The last day of the year and I am driving on Route 9 here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts from Wormtown to the Holy City of Noho. This is truly a privilege as I get to listen to the radio and go from the loony right to the vapid left in one drive.
First up is Mr. Peter Ingemi, DaTechGuy on WCRN. He did not talk tech, but politics as is his wont. He sounds like what he is, a tea partier who was downsized and moved on. He does not like Ronnie Paul because he won't save us from the muzzies or something.
As Worcester receded, and I got closer to Happy Valley. Mr. David Pakman's voice got clearer on WHMP. He is a bit more focused in his weltanschaung. Ronnie had misgivings about evolution and ergo is not fit to be president. Your man has a point. Washington, Adams and Jefferson never heard of Darwin and they sucked as presidents and human beings.
Saturday is a talk radio ghetto. I may have been one of the pairs only listeners. Guys in working class Worcester are out doing something. The cool people out west are listening to Bob and Ray, I mean Tom and Ray and Car Talk from the Ministry of Information.
It has been a hard few years for our country. The average person's net worth is way down. Still, no matter how hard it is, there is no one in this country so poor that they cannot afford an elephant in their living room to ignore. The president has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. If you agree with Glenn Greenwald, this is about as big a deal as it gets constitutionally.
El Presidente signs it today and nada from either Mutt or Jeff. Now, I suspect the techie likes it because, gosh, we gotta be secure and he is always tired of hiding under the bed. The bad news is who signed it.
Pakman, it is a little tougher. You had George Bush and all his wars and now you have the demi-god and the wars have not changed (other than some cosmetic withdrawls). An honest man would have to say Obama was a fraud. Well, an honest man would say that.
As we head into the 12th year of the Bush/Obama administration maybe Rodney King couldn't get us to all get along, but there is at least some consensus in the Ingemi/Pakman Axis.
I believe in evolution, but opposing the NDAA and not believing evo is okay with me. Being for NDAA and believing in NDAA is evidence of personal devolution.
David Pakman does his best to be the smarmiest guy on WHMP. The competition is fierce. Learn more about him here.
You can learn more about Mr. Ingemi here.
In truth, I may have not heard it because I was listening in the car. If I am mistaken and they took the issue on, they have my apology. If Mr. Pakman called Obama on it, I'll need a pacemaker.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012-finally and admission that fighting them over there was a sham
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has passed and the president is to sign it. So we used to say we were fighting them over there so we would not have to fight them over here. Well the Neutralist never said it. We believe the whole posture of our so called War on Terror is a scam. When semi chicken hawk (is a legal guy in the army, medal for paper cuts maybe), Lindsay Graham said the bill would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" he admitted as much. If we are at this point, the terrorists have won.
Gene Healy's column, If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights at the Washington Times is worth reading.
Gene Healy's column, If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights at the Washington Times is worth reading.
Has any congress member, aside from those who voted no, ever read the Constitution?
Sunday, December 18, 2011
He has truly won!
Somewhere, maybe Drudge, it was noted, the biggest story of 2011 is the death of OBL. There was a victory dance or ten caught on media. The heartbreaking aspect of it all is that dead or alive, he won. If we won, the new defense authorization act could be slimmer and indefinite detention would not be on it.
Radley Balko had a post in May outlining our defeat. If you don't sigh after reading, you don't get it.
Radley Balko had a post in May outlining our defeat. If you don't sigh after reading, you don't get it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Droning on and on
So, we've been using drones for years and they are pretty spiffy. It's been such a success that a drone was used to recapture some errant cows. The Neutralist is not a psychometrician, but we feel we have proof that proof that Iranians are smarter than cows. They seem to have captured a drone used by, we guess, the Air Force. So the relative IQ scale is Iranians, drones, cows. I won't go on with this, because as an American, I find it embarrassing.
So we are using drones and have covert ops going on in Iran. Yet we are in high dudgeon over a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that looks pretty shaky. So it's right and just for us to bug the Persians because we're the good guys, but not right for them to do something here that might or might not be a set-up.
The Iranians have been telling us to go fry ice for a number of years now. I just hope they don't have a viable plan to close the Strait of Hormuz as the Neutralist does not like an interesting life.
America's greatest chickenhawk is dissing the pres who has to be saying, "what have I gotta do. I killed Osama and gave you another war and am deploying troops to more countries."
Well BHO, I have a suggestion. Insert Cheney to retake the drone.
