn more than $327,000 a year. The top 0.1% of earners earn more than $1.1 million per year. Since most estimates are that he has a net worth in excess of eight figures, it would be anywhere from 10 to 99 million dollars, with most putting the estimate right in between, at about 50 million. And since he's been successfully making films for the last 20 years, just do the math. It's very safe to say his average annual income has actually been far above that 1.1 million threshold.

This man, who dresses like a regular Joe, and acts like one during his films, is wealthier than 99.9% of Americans. Let that sink in for a moment.

Another fun fact: The huge investment bank Goldman Sachs, which was one of the targets of criticism for their greed, are the ones who bankrolled the film. Future of Capitalism writes:

[In the film] Mr. Moore shows up at Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan driving an armored Brinks trunk and announcing, "We're here to get the money back for the American people." Maybe Mr. Moore should look in his own pockets.

Finally, Moore says at the end of the film:

“Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is Democracy.”

Wrong. To start with, these things aren't mutually exclusive.

But the logical fallacy goes farther than that. Since Capitalism is an economic system, and Democracy is a political system, he's comparing apples and oranges. No, he's not even doing that - he's comparing apples with apple peelers and oranges with orange juicing machines. These things are totally separate concepts, like politics and religion; two things that Moore himself has often criticised President Bush for mixing up.

Pure capitalism (which no country practices) allows natural market forces to set the value of goods and labor. Socialism, on the other hand, puts government controls on the process. All nations have a combination of both, and only differ in their amounts of emphasis on one or the other. I would be very curious indeed about what is this magical "third way" of running an economic system. If Moore can explain that, I'll even give the film a good review.

UPDATE: Some grammatical fixes.

UPDATE 29 SEP: Chris Moody at Big Government points out some very similar hypocrisy during Moore's interview on Keith Olberman's program.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Iranian shopkeepers forced to put veils on their mannequins

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:48:00 +0000

A hijab shop in Iran, by Paul Keller

In another example of Iranian lunacy:

Iranian police have warned shopkeepers not to display female mannequins without a hijab, or showing bodily curves, Irna news agency reports.

But that's not all!:

Display of bow ties and neckties, and the sale of women's underwear by men are also banned, the police said.

Lest you think this was an isolated incident, in 2007, shopkeepers were forced to saw the breasts off of mannequins that were considered "too revealing".

One species almost down, just a few thousand more to go

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:30:00 +0000

Beryx splendens, aka "Splendid Alfonsino"

...until only humans are left.

This is an article, about a fish I never heard of before. Nevertheless, it is a bell weather of things to come. This is the world we are leaving to our children:

How much do you know about the splendid alfonsin?

No, me neither.

At first I thought he must be the mannish hero of some cheap boys' novella - a Pimpernel in the face of organised crime, a Zorro jumping on the cat-stroking villainry of world domination, a musketeer with liberty carved into his very eyeballs.

Somewhat disappointingly, in one sense, it's a fish.

And I know this: if trawlers used to catch 60 tonnes of them in a single hour back in the 1970s and now they catch only one tonne in an hour, something has happened to the alfonsin that he must consider entirely the opposite of splendid.

Eat it while you still can, I suppose. Restaurants won't be able to carry it much longer.

It doesn't matter how many laws are passed. The vast space of the world's oceans, the hunger of an ever-growing human population, and the myriad of hundreds of international complications, means that no fish can be saved from extinction without the use of military power to defend it. I hate to be so blunt, but there it is.

Khaled El-Masri beats up local mayor

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:51:00 +0000

El-Masri and his attorney

Khaled El-Masri is in the news again, this time for beating up a local mayor (in German).

If you don't know who he is, I wrote about him earlier here. In summary, he is a Lebanese born German citizen. In 2003, was apprehended by police in Macedonia and transferred to the CIA, in a case of mistaken identity (he shared the same name as a terrorist). Afterwards, he was held in a prison in Kabul, Afghanistan for 5 months. He was released in 2004.

He claimed he was tortured by Afghanis and by the CIA and became a symbol of the anti-Bush/anti-rendition movement. In 2005, with the help of the ACLU (of course), and under much fanfare from left-wing groups, he decided to sue the CIA. His case was denied. His lawyers pushed the case to the US Supreme Court and was declined without comment in 2007. As you can read at the link above, later in 2007 he faced charged for arson after burning down a department store, and in another incident, assaulted his driving instructor. Incredibly, he received only a 2-year suspended sentence.

The man who was championed as a victim of the CIA became a victimizer himself. And he still keeps going.

In the latest trouble, on September 11 this year, El-Masri was arrested after allegedly attacking Gerold Noerenberg, the lord mayor of Neu-Ulm. Shortly before the attack El-Masri tried to meet Noerenberg, but made such a scene that the police were called to send him away. He returned later, and rushed directly into the Mayor's office. He punched Noerenberg repeatedly in the face and threw a chair after him. He was arrested two hours after the attack in Senden. He admitted to the attack, but the motive is unknown.

Incidentally, since Little Green Footballs has been such a topic this week, it's worth mentioning that once upon a time Charles Johnson also reported on this man. Of course, it goes against his current politics, so he doesn't mention him any more.

I'm not alone! [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:50:00 +0000

Wow - my last post on the changes at the Little Green Footballs website generated a huge surge in traffic, as well as plenty of comments and mail. I was linked by plenty of other websites that I hadn't even heard of before. Apparently, I'm far from alone in my disappointment with LGF. There's The Other McCain, Blogmacracy, Saber Point, the Pirate's Cove, American Power, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, and the Infidel Blogger's Alliance. I'll monitor these sites a little while and possibly add a few to my blogroll. Fluidoz has the most comprehensive list of blogs disgruntled with LGF, although his layout is poor.

There's also Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs. It's on my blogroll now; I should have added a long time ago, as it has linked to my site several times.

I want to reiterate something, however. Once again, there's nothing wrong with Charles Johnson changing his political views, per se (although it's strange that he doesn't see it himself). And I even agree with many (but certainly not all) of his attacks on racists or right-wing extremists. What does disturb me is the the way he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of racism (this recent post is evidence of that) and his insistence that you must be with him or against him. Several people both in my comments page and my email, claim they were banned from his site and/or had their IPs blocked simply for expressing support for me. That's a very unhealthy level of paranoia for any website.

