How to shift the blame from yourself.

The Hollywood Elitists have nothing on some Austrailian celebrities.Please click here and read this item by Aussie blogger "Crapping on whatever I feel like."
It doesn't surprise me that spousal assault is justifiable to some people because the war is worse. It is just a pattern of behavior that seems to be universal among elitists, not only in the US, but universally. These people continue to show on a daily basis how out of touch with reality they really are.

Distracted

I was going to post something about Barry Cooper and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. That is in the works, but not today. I was loading some music onto my
mp3 player, and ripping some cds I borrowed from the library, and while listening to the music, I found myself watching, in utter fascination, the video images generated by the Windows Media Player in "Battery: Randomization" mode. I had never seen this before, so I just couldn't break away long enough to write anything important. You see, this is a brand new computer, courtesy of my Mom and Dad as a Christmas gift, and it is one sweet machine, so this is the first time I've used Windows XP at home.
It's almost like watching a lava lamp. I know...I should get a life.

Who Wins Or Loses?

The war in Iraq should not be a political issue in the United States. It is not a matter of President Bush being right or wrong, nor is it an issue of those who oppose the war being right or wrong. It is only the result of our actions in Iraq that is the issue, and if the politicians who oppose the mission continue to involve themselves in the war, it is they who would lose.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.

Dangerous Coins

The United States Department of Defense has issued a warning that Defense contracters in Canada have had coins that contain tiny radio transmitters placed among their pocket change. This is not just normal government paranoia, the DOD says the risk is genuine.
Even with the cold war long over, espionage technology continues to be a strong and lucrative field of research. It is unclear, from the information released, which country or entity is using this technology.

Call it what you will...

So Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of The House, and the first woman in the history of the United States to hold that position, hosts this party in which the entertainment includes former members of The Grateful Dead. I really wish I could have been there.
You see, even though I'm not a big fan of Pelosi, or any professional politician for that matter, I am a big fan of the Grateful Dead. Many of my happiest memories are from Grateful Dead Concerts. I've been to fourteen Dead concerts, plus several Dead spin-offs, such as Rat Dog and Phil Lesh and Friends, and also many Dead protégé concerts, like String Cheese Incident and Widespread Panic. I'm addicted to non-generic, eclectic, jam-based music. If a "Deadhead" is a fan who has heard more Grateful Dead music than what has been played on the radio, and one who has been to more than two or three Dead concerts, then I am one.
There is the stereotypical concept of the Deadhead held by the general public--the drugged out, spaced out old hippie type, who has no sense of reality--which is way off base. There really is no such thing as a Deadhead stereotype. Speaker Pelosi might not have a general sense of consensus reality, but that doesn't make her a Deadhead.
The genuine, hard core Deadheads were the twenty-to-thirty-thousand strong population of a traveling city which followed the Dead from concert to concert, city to city, country to country. They included. The Deadheads had their own law enforcement, doctors, lawyers, and venders of food and necessities. The population included artists, musicians, authors, journalists and actors--those who could work while on the road and make a living. There were also con-artists and drug dealers, gave strength to the Media's misrepresentation of the Deadhead stereotype. Mostly, the Deadheads were people to whom music was a form of prayer, and the Dead were the prayer leaders.
To this day, nobody plays music like the Dead did. They could cover any song that has ever been played by anyone, and make it their own. They never played the same song the same way twice, and one could get lost in their intricate, complex, avant-garde jams. Drugs were available at the concerts, but they were not necessary to the enjoyment of the music or the concert.
Perhaps the most famous Deadhead of all is Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Sometimes a Great Notion. His experiment in mass LSD tripping is well documented by Wolfe, Stone, and others. He financed the Grateful Dead when they were first beginning their public career, giving them equipment, and getting them their first big gigs.
Still, though he and his Merry Pranksters lent much to the stereotyping of the consumate Deadhead, he is an extraordinary exception, not the rule.
The Grateful Dead was probably the most apolitical band ever. They never endorsed any political party or candidate. Most Deadheads are apolitical with a few exceptions, such as political essayist and Libertarian activist JP Barlow. Barlow co-wrote many of the Grateful Dead's better known songs, including one of my personal favorites Estimated Prophet. Though a pundit and commentator, Barlow should not be considered a professional politician--he just writes about it, he doesn't do it.
Political or not, the typical Deadhead would be a Libertarian of one kind or another. While holding the general beliefs of "share and share alike" and "live and let live," the typical Deadhead respects the individual and individual rights. Capitalism is part of the Deadhead culture, as is the idea of the community, rather than the government, being the main source of public welfare. As a matter of survival, the typical Deadhead is pragmatic, over everything else. Deadheads are at the least Minimal Statists, and at the most, anarchists. The typical Deadhead is honest, and will tell it as he or she sees it, but is open-minded--traits that would be counter-productive to the career of a typical politician. If anyone could think outside the politics-as-usual box, it would be a Deadhead.
So Speaker Pelosi may be a great fan of the Grateful Dead and their music. If she says she is a Deadhead, I believe that she thinks of herself as a Deadhead, and I respect her for that. However, if her political rivals think that is a piece of ammunition to use against her, they are wrong. The politician may be a Deadhead, but the Deadhead can't be a politician. Pelosi is in denial of the fact that Ayman al Zawahirwi, the spokesman for Al Qaeda, often publishes statements and sentiments regarding and supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization she doesn't even acknowledge the existence of. She ignores statements by Usama Bin Laden that Iraq is the battleground for World War Three, and by al Masri that Al Qaeda will follow US forces wherever they go. She is hypocritical in that she speaks of transparency and honesty in Congress while pushing for committee leadership for some of the most corrupt unindicted politicians on the Hill. She speaks of bipartisanship while believing that anything the Republican faction does is wrong. This may be due to a change of the psyche from the acid she may have taken at a Dead concert, but that doesn't mean that being a Deadhead is why she thinks the way she does. She thinks the way she does because she is a politician, so, no matter what, please don't denigrate or insult the Deadheads by blaming Pelosi on the Grateful Dead.