So we are using drones and have covert ops going on in Iran. Yet we are in high dudgeon over a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that looks pretty shaky. So it's right and just for us to bug the Persians because we're the good guys, but not right for them to do something here that might or might not be a set-up.
The Iranians have been telling us to go fry ice for a number of years now. I just hope they don't have a viable plan to close the Strait of Hormuz as the Neutralist does not like an interesting life.
America's greatest chickenhawk is dissing the pres who has to be saying, "what have I gotta do. I killed Osama and gave you another war and am deploying troops to more countries."
Well BHO, I have a suggestion. Insert Cheney to retake the drone.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Pearl Harbor - Isn't that an elephant here in the room with us-Nah!
Pearl Harbor Day was Wednesday and was remembered less then when I was young. All my relatives who were in The Second World War are no longer with us.
No matter, the great epic is still with us. A film or documentary can be counted on every so often. The main thing for the great and good is to keep up the front that this was a holy war led by holy men. With great effort this can be done with Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin is a problem. You might find a few of his defenders on the north bank of the Charles River, but even there, they are sparse.
The Diane Rehm show commemorated the day with guest host Tom Gjelton and two authors.; Ian Toll and Steven Gillon. According to the bio notes, Mr. Stoll is a former Wall Street analyst, Federal Reserve financial analyst, political aide and speechwriter; he the author of a previous book on naval history, "Six Frigates." Steven Gillon is a history professor and author of numerous books, including "The Kennedy Assassination - 24 Hours"; resident historian for The History Channel. The two men discussed the events leading up to the attack. It was informative, but what it does not address in detail is Herbert Hoover’s book, Freedom Betrayed. Talk about large elephants in the room and everyone pretending to “normalcy.” Whatever one might think about Herb and the Depression, is there anyone who thinks he was a nut or a liar? To not mention the book or address Hoover's points about an FDR campaign to inveigle the Japanese into war when such a book has been out since November 7 is cute or maybe the lads didn't know about the tome?
Pat Buchannan, as expected, has been all over it. With a review of the Hoover book, he details the efforts of the Roosevelt administration to get a war against the wishes of much of the nation. He details Hoover's account of Japan's efforts to avoid war and Team Roosevelt's work to avoid avoiding war. His piece is all over the web including TownHall which all too often appears to be Neocon heaven.
It has been the practice in this country mainly to ignore challenges to the orthodox doctrine. On occasion, the challenge is taken up to dismiss efforts.
So how does the Neutralist see this. In 1954, the great military historian and theoretician, Basil Liddell Hart wrote:
In reply President Roosevelt demanded , on the 24th July 1941, the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Indo-China ----and to enforce his demands he issued orders on the 26th for freezing all Japanese assets in the U.S.A. and placing an embargo on oil supply. Mr. Churchill took simultaneous action and two days later the refugee Dutch Government in London was induced to follow suit----which meant, as Mr. Churchill has remarked, that ‘Japan was deprived at a stroke of her vital oil supplies.’
In early discussions it had always been recognized that such a paralyzing stroke would force Japan to fight, as the only alternative to collapse or the abandonment of her policy. It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four months, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo. The United States Government refused to lift it, unless Japan withdrew not only from Indo-China but also from China. No government, least of all the Japanese could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions.*
There is much controversy in the life of Liddell Hart. Suffice it to say, he had no political ax to grind, and it was no way controversial to say Roosevelt wanted to get into World War II at the time LH wrote. Point to Hoover.
The Neutralist position is that war cannot always be avoided, and the Neutralist never wants to see us ever lose, but greatness exists in avoiding committing your countrymen to death and destruction, while insuring that the interests of the nation are accomplished.
All else, even with victory, is failure.
Strategy,by B.H. Liddill Hart, 1954, 1967 by Faber & Faber Ltd., London, England, Page 254.
No matter, the great epic is still with us. A film or documentary can be counted on every so often. The main thing for the great and good is to keep up the front that this was a holy war led by holy men. With great effort this can be done with Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin is a problem. You might find a few of his defenders on the north bank of the Charles River, but even there, they are sparse.