Meanwhile, LGF gets the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, someone else who has jumped to the left. Big surprise.

UPDATE: There's also the 1389 blog, Right Wing News, and Founding Bloggers. Whew! Bonus: Hotair moved LGF from their "war blog" category to their "Left Channels" blogs!

Goodbye Little Green Footballs, Hello Powerline

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:57:00 +0000

The Ubiquitous Green Football

This was a difficult post to write.

Over on my recommended sites list to the right, Little Green Footballs has been replaced by the Powerline Blog. To some readers, this won't matter in the slightest. But there is a story to tell here.

First, a little history: In its prime, the Little Green Footballs website was one of the most popular blogs in the world (although in the last year readership has plunged, see chart below). It came to national prominence in 2004 when it exposed the Bush National Guard memos as fakes and eventually took down Dan Rather of CBS. It's owner, Charles Johnson, was a big inspiration for me when I first started this blog. I linked to his site often, and he returned the favor. Several times I sent him correspondence and he actually praised some of my articles and he directly referred to them on his front page (here and here for example), greatly increasing my site traffic (I was using my old url then: www.shieldofachilles.blogspot.com). I didn't always agree with him, but I greatly admired the way he unwaveringly took on the left wing media, and was one of the few powerful media voices supporting the US war against Al-Qaeda.

But times have changed, starting around October 2007 in a dispute with Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal, among others. Since then, he has repudiated all the other blogs he was most closely associated with, accusing them all of "white supremacism". Charles never even writes about terrorism anymore; his current obsession is the evils of creationism, attacking anyone on the right (such as the tea party protesters), and defending Barack Obama. Additionally, the man who was once a great skeptic of global warming now believes in it. Yet, incredibly, he still maintains that it is everyone else who has changed, not him! Many other bloggers have written about this problem; see here, here, or here, for just a few recent examples. It's a heated topic on the sites wiki page. Some sites, like Jammie Wearing Fool, which was a spin-off of LGF, don't even link to it anymore, which is telling all by itself.

Here are Little Green Football's site stats since the "change" started, courtesy of Alexa. The effect on the web site's readership is pretty clear:

Now don't get me wrong: People have the right to change their minds (heck, I never really agreed with his skepticism of climate change anyway). But the guy can't just disagree with anybody; he's entered a phase of pure paranoia, and either you're with him or against him. Anyone who disagrees with him at his site is immediately banned. Even I didn't think he had gone that far, until I found out for myself (see down below).

Now, how does this dispute affect regular people who don't read blogs? Well, at first glance, it looks like it doesn't. But in the long run it really does, because LGF was a very large web community, one of the few places where conservative thinkers could network. A place to put out information that the mainstream media would ignore. The political left already have huge networking sites like The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground. With LGF gone, the only large site conservatives have now is Red State, and that's only for Americans. I guess this is partly the folly of relying too much on the whims of one site administrator.

For me, this controversy came to bear in his recent dispute with the Powerline Blog. Several of the commenters there claimed that Charles Johnson had banned them from LGF for disagreeing with him, and in some cases, just for downvoting his posts or comments! I was really surprised at the number of people claiming this, and decided I wanted to try and find out for myself. I thought that it wouldn't be a problem; I'm a pretty reasonable guy, and I've never had trouble with Charles Johnson before. Boy was I wrong. The man who I considered almost a friend (I say "almost", because I had never met him in person) banned me for even asking these questions. The Charles I knew several years ago never acted like this; it's like some alien had taken over his body.

You can see the full comment thread here, although it would take a great deal of time to sift through it all. Most people would not be interested in reading it. For those who are curious enough, I made it easier by pasting the relevant portions below the jump:

Note: Of course, there were far more comments than these - many of then hurling insults at me. I pasted only the key ones here for brevity.

My comments actually started at #240, which Charles deleted too quickly for me to get a screen capture. But in it, I simply quoted several commenters at Powerline, who claimed they were banned from LGF simply for disagreeing with Charles, such as here, here and here. I then, without making an accusation, simply asked if there was any truth to what these men were alleging. Here is how the conversation went after that:

Surprisingly, Charles himself pops up right away! For perspective, keep in mind that this is a site with about 3,500 comments per day...! The post he quotes to here, is about someone who was deliberately insulting and vile. That is a straw man, and has nothing to do with what I was asking about.

He's deleting it because he can't stand criticism. Some of us welcome debate. Some of us fear it. In the past, he had no problem with linking to criticism of his site. I certainly have no problem with it at my site.

I simply asked one of my questions again. This was me being polite, and pointing out things on which we agree to help keep the conversation on a civil tone. He wasn't interested.

He sort of has a point here, but he still avoids the question. And I guess even someone asking makes him steamed. Already he sees an enemy where there is none.

I summarize my original question again. He doesn't like people asking questions...

So far, I haven't broken any of his rules - all I've done is ask questions. And already he is talking about banning me. The crazy thing is, I've had heated debates with people at The Daily Kos, Balloon Juice, and many other sites with plenty of hot-heads. I have never, ever had anyone threaten me with banning, nor have I seen anyone else threatened with it for simply asking questions.

This one was by someone else, but it is instructive. Does this guy really believe this? What, I wonder, was truly "disgusting" in any of my following comments?

Apparently (as I found out from others later), he's extremely sensitive about people downvoting anything (there are little buttons on his posts where members can vote them up or down). But he set up the system - why get so upset at people using it? I was simply downvoting his posts that were critical of me, just as other people were doing to me. That's how it works on all social networking sites. If you are so sensitive over a single vote against you, why put the system in place?

Note that if it's hard to read the above, you can click on it to make it larger.

Since I saw the way the conversation is going, I gave some history and tried to make it clear that I didn't visit today as some fly-by-night troll. I realize now that maybe this backfired - it reminded Charles of how much his site has changed in the last few years.

When I read this, I was really taken aback. Was this really the Charles I knew?? In his paranoia, he sees only the most malicious interpretation of my being there. I doubt he even read all the way through my last comment.