No Dignity

Saddam had requested that he face death by a firing squad, which would have been more fitting for a deposed head of state, in his view, than a hanging. However, that would have been too much of a reward for the dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and committed horrendous atrocities against the people of Kuwait. He did not deserve to die with dignity.
On a lighter note, Freaking News a website for creative photoshop has this funny "endorsement" picture, submitted to the site by "Keb:"

Remembering My Commander-In-Chief

I remember President Gerald Ford as the first Commander-in-Chief under whom I served while active in the Air Force. He came into office by a series of circumstances which included scandels forcing the resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon, and which did not include election to the office of President. The administration he took over, and the Nation over which he came into leadership was in recovery from the long and hard war in Viet Nam, Watergate, and other political acandels. The tasks he faced as CIC were quite daunting--he had to restore America's faith in the military and the government, while trying to restore the world's faith in American foreign policy.
Although he wasn't elected as President, he was respected, having been elected to Congress sixteen times by his constituents in the state of Michigan. He treated the people with respect, and respect was returned to him, for the most part.
President Ford's administration did have some failures. He attempted to block the genocide of millions of Viet Namese and Cambodians by the hand of North Viet Nam and its agents, but his proposal to aid the miltia in South Viet Nam was refused funding by Congress, and 8 million Viet Namese and Cambodians died as North Viet Nam's military swept unopposed into the south and concluded the reunification of that country. He did, however, begin the long process of normalization with the new country, one that is still being continued today.
Another failure was his attempt to socialize the American economy with his "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) policy, which included a voluntary wage/price freeze. Still, there was some long-term success for that policy in that we learned that socialism, even when voluntarily imposed, does not work in the American economy.
His pardoning of President Nixon for his Watergate related crimes was never popular, but he successfully defended his position that, without the pardon, America could not put behind the scandals of the Nixon Administration and move forward. His defense of his position was not enough to get him elected, and became the major reason many voters turned to Jimmy Carter.
President Ford's successes were far greater than his failures. The all-volunteer military came into being under his administration, and despite predictions that such a military would never work, he began building it into the force it is today--well trained, efficient, and intelligent. He brought respect back to the members of the military while improving military life with pay raises, benefits, and upgraded living conditions. Never again, would military personnel be greeted in America with the hatred they received upon return from Southeast Asia. They were, after all, only doing the job they were required to do--no war is the fault of those who have to fight it.
Finally, President Ford brought back respect for the government and the office of the President, showing kindness and concern for the American people. He was a man of integrity who would do his best whether he was elected to the job or not. He showed us that the President, no matter who he or she is, deserves the respect of the people. He had a tough job, but he did it the best he could, and his legacy continues to this day.