The Diane Rehm show commemorated the day with guest host Tom Gjelton and two authors.; Ian Toll and Steven Gillon. According to the bio notes, Mr. Stoll is a former Wall Street analyst, Federal Reserve financial analyst, political aide and speechwriter; he the author of a previous book on naval history, "Six Frigates." Steven Gillon is a history professor and author of numerous books, including "The Kennedy Assassination - 24 Hours"; resident historian for The History Channel. The two men discussed the events leading up to the attack. It was informative, but what it does not address in detail is Herbert Hoover’s book, Freedom Betrayed. Talk about large elephants in the room and everyone pretending to “normalcy.” Whatever one might think about Herb and the Depression, is there anyone who thinks he was a nut or a liar? To not mention the book or address Hoover's points about an FDR campaign to inveigle the Japanese into war when such a book has been out since November 7 is cute or maybe the lads didn't know about the tome?
Pat Buchannan, as expected, has been all over it. With a review of the Hoover book, he details the efforts of the Roosevelt administration to get a war against the wishes of much of the nation. He details Hoover's account of Japan's efforts to avoid war and Team Roosevelt's work to avoid avoiding war. His piece is all over the web including TownHall which all too often appears to be Neocon heaven.
It has been the practice in this country mainly to ignore challenges to the orthodox doctrine. On occasion, the challenge is taken up to dismiss efforts.
So how does the Neutralist see this. In 1954, the great military historian and theoretician, Basil Liddell Hart wrote:
In reply President Roosevelt demanded , on the 24th July 1941, the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Indo-China ----and to enforce his demands he issued orders on the 26th for freezing all Japanese assets in the U.S.A. and placing an embargo on oil supply. Mr. Churchill took simultaneous action and two days later the refugee Dutch Government in London was induced to follow suit----which meant, as Mr. Churchill has remarked, that ‘Japan was deprived at a stroke of her vital oil supplies.’
In early discussions it had always been recognized that such a paralyzing stroke would force Japan to fight, as the only alternative to collapse or the abandonment of her policy. It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four months, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo. The United States Government refused to lift it, unless Japan withdrew not only from Indo-China but also from China. No government, least of all the Japanese could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions.*
There is much controversy in the life of Liddell Hart. Suffice it to say, he had no political ax to grind, and it was no way controversial to say Roosevelt wanted to get into World War II at the time LH wrote. Point to Hoover.
The Neutralist position is that war cannot always be avoided, and the Neutralist never wants to see us ever lose, but greatness exists in avoiding committing your countrymen to death and destruction, while insuring that the interests of the nation are accomplished.
All else, even with victory, is failure.
Strategy,by B.H. Liddill Hart, 1954, 1967 by Faber & Faber Ltd., London, England, Page 254.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Marco Rubio and the sanity test
I know my countrymen do not care and maybe the world does not either, but one wonders why an alliance of near broke nations would want to commit to defending a geographically isolated country known mostly for spawning maybe history's greatest tyrant. It would be bad enough to suggest this if the country we would go to war with for our ally was weak as a kitten. Granted the Bear ain't what he used to be but as the cliche goes, one nuke can ruin your whole day.
Proposing such an alliance would constitute the flunking of a sanity test. Jack Hunter over at the Daily Caller is on the case.
Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.
Gosh, ya gotta love that Paul family. See, when Marco was flunking, Rand was passing his sanity test with flying colors.
Of course, the Neutralist could be wrong. We humbly beg anyone out there who believes an alliance with the Georgians is a good idea to please set us straight. Good luck.
Proposing such an alliance would constitute the flunking of a sanity test. Jack Hunter over at the Daily Caller is on the case.
Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.
Gosh, ya gotta love that Paul family. See, when Marco was flunking, Rand was passing his sanity test with flying colors.
Of course, the Neutralist could be wrong. We humbly beg anyone out there who believes an alliance with the Georgians is a good idea to please set us straight. Good luck.
Monday, November 28, 2011
When insanity becomes too obvious to deny, continue to deny-The Pakistani bombing
Okay, Drudge has all the links you need. The Neutralist has no interest in posting them. It was bound to happen I guess. Twenty-four Pak soldiers killed. Even if they had done something to draw fire, which no one so far avers, the nation of Pakistan should be saying, "why to we even pretend to be the allies of the US."
The grand folly of our nation is that we are fighting a war in a landlocked country and we depend on a nation that has no real reason to be our ally. They control the supply lines. We are like an asthmatic breathing through a long straw. If this is not the disaster that makes us rethink policy, I hate to think what that would be.
The grand folly of our nation is that we are fighting a war in a landlocked country and we depend on a nation that has no real reason to be our ally. They control the supply lines. We are like an asthmatic breathing through a long straw. If this is not the disaster that makes us rethink policy, I hate to think what that would be.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Mercy and Justice Reign in the New Libya-NOT
Any but the most naive knew this would happen. Drudge links with this headline, MILITIA GROUPS RUN WILD IN LIBYA. Now who'd a thunk it?