There were a few minor exchanges after this - I bent over backwards to be as polite as possible and clarify my intentions, and get the conversation back on track. But I needn't have tried - once someone is intent on finding an excuse to attack you, they will. And I already had my answer.

Now my last message in the thread was at 3:55 pm. After that, I absently left it up on my computer while I did some other work. Over the next 3 hours, I came back to the page two or three times to read some more responses, and upvote/downvote some new comments. But I didn't write anything more. Then I went away for awhile. When I came back later, I happened to see this new comment:

I was stunned. Note the time: more than three hours later. Even for the "new" Charles Johnson this is really, really petty and sad. Is this what the great Lizard blogger has been reduced to? Keep in mind that this is a guy with an average of 100,000 visitors a day, and 1,200 online at that time. So he is so insecure about one single dissenter that he was constantly monitoring me for three hours, watching my votes, and stalking my IP address to see if I was still on his page. Wow. How many times does he repeat this behavior every day? (And he calls me pathetic, which is really rich - I was only on for one afternoon) I really get the feeling that this is someone who needs to step away from his computer once in awhile. A long while...

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Wow, over a month! And still the topic is Health care of illegal immigrants!

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:49:00 +0000

"A Day without immigrants" protest, San Francisco, May 2006, by Matt Cohen

It's been over a month since my last post. I had never gone that long without one before. But it's almost providence, because the last post is as timely as ever.

The media is currently going into a fit over Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's speech (with everything else going on in the world now, is this really important?).

What's been lost in the chaff is the reason why he called Obama a liar. Obama claimed that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the new health plan. And his supporters claim they are right because the bill specifically says illegal immigrants are not eligible. But the Democrats took any enforcement language out of the bill!

So that's like saying no one under 21 will drink alcohol, because it's illegal; but we will refuse to ask for any proof of age!

So, first of all, it's a lie because there won't be any enforcement. Interestingly, Politico gave this accusation only a "half truth", because they claim the IRS would prevent illegals from getting the tax credits, since many of them use falsely obtained social security numbers. But that doesn't matter because you don't need an SSN! Has everyone forgotten about Taxpayer ITNs (individual taxpayer identification numbers)? These numbers allow illegal immigrants to legally file taxes, so they would be able to apply for tax credits toward health care payments like anyone else.

Second of all, it's a lie because anyone will be able to buy into the public option, just as anyone can buy their own insurance out of pocket right now. Andrew Sullivan says this is OK, since Obama claims the public option would pay for itself. Well, since he's a die-hard Obama supporter, he's very trusting of that claim. But even if Obama is right on this (and that's a stretch because anything can happen, and medical costs tend to skyrocket), does anyone really believe that if the public option system went bankrupt, that the public wouldn't bail it out? Does anyone think that for even a second?

Make no mistake, illegal immigrants will be included

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:50:00 +0000

During the Presidential campaign last year, Barack Obama insisted that his health care reform plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

During a recent interview with Katie Couric he said the same thing - almost:

Asked by CBS News' Katie Couric in an exclusive interview whether illegal immigrants should be covered under a new health care plan, President Obama responded simply, "no." But he said there may need to be an exception to that policy for children.
...
"The one exception that I think has to be discussed is how are we treating children," he continued. "Partly because if you've got children who may be here illegally but are still in playgrounds or at schools, and potentially are passing on illnesses and communicable diseases, that aren't getting vaccinated, that I think is a situation where you may have to make an exception."

If you provide health coverage to schoolchildren, then how can you deny it to their mothers? And their fathers? And their siblings?

The debate is still raging, and currently stalled in Congress. But it's likely that in the end, we will have a plan very similar to Germany's, where employees and their families are covered by their employer's health insurance, and unemployed persons are covered directly by the government.

But here is my prediction, and this is one of the few that I can be 99% certain of. Whatever plan we end up with for the unemployed, illegal immigrants will be able to sign up like everyone else. Why? Because:

1. In many areas (such as "sanctuary cities"), administrative clerks for the government plan will be or prohibited by law to ask anyone about their immigration status. Merely asking someone will be considered "racial profiling".

2. People will argue, with some merit, that they while they are here, they need health care coverage like everyone else to prevent communicable diseases from spreading.

3. The "no human is illegal" crowd will claim that they deserve health care like everyone else, which is hard to refute, especially when you run ads featuring children's faces.

But there is a problem with all these arguments - a very simple rule that has been true from the dawn of civilization:

YOU CAN'T HAVE OPEN BORDERS AND A GENEROUS WELFARE STATE AT THE SAME TIME!

Eventually it will collapse under its own weight. And when it does, the tragedy of it will be too real for me to even enjoy gloating over being right.

Michael Jackson "embraced black culture"? [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:46:00 +0000

A couple of screenshots from CNN this week

In all the hype about Michael Jackson following his death, some, even CNN, have thrown sanity to the winds. In what way did MJ "embrace black culture"? In fact, his legacy was the exact opposite. The man radically altered his appearance to that of a white man, even bleaching his skin to alabaster. He dated only white women. He married only white women, and adopted/claimed only purely white children. He created monuments to himself and did everything he could to make people forget that he came from a large, poor, black family in Gary, Indiana.

Some in Congress are already calling for him to be honored for his charity work with an official resolution and for him to be put on a postage stamp. Artists have been put on postage stamps before, but which version of Michael Jackson would they use?

As with anyone, particularly with a controversial figure such as this, I would advise waiting a while before laying all sorts of honors on this man. We still don't know the exact cause of his death, and in the ensuing custody and financial battles, I have a feeling all sorts of salient details about his life are going to emerge.

UPDATE 14 JULY 03:05 PM:
Several News Outlets are reporting that 12 people worldwide have committed suicide in grief over Michael Jackson's death. Good Lord, some people have misplaced priorities in life...

Iran, Iran, Iran

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:42:00 +0000

A Iranian government photo which has been doctored to increase the number of Amadinejad supporters. Photo is unverified and source is unknown.

As usual, I'm incredibly busy. But I had to say a few things about the incredible developments in Iran. In the few years I've had this blog, I've written extensively on the country. Most of it is negative; between the Iranian weapons smuggled into Iraq (while I was serving over there), to Ahmadinejad's threats, I have had little cause for real hope. Until now.