Not Patrick Coburn. In the Brit Independent he has an article with a headline, This was always a civil war, and the victors are not merciful. the headline says it all, but read for some inspiring details.
Our point at the Neutralist. Well we don't know the whole story, but if Mama Hilary et al went in to bring truth, justice and the American way, they were stupidly naive. If it was for hydrocarbons, hey lumpen America, lets hope you see that at the pump.
I doubt lumpen Libya is going to benefit.
Not Patrick Coburn. In the Brit Independent he has an article with a headline, This was always a civil war, and the victors are not merciful. the headline says it all, but read for some inspiring details.
Our point at the Neutralist. Well we don't know the whole story, but if Mama Hilary et al went in to bring truth, justice and the American way, they were stupidly naive. If it was for hydrocarbons, hey lumpen America, lets hope you see that at the pump.
I doubt lumpen Libya is going to benefit.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Let us stop and think we before we go to war with Iran
A recent article titled American spies outed, CIA suffers in Lebanon. we find our CIA has suffered horribly at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It seems the Lebanese and their Iranian allies are no slouches at the intelligence game.
This begs the question, how can we trust anything our intel people tell us. The Khost bombing and now this. Our agencies do seem hapless.
One could be forgiven if the current drumbeat for an Iranian adventure seems even less on the money than the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hysteria. Of course, how could anything be less on the money than that?
This begs the question, how can we trust anything our intel people tell us. The Khost bombing and now this. Our agencies do seem hapless.
One could be forgiven if the current drumbeat for an Iranian adventure seems even less on the money than the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hysteria. Of course, how could anything be less on the money than that?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
From Gavinthink-Defense is a Public Good. So spend less on it.
Please note: The Neutralist is posting the original work of Gavin Andresen from his blog, Gavinthink. You can see it on his blog here. He is worth reading on other subjects as well.
When economists talk about something being a "public good" they don't mean "nice stuff that the government does."
The definition of a public good is something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Or in non-econogeek-speak, stuff that doesn't run out no matter how many people use it, and stuff that benefits everybody whether they pay for it or not.
National defense is a public good. I'm not saying all national militaries are "good" -- I think lots of militaries around the world are evil and the world would be a better place without them. But the idea of national defense is a public good-- assuming you're pretty happy with your government and don't want Foreign Invaders to take over your country, everybody benefits from a national military standing guard and keeping you safe. And assuming the Foreign Invader Threat doesn't grow as your population grows, the same military can protect 100 thousand people as easily as it can protect 100 million.
National defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
One funny thing about public goods is since they're non-rivalrous, you can serve more and more people while spending the same amount of money. But we don't do that; we spend more and more money on the military. In all the debates about "cutting" military spending the most radical proposals still keep spending at some constant percentage of GDP.
Why?
We should be able to get the same level of safety from Foreign Invaders with a constant level of military spending, no matter how large our population or economy grows. We'd all be much better off, and much safer, if we cut military spending by 90% and spent the money on just about anything else.
When economists talk about something being a "public good" they don't mean "nice stuff that the government does."
The definition of a public good is something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Or in non-econogeek-speak, stuff that doesn't run out no matter how many people use it, and stuff that benefits everybody whether they pay for it or not.
National defense is a public good. I'm not saying all national militaries are "good" -- I think lots of militaries around the world are evil and the world would be a better place without them. But the idea of national defense is a public good-- assuming you're pretty happy with your government and don't want Foreign Invaders to take over your country, everybody benefits from a national military standing guard and keeping you safe. And assuming the Foreign Invader Threat doesn't grow as your population grows, the same military can protect 100 thousand people as easily as it can protect 100 million.
National defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
One funny thing about public goods is since they're non-rivalrous, you can serve more and more people while spending the same amount of money. But we don't do that; we spend more and more money on the military. In all the debates about "cutting" military spending the most radical proposals still keep spending at some constant percentage of GDP.
Why?
We should be able to get the same level of safety from Foreign Invaders with a constant level of military spending, no matter how large our population or economy grows. We'd all be much better off, and much safer, if we cut military spending by 90% and spent the money on just about anything else.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
What was that all about? Libya at war's end?