My prediction is that there will be real change in Iran this year. Maybe small changes, maybe large ones. Maybe a complete revolution. But I think it is impossible for the Old Guard to ignore the younger Iranian generation right now. I believe the protests are no longer even about Hossein Mousavi anymore; in fact, I'm not convinced he is really even much different from Ahmadinejad. What started as election protests have turned into a general protest against hard line extremism, isolation of the country, and censorship of the press. I don't hold out much hope for a true revolution yet, however. The protestors are not armed, and without weapons they may end up with the same fate of the recent Buddhist protests in Burma, or the protestors in Tibet. Nowhere; and forgotten just a couple years later. But whatever happens, I truly believe it will be better than the status quo. It would be difficult for Iran to get much worse.

In America, the usual suspects aren't content with these developments alone. And as usual, they have to twist it to political ends. Andrew Sullivan ludicrously accuses the "neo-cons" of being against the call for reform, while Glenn Greenwald asks why many of the same people who now claim to be concerned for Iran were the ones advocating dropping bombs on the country several months ago.

Of course, the question is ignorant and a cheap political ploy on it's face.

Besides the fact that nobody was advocating carpet-bombing Iranian civilians, there is also the issue of threat to Israel if Iran continues it's nuclear program. A threat that the UN seems to believe is real enough.

Anyway, maybe Greenwald should start asking his friends some similar questions. Maybe he should wonder why many of the same leftists who were bending over backwards to apologize for Admedinejad are now so keen to see him kicked out. Juan Cole has done a fine job with extensive coverage of the current protests, yet who kidnapped him and put a double in his place? For it's hard to believe that this is the same Professor Cole who defended the Iranian government time and again on his site, claiming, just for a couple of examples, that the "demonization" of Admedinejad was a plot to create an excuse for war against Iran, and echoing the Iranian leader's wild conspiracy theories about President Bush.

Or look at articles such as Daily Kos's "Why I have a crush on Admedinejad" or elsewhere: "Debunking the Axis of evil", for just a couple of examples. These people were so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they readily become "useful idiots" for the Iranian government. On the Daily Kos, one writer who dared to call Ahmadinejad "evil" and put up a poll is trounced by the Kos crowd with 61% of readers disagreeing with him!

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Taliban using white phosphorus in Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:31:00 +0000

Cutaway view of a 155mm White Phosphorus Illumination Round, source unknown.

White phosphorus is a chemical that burns very hot and very bright. It's used by many militaries all over the world, primarily for illumination, to create lots of smoke, or to burn away foliage.

Now it's likely being used by the Taliban in Afghanistan as a weapon (the Taliban denies it). Poligazette points out how left-wing media sites, who worked themselves in such a frenzy over it's use by US forces in Fallujah or Israelis in Gaza, are notably quiet now.

But there is a misconception that the Times article perpetuates:

White phosphorus is banned as an offensive weapon under international rules of armed conflict.

This is simply untrue. The only "international rules of armed conflict" is the 1949 Geneva Convention, and you could add the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention to that. White Phosphorus is not a banned munition under either treaty. It is also not listed in the schedule of Chemical Weapons. It is banned for use against civilian targets or when its used indiscriminately. However, that prohibition holds for EVERY weapon in existence, from guns to steak knives. That's nothing particularly special about WP in this regard. However, people confuse this distinction and I often still see the canard that it’s an illegal weapon.

It doesn't disperse and kill indiscriminately like poison gas. It also doesn't persist and kill passersby like booby traps or land mines. In fact, it really doesn't work very well as a weapon. True, it can burn through you right down to the bone, but if you have a minimum of cover or body protection, it won’t do much damage. A bullet or a bomb is much more certain way to kill.

Yes, it When the US used it in Fallujah in the “shake and bake” operations, it was used to create lots of smoke to force enemies out of their hiding places. It was not used as the killing weapon.

If the Taliban are resorting to WP, it may even be a good thing. That means that they are running out of proper weapons to use.

Paul Krugman reveals his ignorance (again)

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:33:00 +0000

Yes, I know the NYT columinist is a Nobel-prize winner. So who am I to argue with him? The problem is, his prize was in economics, which stands to reason, because he is an economist.

But now he feels as if he is an expert in everything else: Politics, War, The Middle East, and even morality. You name it, and Krugman has an opinion on it. An opinion which is unlikely to ever change. Especially when the name "Bush" is involved.

In his recent blog entry Krugman states:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Hmmm... forget that it was normally Krugman and his ilk who usually ridiculed Bush for his (as they saw it) simplistic use of the word "evil". And let's forget for one moment that the "torture" he's talking about was simply waterboarding. Heck, we'll even forget that Bush never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the first place. And let's even forget that if Bush was really torturing for that one purpose, he could have easily found someone who would have confessed to it. But he did not, and there was no such person.

Here's the other problem with such hyperbole: "Evil" is the blatant disregard for life and liberty. Period.

People who torture for fun are evil. People who torture for money are evil. People who torture in order to save innocent lives may be misguided, insensitive, or flat-out wrong, but they are not evil. The comic-book character "The Punisher" did this all the time, and he was considered a hero. A flawed hero, but a definitely a hero nonetheless.

I don't support the waterboarding technique. But neither am I going to smear those who used it against the most ruthless organization in the world.

Bonus: David Nieporant predicted the Krugman column 7 years ago!

College students shut down speech - again

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:36:00 +0000

There has been an awful lot going on this week, from Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, to the "Tea Party" protests in the US, to the violent protests in Thailand. But, for now, I'm focusing on issues that the media is ignoring. Like this one.

Former US Congressman from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, has consistently been a lone voice in government speaking out against illegal immigration. The irony is, he is often tarred as the "radical right" for simply condemning activity which is currently illegal under the law.

But we should learn to be more tolerant of others, right? Well, his opponents don't seem to think so. His speech at the University North Carolina - Chapel Hill had to be cancelled after protesters turned violent.