Naturally, a country swimming on light crude makes one think the overthrow might have been about securing some cheap gas, not for us lumpen slugs, but maybe for an oil company or four. The Neutralist sure doesn't know, just lets his inner paranoiac out. This guy has an idea it might have been Mo suggesting al alternative monetary system. Again, we don't know. Maybe such interpretations are whacko, but no more than the belief it was peace,freedom and goodness led NATO and us into support of the noble Libyans.
Speaking of the noble Libyan opposition, This has been hard to miss:
You may not have seen it with one of our grande dame:
What a barbarian.
With a fair trial, Mo could have been sentenced to death. It is a sad commentary that his demise means the world is no better or worse.
See Eric for alternate take on Brother-Leader.
Col. Patrick Lang has an interesting and useful website called Sic Semper Tyrannis. He was early on calling for intervention. I do not think he came out of this looking at all well. Back on the 25th of February he wrote, "As a "card carrying" non-interventionist (isolationist maybe?), I think that I have the "street cred" to call for intervention in Libya." This of course is like the people I met in a previous incarnation who would say, "I never took a dime from the government," to justify a little feeding at the trough. He may disagree, but I thought him gung ho and blithe. Anyway,he should give up his card.
That was then. Maintenant is another story. Last Friday, he wrote, "How did he die? Who cares? IMO the "Gs" killed him after they got through kicking him around. They are not soldiers. They are undisciplined civilian enthusiasts with a smidgin of training. If MQ had died in an ambush or as the "Gs" shot their way into his hideout a lot of you would think nothing of it." Hey it happens, he wrote, he was a cheerleader, someone else get the mop. No pottery barn for The Colonel.
Oh well, this wasn't as costly as some of our other interventions. Onto Uganda.
Speaking of the noble Libyan opposition, This has been hard to miss:
You may not have seen it with one of our grande dame:
What a barbarian.
With a fair trial, Mo could have been sentenced to death. It is a sad commentary that his demise means the world is no better or worse.
See Eric for alternate take on Brother-Leader.
Col. Patrick Lang has an interesting and useful website called Sic Semper Tyrannis. He was early on calling for intervention. I do not think he came out of this looking at all well. Back on the 25th of February he wrote, "As a "card carrying" non-interventionist (isolationist maybe?), I think that I have the "street cred" to call for intervention in Libya." This of course is like the people I met in a previous incarnation who would say, "I never took a dime from the government," to justify a little feeding at the trough. He may disagree, but I thought him gung ho and blithe. Anyway,he should give up his card.
That was then. Maintenant is another story. Last Friday, he wrote, "How did he die? Who cares? IMO the "Gs" killed him after they got through kicking him around. They are not soldiers. They are undisciplined civilian enthusiasts with a smidgin of training. If MQ had died in an ambush or as the "Gs" shot their way into his hideout a lot of you would think nothing of it." Hey it happens, he wrote, he was a cheerleader, someone else get the mop. No pottery barn for The Colonel.
Oh well, this wasn't as costly as some of our other interventions. Onto Uganda.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks!
Not really/ What I believe in is conspiracy theories. Okay, believe in is a tad strong. When I was a kid, I heard it bandied about that the oil companies had paid to stop an inventor of a pill from marketing it. A teacher spouted this in a junior high class.
Hey, i want to be one of the cool people and dismissing conspiracy theories is the way to do it. Unfortunately, my government makes it hard.
No, there has to be at least some plausibility. Fortunately, your government is giving you stuff you have to question. The Iranian plot is so inane, that you have to ask, is this my country on crack?
So I'm waiting of another WTC7 explanation.
Lesson here kids; you don't have to believe any conspiracy theory, but your nuts if you think it ain't possible.
Hey, i want to be one of the cool people and dismissing conspiracy theories is the way to do it. Unfortunately, my government makes it hard.
No, there has to be at least some plausibility. Fortunately, your government is giving you stuff you have to question. The Iranian plot is so inane, that you have to ask, is this my country on crack?
So I'm waiting of another WTC7 explanation.
Lesson here kids; you don't have to believe any conspiracy theory, but your nuts if you think it ain't possible.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Why do the words Turner Joy pop into my mind?
The Iranian assassination plot may be what the government says it is, even putting aside the timing questions linked to on Drudge. Why would the Persians do this in DC? One guy questioned on NPR said they might want to provoke conflict to solve domestic divisions. Why not kill a US ambassador somewhere else with less effort required?
We at the Neutralist remember the Tonkin Gulf Incident and Resolution. It is not that the government always fabricates, but sometimes it does.
Justin thinks it's fake, and many of the commenters at Sic Semper Tyrannis were not gentle.
Boob bait for the Bubbas or are we wanting confrontation to take the nation's mind off our problems? What do we know?
We at the Neutralist remember the Tonkin Gulf Incident and Resolution. It is not that the government always fabricates, but sometimes it does.
Justin thinks it's fake, and many of the commenters at Sic Semper Tyrannis were not gentle.
Boob bait for the Bubbas or are we wanting confrontation to take the nation's mind off our problems? What do we know?
Friday, August 19, 2011
Syria is the new whatever
So your man Berkshire Hathaway, sorry, Bashir Assad (but what's the diff in the long run)is in the crosshairs of..... I think it was State and some other countries. Or so I think I heard when only paying superficial attention to the Ministry of Info......NPR. Monsieur Assad is a horrible meany who may even split infinitives. Yeah, he's killed a lot of civilians which is quite a feat without drones.
So what happens when he goes? Who cares? I doubt La Hilary has a clue. That is not addressed in all the news coverage.
In fact the coverage, such as I've heard, is laughably superficial. The Middle East is a tough neighborhood with fault lines Americans can hardly imagine.
Now, let me be a bit superficial myself. Not an expert on Syria, but here goes. You got your Sunnis including Sufis. They are not in power, but demonstrating and want it.
Next are Alawites. The pres is one and they are the power. They have reason to fight to the bitter end, because if they lose, the end will be bitter. Then come the Christians. They are somewhat with the Alawites as their fat would be in the fire if the Alawites are done in.
Then you have your Druze, Yazidis, Shias and some others. Get ya scorecard! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard.
Of course the press is painting the opposition as the spawn of Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Maybe not:
Christian communities almost 2,000 years old have been destroyed in Iraq, and that will be their fate in Syria, too. As the opposition openly says, Christians are to be expelled and their property confiscated, and Alawites are to be massacred (the tiny Muslim sect that the Syrian rulers belong to). The empire is about to have even more blood on its hands, if there is room.
Why hasn't that been reported by the journalistic tribunes of the truth? For more of the story behind the story, go here.
So what do we get out of this? Dunno. Are there hydrocarbons? Are the Israelis and Iranians in play on this? Given our national predilection for quagmires, not much good can be expected from this quick sand.
The late Social Democrat John Roche said there was an Irish saying that one should never get involved in the religious wars of churches to which one did not belong. Don't know much about Paddy Proverbs but this one sounds reasonable.
So what happens when he goes? Who cares? I doubt La Hilary has a clue. That is not addressed in all the news coverage.
In fact the coverage, such as I've heard, is laughably superficial. The Middle East is a tough neighborhood with fault lines Americans can hardly imagine.
Now, let me be a bit superficial myself. Not an expert on Syria, but here goes. You got your Sunnis including Sufis. They are not in power, but demonstrating and want it.
Next are Alawites. The pres is one and they are the power. They have reason to fight to the bitter end, because if they lose, the end will be bitter. Then come the Christians. They are somewhat with the Alawites as their fat would be in the fire if the Alawites are done in.
Then you have your Druze, Yazidis, Shias and some others. Get ya scorecard! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard.
Of course the press is painting the opposition as the spawn of Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Maybe not:
Christian communities almost 2,000 years old have been destroyed in Iraq, and that will be their fate in Syria, too. As the opposition openly says, Christians are to be expelled and their property confiscated, and Alawites are to be massacred (the tiny Muslim sect that the Syrian rulers belong to). The empire is about to have even more blood on its hands, if there is room.
Why hasn't that been reported by the journalistic tribunes of the truth? For more of the story behind the story, go here.
So what do we get out of this? Dunno. Are there hydrocarbons? Are the Israelis and Iranians in play on this? Given our national predilection for quagmires, not much good can be expected from this quick sand.
The late Social Democrat John Roche said there was an Irish saying that one should never get involved in the religious wars of churches to which one did not belong. Don't know much about Paddy Proverbs but this one sounds reasonable.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Somebody please give Donald Rumsfeld his courage and his honor
Mish Shedlock had a post on his Global Economic Trend Analysis blog that should bother everyone. I was vaguely aware of the case, but reading about it on his page brought it into focus, disturbingly so.
The title of the post is U.S. Circuit Judge Upholds Right of Two US Citizens, Tortured in Iraq, to Sue Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for Torture (link here). So did the former Secdef actually waterboard the men personally. Of course not. I would have more respect, well, less disrespect for him if he did. No, the accusation is that the functionary approved the actions. Mish quotes an article below.