One of the protesters held a sign that read: "Hate speech is not free speech". That sums up the problem right there. When a mob gets to decide what is and what is not "hate speech", then free speech goes out the window. Illegal immigration opponents, and right-wing folks in general, are often accused of being closed-minded and bigoted, sometimes justly. But this a perfect example of how leftists often don't practice the same tolerance and acceptance that they preach so fiercely.

Don't they still teach Voltaire any more?

"Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dîtes mais je me battrai jusqu'au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire"

In other words: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the end for your right to say it."

This week in review

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:57:00 +0000

A European Weasel, by Keven Law

PAKISTAN: A terrorist sympathizer from Canada, Khadija Abdul Qahar (formerly Beverly Giesbrecht) is taken hostage by the Taliban in Pakistan, while reporting for Al-Jezzira. She runs the pro-Taliban web site Jihad Unspun. The irony here is rich. I hope she returns unharmed, but I can't help being awestruck by her naivete.

USA: Apparently the Obama administration wants to replace the phrase "Global War on Terror" (or GWOT for short), with "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO?). Calling it by a different name doesn't change anything, and I promise few people will actually use the new phrase, except in official announcements. This also wouldn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of servicemembers (including myself) have already been awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. How do you change that?

USA: Illegal immigrant in Hannibal, MO confesses to murdering two people. Many in the town are outraged that he was still in the country at all, despite several previous run-ins with the law.

USA: Nancy Pelosi claims that enforcing our immigration laws is "un-American". How does she justify that statement? Good commentary at Michelle Malkin's site.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Dalai Lama was denied an entry visa to South Africa. He was traveling to the international peace conference in Johannesburg, and the official explanation was that his presence would be a distraction from the conference and the 2010 World Cup. The irony is that the Dalai Lama is just about the most patient and peaceful person on Earth (to a fault, in my opinion), and the focus has already shifted from the events to this controversy instead. Everyone knows the real reason for this; South Africa is simply kowtowing to pressure from China, its most lucrative trading partner.

CHINA: Speaking of China, they claim they want to see single world currency to assist international trade, but the real reason is likely that they want undercut US dominance by replacing the dollar on world markets. They would be some interesting side effect of this; not all of them would necessarily be bad for the US. Rampant international counterfeiting of US dollars would dwindle down to almost nothing.

USA: With unemployment high, more women are turning to strip clubs. No wonder, since many of them make $1000 a night, a much better salary than mine...

LIBERIA: A "blogger" in Liberia who reaches far more people than I do every day, without a computer even! This is entrepreneurism in its purest form. All it takes is hard work and thinking outside the box.

BLOGOSPHERE: John Cole finally admits the obvious. What's sad is that he thinks its a joke.

UK: Radical Imam says he wants to see the flag of Islam flying over Downing Street. If you want to turn Europe into a bloodbath, go ahead.

USA: Texas school used cagefighting to settle disputes among students. Why didn't I get to go to schools like that? It sure beats Saturday detention...

TURKEY: Last month, about 90 Muslim leaders from around the world signed a declaration of jihad (Arabic Link) in support of Hamas and against Israel. This was scarcely mentioned in the mainstream media. One of them was a leader of the Muslim Council of Britain. Doing the job that the media refuses to do, Esther at Islam in Europe, tracks down the other signatories residing in Western Europe.

USA: Sign of the Nanny state: Mom lets her 10 year old son walk 1/3 mile to his soccer game, and the police come calling. Once upon a time, children routinely walked much farther than that to school everyday. This is one reason why our young generation are obese like never before.

USA: Apparently in Colorado, you don't own the rain that falls on your own home. So technically, it is actually illegal to collect rainwater in the State. I understand the reasons behind this, but there must be a better way.

UK: A school administrator in the UK is wrongly accused of racism, and wins hundreds of thousands of pounds in a court settlement. Good for her. Unfortunately, as usual, the money comes from the school district, not from the clods that leveled the false accusations in the first place.

USA: In the face of outrage by Veteran's groups, Obama dropped a controversial plan to require private insurers to reimburse the government for treatment of wounded veterans. I don't see it as a huge issue myself, except that if the same thing happened under President Bush, the left-wing blogosphere would have had a field day. This time they were very quiet. Strange how that works out.

USA: Only in America. A class-action lawsuit forces the City of Seattle to refund each customer $45 for overcharging their water bills. Problem is, to pay for this settlement, the city is adding a $59 surcharge to water customers. Guess who actually profits off of this? The sad thing is, the tort system nearly ALWAYS comes up with these results; the wealth is transferred from the innocent to the innocent, with the attorneys taking their cut. What is rare is for people to see this process happening as blatantly as it did here (via Overlawyered).

UK: Convicts released early from prison are recieving reimbursement for the room and board they lost! Maybe it's cheaper to keep them in jail longer...

NEW ZEALAND: New Zealand's experiment with legalized prostitution. Didn't turn out so bad in the end. Germany has legal brothels, and they are rarely a problem.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Post Office manager defends Britain [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:57:00 +0000

This is not the most important issue in the world, but it is illustrative of growing divisions in the UK.

A manager of the Sneinton Boulevard Post Office in Nottingham is causing a stir for refusing to serve immigrant customers who will not speak English. I understand his frustration, but not entirely sure I agree (what about foreign tourists who might want to send a package?). But what really caught my attention were these wonderful words to the Daily Mail:

'Nobody stands up for anything in Britain any more,' he said. 'It's the best country in the world as far as I'm concerned ... All I'm doing is telling people that if they want to live in Britain, be British.

'Don't boo our soldiers when they come home from Iraq. Don't live your life without embracing our culture. Don't stay here without making any effort to learn the language. And if you don't want to be British, go home.'

White people can't say what I'm saying because they'd end up in jail,' he explains.
'I decided to make this stand because I think too many British people are afraid to talk out.

'If they insist on everyone speaking English they are afraid of being branded a racist or being accused of belonging to the BNP.

Racist? Normally, a statement like that from a public servant in the UK would lead to an immediate accusation of racism and dismissal from his job. Problem is, the man in question, Deva Kumarasiri, is an immigrant from Sri Lanka, who has also raised thousands of pounds in hurricane relief for his country of birth. Undoubtedly, this has the PC police confused over how to respond to him.