Among the methods of torture used against them during several weeks in military camps was sleep deprivation and a practice known as 'walling', in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Mr Rumsfeld personally participated in approving the methods for use by the U.S. military in Iraq, making him responsible, it argues, for what happened to Mr Vance and Mr Ertel.
If the two men in question go forward and prove their case, The Attorney General in a decent country would then criminally charge Rumsfeld. It should not come to that.
In a movie about the Dreyfus affair, the railroaded Captain is handed a pistol and a bottle. He is told, "Here is your courage and your honor."
Maybe I'm just a simple fellow who just does not get it. Can someone tell me the National Security purpose of torturing these guys?
The title of the post is U.S. Circuit Judge Upholds Right of Two US Citizens, Tortured in Iraq, to Sue Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for Torture (link here). So did the former Secdef actually waterboard the men personally. Of course not. I would have more respect, well, less disrespect for him if he did. No, the accusation is that the functionary approved the actions. Mish quotes an article below.
Among the methods of torture used against them during several weeks in military camps was sleep deprivation and a practice known as 'walling', in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Mr Rumsfeld personally participated in approving the methods for use by the U.S. military in Iraq, making him responsible, it argues, for what happened to Mr Vance and Mr Ertel.
If the two men in question go forward and prove their case, The Attorney General in a decent country would then criminally charge Rumsfeld. It should not come to that.
In a movie about the Dreyfus affair, the railroaded Captain is handed a pistol and a bottle. He is told, "Here is your courage and your honor."
Maybe I'm just a simple fellow who just does not get it. Can someone tell me the National Security purpose of torturing these guys?
Monday, August 01, 2011
The can has been kicked
Some defense spending cuts supposedly, but our guess is cosmetic. The faux conservatives say we need to control spending other than being able to drone-bomb and invade everywhere. That, of course means they are not truly serious.
Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.
Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Another Chickenhawk
So I start up the family car and the radio has been left on by another fam member. They have a proclivity for C & W. Now, I am not a fan, but there is the odd song that the toe will tap to. Unfortunately, the song that came on was not one.
It was the lyrics that were listened to. The song was An American Soldier by Toby Keith. One line sings is "I am an American Soldier." Well, Toby isn't and never was. His soldier personna claims to be fighting for freedom. The poor lads who are in Iraq or Afpak have my sympathy, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their countrymen and women. It is absurd to suggest it. Not when they and the wife and kids can be genitally felt up at airports.
Mr. Keith appears to have a cottage industry on patriotic songs. Maybe he believes what he is singing. Maybe he donates every cent of profit to veterans groups. If he does not the conclusion as to what he is is obvious.
It was the lyrics that were listened to. The song was An American Soldier by Toby Keith. One line sings is "I am an American Soldier." Well, Toby isn't and never was. His soldier personna claims to be fighting for freedom. The poor lads who are in Iraq or Afpak have my sympathy, but they are not fighting for the freedom of their countrymen and women. It is absurd to suggest it. Not when they and the wife and kids can be genitally felt up at airports.
Mr. Keith appears to have a cottage industry on patriotic songs. Maybe he believes what he is singing. Maybe he donates every cent of profit to veterans groups. If he does not the conclusion as to what he is is obvious.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Petition
Reader and commenter Bailey has suggested the drafting of a petition with a clearly defined statement, purpose, and an outline of pros and cons. The role of neutrality needs to be solidified in its scope so that the people will understand that we shall still be a strong nation; however, a nation that only defends. Bailey also suggests that To appeal to the masses, we must show how beneficial neutrality can be to the well-being of our country. We must also determine what will be argued against neutrality and prepare rebuttal that will defuse their arguments.
So what does himself, the Neutralist, think about the proposal? A reasoned, logical petition should not be hard to draw up, especially as it is our belief here at Neutralist GHQ that neutralism is obviously inherently reasonable and logical. Once finished, Bailey would be willing to take it around in his home state.
I am touched by his willingness to do his part. I think a petition, well crafted, could not hurt. Unfortunately, Bailey is my only soldier. Considering the reaction to the Neutralist blog, the whelming has been under. As my what is to be expected screed to the right puts it,
What is to be expected from the Neutralist? Unfortunately, not much. There are think tanks galore in this country for all shades of thought, but, so far, neutralism is an orphan with only one known supporter. The concept is tied up with the I word, Isolationism. To get noticed and be taken seriously will be next to impossible.