It's rare enough to find immigrants with this attitude in America, let alone the UK. I wish him well.

UPDATE 22/03/09 12:20:00 PM: That was quick. He has already been forced to transfer to another office due to complaints and threats.

Two others complicit in the Fritzl case

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:08:00 +0000

In the United States, the Bernard Madoff affair is attracting all the attention. But in Europe, the sensation is the Josef Fritzl incest/imprisonment case, where yesterday he unexpectedly plead guilty to all counts against him.

How a man can keep his own daughter Elizabeth imprisoned for 24 years, and father seven children by her, without anyone in his building noticing, is still beyond me. But at least his guilt is now a settled issue. This statement is interesting:

He claimed that watching his daughter Elisabeth give 11 hours of harrowing, videotaped evidence about her years of torture and abuse in a cellar had made him face up to "my sick behaviour".

He realised "for the first time how cruel I was".

So what was different about that 11 hours vs. the 24 years his children pleaded with him to let them go? It's far more likely that he could see the effect her testimony had on the jury, and he felt fighting the charges would only anger them further.

But in this sad story, there are at least two other people who are partially to blame for this mess. Rosemarie Fritzl, Josef's wife, and Harald Fritzl, the eldest son. Rosemarie allowed her husband, who was convicted on a separate rape charge in 1967, to return to their home. That was, of course, bad judgement. But particularly in light of his history, how could she have missed everything else?

Somehow, she never noticed her husband molesting her daughter since she was 11 years old (even her son even knew about it - see below), causing her to run away on at least one occasion? Somehow, she swallowed the bogus story that Elizabeth had joined a cult; somehow she never questioned the foundling children popping up on the doorstep every few years. Somehow, she never noticed Josef hauling wheelbarrows full of food down to the basement, and pulling out trash bags (many of which would have been full of diapers) and taking them to the dumpster. Somehow, not once in 24 years did she bother to check the basement, even when Josef had it expanded. Elizabeth now blames her mother for her complacency all those years, and reportedly they are currently estranged. In my opinion, the Austrian police dismissed Rosemarie's complicity too quickly, and she should be on trial as well. There are no reports that she is mentally handicapped in any way, and that is the only way I could believe that she truly knew nothing was going on.

Harald Fritzl's conduct is a bit more defensible, but he also could have prevented this situation long ago. He also knew that Josef was molesting Elizabeth for many years before she was imprisoned, and he never spoke up about it. She confided the molestation to him when she was 12, so he would have been 16 years old - old enough to go to the police or another family member. I understand he was scared. But if you love your sibling, there comes a point at which you need to choose which is more important - your safety, or hers? I suppose now he knows he made the wrong choice, but now is a little late.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

I still exist

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Although it's been a long time between updates. I am going through major changes in my life right now. The Blog is still here, although updates will still be slow.

But the writing here will change. Stay tuned.

Some things that happened this week (besides the inauguration itself).

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:32:00 +0000

1) Righting one greivous wrong, George Bush commuted the sentences of two Border Patrol agents who had been given unjustly long sentences in shooting a drug smuggler in 2005.

2) In a slippery slope of grand proportions, The inauguration ceremony cost a staggering 150 million. Even some emergency FEMA funds were used and as Mark Steyn points out, an entirely inappropriate use. This is indeed "change", but not quite what most of us were hoping for. And a question - the media kept declaring that the amount of security at Obama's inauguration was "unprecedented". Is there some reason why we need to provide more security today, as opposed to 4/8/12/16 years ago?

3) Eric Boehlert, an Obama supporter at the leftist Salon.com wrote:

The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security.

Sounds like he was trying to be objective? No, because he wrote that in 2005, about President Bush's inauguration when the bill was only between $40-70 million. Still a huge sum, but several times less than the current gala, which was thrown at a time of economic hardship, no less. John Henke at The Next Right points out the blatant hypocrisy of his complete about-face, now that his candidate is the one being inaugurated. Mr. Boehlert lamely tries to defend himself in a Media Matters article, by complaining that the 2005 estimates of Bush's inauguration didn't include security costs. First of all, he didn't include those costs back in 2005, and more importantly, he fails to address the fact that even if you do include them (about $70 million) it's still less than half the cost in 2009. Even adjusted for inflation, that's a hell of an increase. To be fair, Obama used some of his own funds, and others were provided by private contributors. But the taxpayers were still the primary bill-payer here.

Maybe it's human nature, but it's not terribly productive for every new President (of any party) to feel like he must always outdo the last one.

War breaks out, Hamas apologists answer the call

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:26:00 +0000

Remarkable photo of black smoke rising from the Gaza side of the border. Egypt is on the right. From Stern.de

Israel is hitting Gaza in response to Hamas rocket attacks, and Arab activists are protesting all over the globe. I'm not going to echo the media here, but instead point out that some of Israel's critics are not telling you the whole story.

Of course, the predictable Daily Kos, Juan Cole, and Richard Silverstein, and the Huffington Post, to name just a few, are all crying out in support of Palestinians and against the Israeli "aggressors".

Professor Cole call's Israel's offensive a "war crime". His reasoning:

In 2001-2008, these rockets killed about 15 Israelis and injured 433, and they have damaged property. In the same period, Gazan mortar attacks on Israel have killed 8 Israelis.

Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. Since fall of 2007, Israel has kept the 1.5 million Gazans under a blockade, interdicting food, fuel and medical supplies to one degree or another. Wreaking collective punishment on civilian populations such as hospital patients denied needed electricity is a crime of war.

...The infliction of this sort of death toll is known in the law of war as a disproportionate response, and it is a war crime.

The omissions in Cole's article are dishonest. He is comparing apples and oranges. It's true that relatively few Israelis have actually been killed by Hamas rockets. But he conveniently forgets that these are not the only weapons in Hamas' arsenal. They have also used suicide bombings (even with women and children), IEDs, kidnappings, and assorted guerilla tactics against the civilians and Israeli Defense Forces. In all, 1,176 Israelis have been killed and 8,341 wounded in terror attacks since 2000. And this doesn't even include the Palestinians killed by Hamas, mainly when cleansing their Fatah rivals from the strip.