Sadly, I have met all my expectations. There have been a few who have encouraged me, but only a tiny few. Moi, I have hardly been stalwart. My name, while not a complete pseudonym, has been crafted to protect my privacy. So what is the purpose. Just to bring about awareness. so tell your friends and neighbors. Heck, submit articles, links, etc.
I hate the terms like viral, but a groundswell would be nice. I admit to wishing for what I wished to happen, also to the right,
What is hoped? That the idea of neutralism will be noticed and that the concept of Wilsonian Internationalism will be seen as the failure it is. That at least a core group will form that will support the idea and spread it in blogs, articles and conversation.
What I am truly hoping with all my heart is to avert disaster. You see, neutralism of a form is coming anyway. Conservatives don't get it. They are only hoping for an end to the current loser wars (that would be all of them). They don't have an aversion to interventionism per se. So we might get, under current conditions, a partial withdrawl and new wars can await a better day. The other scenario would be some form of Dien Bien Phu. After that debacle, we were available to pick up the French pieces. If we have a DBP, our lads may never make it out.
Maybe we shall always be strong enough to avoid that. I would be more confident if we were a rich country. We are not and we'll be neutral be cause, sooner or later, we won't be strong.
Anyway, thanks Bailey. Hopeless as it seems, I still hope.
So what does himself, the Neutralist, think about the proposal? A reasoned, logical petition should not be hard to draw up, especially as it is our belief here at Neutralist GHQ that neutralism is obviously inherently reasonable and logical. Once finished, Bailey would be willing to take it around in his home state.
I am touched by his willingness to do his part. I think a petition, well crafted, could not hurt. Unfortunately, Bailey is my only soldier. Considering the reaction to the Neutralist blog, the whelming has been under. As my what is to be expected screed to the right puts it,
What is to be expected from the Neutralist? Unfortunately, not much. There are think tanks galore in this country for all shades of thought, but, so far, neutralism is an orphan with only one known supporter. The concept is tied up with the I word, Isolationism. To get noticed and be taken seriously will be next to impossible.
Sadly, I have met all my expectations. There have been a few who have encouraged me, but only a tiny few. Moi, I have hardly been stalwart. My name, while not a complete pseudonym, has been crafted to protect my privacy. So what is the purpose. Just to bring about awareness. so tell your friends and neighbors. Heck, submit articles, links, etc.
I hate the terms like viral, but a groundswell would be nice. I admit to wishing for what I wished to happen, also to the right,
What is hoped? That the idea of neutralism will be noticed and that the concept of Wilsonian Internationalism will be seen as the failure it is. That at least a core group will form that will support the idea and spread it in blogs, articles and conversation.
What I am truly hoping with all my heart is to avert disaster. You see, neutralism of a form is coming anyway. Conservatives don't get it. They are only hoping for an end to the current loser wars (that would be all of them). They don't have an aversion to interventionism per se. So we might get, under current conditions, a partial withdrawl and new wars can await a better day. The other scenario would be some form of Dien Bien Phu. After that debacle, we were available to pick up the French pieces. If we have a DBP, our lads may never make it out.
Maybe we shall always be strong enough to avoid that. I would be more confident if we were a rich country. We are not and we'll be neutral be cause, sooner or later, we won't be strong.
Anyway, thanks Bailey. Hopeless as it seems, I still hope.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Arnie Arnesen butchers the English Language
As the Neutralist, I would not want a war monger like Sarah Palin to be president. Still, I do like that she upsets all the cool people. One of them was on the Callie Crossley Show and went after La Palin. Memo to Arnie, if you are going to be a grammar nazi, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Quoting Arnie, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with you know students of English as a Second Language and I have to like repair their assignments, I'm lookin at this.going I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."
I'm going to try and help English learner Arnie. Arnie, I think you meant to say, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with students of English as a Second Language and I have to repair their assignments, I'm listening to this thinking I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."
Of course other than the example above, she was more than competent to hold up her end of the banal banter during the show.
Quoting Arnie, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with you know students of English as a Second Language and I have to like repair their assignments, I'm lookin at this.going I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."
I'm going to try and help English learner Arnie. Arnie, I think you meant to say, "She butchers the English Language, and as someone who works with students of English as a Second Language and I have to repair their assignments, I'm listening to this thinking I want an esl student to feel much better about themselves because this women thinks she can be president."
Of course other than the example above, she was more than competent to hold up her end of the banal banter during the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