Another thing that Cole fails to mention is that Gaza is not only bordered by Israel. Egypt has it's own blockade, and are even shooting Gazans attempting to flee the country. This is especially grievous considering that the Egyptians, unlike the Israelis, aren't under attack by Hamas.

Finally, Cole and the rest always fail to mention one harsh reality. Just to survive, Israel must force their enemies to suffer many times their own casualties; they would be overwhelmed otherwise. Israel's population is just over 7 million. By contrast, the Arab nations surrounding Israel total in the hundreds of millions (Egypt alone has 81 million people!). You can also add 66 million Persians in Iran, which is still pursuing a nuclear program.

Don't get me wrong - Israel is not entirely innocent here, and I don't fully support their tactics. I would have instead gone with commando insertions right off the bat, followed by a full scale ground invasion. Yes, it is much more risky, but has a better chance of taking out the ringleaders as well as not providing Hamas with fodder for their reams of fake photographs of injured children. Moreover, Israel will probably have to invade the strip anyway. Since giving Gaza back to the Palestinians has ended in complete failure, not just for Israel but for the Palestinians themselves, Israel needs to seriously consider relocating the entire population of Gaza strip. It would result in worldwide Arab condemnation, but it would last a few years, while the ongoing situation provides the Arab countries with excuses to blame Israel and conduct attacks for decades to come. Even the talk of such a massive resettlement might shock Hamas into finally realizing their terror tactics are threatening to send them out of their very homes.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Holiday week's updates

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:14:00 +0000

Pin-up legend Bettie Page (in one of her few non-pinup photos). She died last week at the age of 85

In the last couple weeks, when I was absent from this blog, the world has been a busy place. Some things you may have missed:

UK: As the holidays approach, keep in mind this startling statistic. In the UK, up to 70% of people currently doubt the story of the Nativity (Jesus's birth). It wouldn't have anything to do with efforts to erase any religious connotations of Christmas, would it?

TEXAS, USA: A nine year-old girl asks Santa in a letter to help her and her sister stop four years of sexual abuse by their stepfather. School officials saw the letter, and the man was arrested and arraigned on charges concerning both girls.

UK: On the other side of the coin, some observations on society's hysteria over accusations of child molestation, and how all men suffer for it. Very applicable to the USA as well.

TURKEY: A recent report on woman's rights in Turkey, kind of a hard dose of cold water for multiculturalists who insist that Turkey is currently ready for inclusion into the European Union.

WORLD: As the holiday season is here, remember that much of the world is still battling basic problems like hunger. Fortunately, the recent dramatic fall in oil prices should ease this problem somewhat.

USA: Study shows how important the Internet has become; almost as important to people as sex. 46% of women and 30% of men would rather give up sex for two weeks than give up Internet access over the same period.

IRAQ: A view inside Rusafa prison, an Iraqi-run detention facility. A surprisingly fair report, it corresponds very closely to my own experiences in visiting Iraqi jails (including the one at Camp Justice, where Saddam Hussein was hanged). The prisons are extremely crowded and unpleasant, but they are not Gulags, or Nazi-era concentration camps either. Too bad the media can't be as objective when reporting on conditions at Abu Gharaib or Guantanamo.

UK: a man gets life in prison (well, the UK version, anyway: possibility of release after 19 years) for raping his own two daughters over a period of 20 years. The rapes resulted in 19 pregnancies, all of which ended up in miscarriages or abortions. The harm done to the women is incalculable. But this didn't happen in some war-torn country or third-world Pakistan or Somalia, but in the UK, among the most developed nations in the free world, and quite a nanny-state to boot. So what is truly beyond comprehension is how he could have gotten away with this for so long with nobody reporting anything suspicious.

CANADA: The future of fembots is here, and it's pretty creepy, even to a huge sci-fi fan like myself.

NORTH KOREA: Now that I'm stationed in Korea for the time being, I've been following the news in North Korea more closely. Two great sources I found were the Daily NK and Liberty in North Korea (both in the links section).

About two of Obama's cabinet choices

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:02:00 +0000

The Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle, one of Shinseki's pet projects. Photo by MATEUS 27:24&25

Veteran's Affairs

As a veteran myself, I'll come out and say that we simply never needed a Department of Veteran's Affairs as a cabinet-level post. What are veteran's needs, anyway? This may come as a big shock, but they are the same needs as anyone else: food, water, shelter, security, and education - for ourselves and our families. Yes, there are programs and benefits specifically for veterans, but these are very limited in scope. President Reagan elevated this department to a cabinet post in 1988, alongside other departments posts such as Health, Energy, and Defense, but it clearly doesn't belong on that level.

In any case, Barack Obama nominated retired General Eric Shinseki to that Cabinet post, and the leftists go wild, due to his reputation of refuting the Bush administration on the number of troops needed in the War in Iraq. But like many folk legends, this reputation is greatly exaggerated. He did claim in 2003 that the US needed "several hundred thousand troops" to occupy Iraq, in contradiction to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the time. But he made the remark in an off-the-cuff statement in a public hearing with Senate Armed Services Committee. Although there were no shortage of rumors, he never publicly criticized the Bush administration or the war, even after he retired. It's also ludicrous to assume he was "forced out" over the issue, or that it "ended his career". The man had 38 years of military service after all, far beyond the normal retirement time, and in line with other long-serving Generals. His retirement was also announced before his Congressional testimony. Additionally, he was already the Army Chief of Staff, the absolute pinnacle of rank in the Army, and completed his full four-year term at that post. If he stayed in, there was nowhere for his career to go after that (There is one higher position - the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, but that post was already filled by Air Force Gen Richard Myers at the time).

Truth is, most in the military remember him for something else. The guy who brought the Army the dreaded black beret, an awkward headgear which is highly unpopular. He also brought us the Stryker vehicle, which is also unpopular with many, although I myself think it's a good vehicle (photo above).

I'm certain he will do just fine in the job, as long as he's not involved in politics and resists the temptation from Paul Rieckhoff and his ilk to turn veteran status into some kind of underpriveleged group, begging for public sympathy (we are just people, not some oppressed, needy group looking for handouts).

State Department

With a world in chaos (wars in the Middle East, attacks in Mumbai, massive protests in Thailand and Greece, piracy in Africa, etc), Obama picks Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. And nobody is surprised. Why should they be? She is well connected, after all... In my experience, the US State Department is one of the largest, most arrogant, and most bloated beasts in the entire government.

I guess it doesn't matter that she has almost zero foreign policy experience. A career diplomat would have been a less flashy choice, but far more practical. This is exactly the type of "business as usual" politics that Obama claimed during the campaign to be so well above. Like Shinseki, I'll give her a chance. But this doesn't reflect well on the President-elect.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Why updates are so few these days

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:46:00 +0000

Simply put, my job right now is kicking my ass. The last two weeks especially. But I'm still here.

At the start, over a year ago, I was writing about one or two posts a day, and my readership was climbing. Now I write one about every week or so, and my readership has understandably stagnated.

I'm sorry for that, but what can I do? I don't want to close this blog, but I can't update it every day. I'm also not wild about the idea of guest-bloggers, but I am considering it.

We'll just have to go with weekly updates until further notice.

Veteran's Day Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:07:00 +0000

One of my favorite WWII photos: a B-24 Liberator bomber over the Pacific

Happy Veteran's Day! Some items you may have missed this past week:

USA: Right in line with my prediction here, some in Obama's new administration already want to put Bush administration officials on trial for torture.

IRAN: A former victim speaks out about sensory deprivation torture technique known as "white torture". We still hear so much about alleged torture under the Bush presidency (like the above). Why do we hear so little about this?

TURKEY: The Duchess of York went undercover with a media crew and exposed shockingly bad conditions at orphanages in Turkey. Turkey's response:

“We object to the undercover methodology of the documentary. We should have been informed about their plans to do a documentary on orphanages. This could have an impact on our image in Europe.”

In other words: "You are making us look bad and could screw up our EU bid; please give us warning so we can clean up an orphanage before putting it on TV"

UK: Bees in the UK are disappearing at probably the most alarming rate in the world. Yes, we would survive without them, but we would enjoy far less variety in foods as well as living in a less colorful world overall.

USA: The Washington Post admits their campaign coverage was biased. Now they tell us. Don't you think they could have said something about this during the election? Related item: one website, eyeonthepost.org, is dedicated to tracking bias at the WaPo, although it focuses mainly on Middle East reporting.

SOMALIA: A 13 year-old rape victim was stoned to death for adultery. I wish all the people who have been screaming about Sarah Palin's belief in creationism would at least spend some time on real problems like this. There are fanatics in the world who hold nobody's life sacred and are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything in the name of their religion.

MEXICO: Mexico just signed an agreement to deport Cuban migrants in their country. Anyone else see any hypocrisy here? Of course, they don't want Cubans taking jobs in the US. Mexico wants to reserve that particular cash cow for itself. See also related story here.

NORTH KOREA: Dictator Kim Jong-Il might be more ill than previously thought; the regime releases photos of him that are obvious fakes. I can do a better job myself (and have).

GREENLAND: In 1968, a US bomber crashed in Greenland with four nuclear bombs. Only three were accounted for. We are just finding this out now. Given the age of the weapon, the remoteness of the area, and the fact that no terrorist organization has it at the moment (or if they do, no one is using it for blackmail), it's probably nothing to worry about. Probably...

USA: One respected physicist chases his dream of time travel. To avoid ridicule, he kept quiet about it until now. Can't say much about this, except it was a childhood dream of mine as well. He should understand though, that even in the very unlikely case that he was successful, what he is actually building is a weapon far more devastating than any nuke in existence.

USA: Obama wants to close Guantanamo and try all detainees in the continental United States. Problem is, what do you do with them after that? After they serve their sentences, they can ask for asylum since it would be "inhumane" to send them back. No other country will want them either. Bottom line: if we do this, we are stuck with them forever.

The future of political discourse

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:26:00 +0000

Some words of wisdom from Victor Davis Hanson:

It seems to me that conservatives have a golden opportunity to offer criticism and advice in a manner that many liberals did not during the last eight years. By that I mean I hope there are no conservative versions of the Nicholson Baker Knopf-published ‘novel’ Checkpoint, the creepy documentary by Gerald Range, the attempt to name a sewer plant after an American President, or the celebrity outbursts that we have witnessed with the tired refrain of Hitler/Nazi Bush—that all have cheapened political discourse. When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

To this I would add: there should be no conservative "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentaries, no fake-liberal commentators mirroring the Steven Colbert fake-conservative model, no conservative versions of Keith Olberman and his pre-school level "worst person in the world" segments (We already know Ann Coulter is going to have a field day for the next eight years), and no protestors holding signs of Obama depicted with Hitler moustaches and devil's horns.

But that's probably too much to hope for.

The military reaction

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:25:00 +0000

No bloodshed, no violence, no panic.

Every soldier I work with is still plugging away at their job, same as always. But why is that? Hasn't the military been described for the last eight years as "Bush's military"? Hasn't everything small slight they have done personally been blamed on Bush?

I've said over and over again, that the military is far more independent than the conspiracy theorists think. But nobody listened to me.

Everyone talked about it, most joked about it, but that was it. It wasn't such a big deal. It seems most military members seem to support McCain, but not all of them. Mostly, soldiers keep their political opinions to themselves.

But keep in mind what has happened. The election is not significant because we elected a biracial man or a man with the middle name Hussein to the Presidency. It is significant because we just elected a man who, although he is a very charismatic speaker, has the thinnest resume of anyone ever to hold that office. And we elected him over a genuine war-hero with almost 30 years in the Senate. I wish Mr. Obama all the best.

I'm curious, though - with a Democratic president and Congress, who will Germany's Stern blame for it's anti-Americanism? Where will American comedians direct their attacks now? Where will pundits like the Daily Kos and Keith Olberman channel their rage? Toward the US Supreme Court?

A good quote from David's Mediankritik:

For Americans living in or visiting Germany, this may translate into fewer close encounters of the Hate-America kind in certain bars, taxis and social gatherings. The trendy types will have to drop Hate-Bush for some other cause-celeb and pick up a new ultra villain to rail against. This in itself may lead to some angst and uncertainty.