31 July 2008

The Fly's Thursday Election Coverage Extravaganza

First thing's first today: a couple of administrative notes. First, I edited this month's Stuff Fly Wants list to reflect some stuff I bought at the end of last month that wasn't rescinded before I posted it. Second, I've added this link to the appropriate section of Wednesday's post. Third, after doing what I could to verify that he was who he said he was, I've added Duffle Bag Depot to the military gear section. It appears that there's a good selection of tactical gear for the soldier, Marine, or contractor. If you fit the bill, go check it out. And now, on with the show.

So, here's my first attempt at a weekly election coverage spot. If you think I can make any improvements, please feel free to let me know. This week's edition is going to take the form of brief descriptions of some articles I've picked up over the preceding week.

  • Color Coding - Apparently Senator Obama's team told folks, to include the Senator, to avoid wearing green because it's the color of both Islam in general and Hamas in particular. Not so much a massive gaffe on the Obama campaign's part, just entertaining.
  • Barack Obama: voters are nervous about me - According to Senator Obama: "This is going to be a close election for a long time because I'm new on the national scene and people sort of like what they see but they're still not sure." Maybe they're nervous because he's been either colossally partisan, or exceptionally inconsistent, on every policy issue that he's addressed in any detail... Not to mention the this sort of cultish status surrounding his campaign, which is getting more and more media attention as time passes.
  • Obama's campaign strategy: whining - As reticent as I am to criticize a candidate on a sort of "style points" system, there are several issues in this vein that I believe to be relevant. As mentioned in Senator Obama's quote in the previous article, he's "new on the national scene". I'm not alone in believing that a great deal of his success in the primaries was directly attributable to the fact that nobody really knew anything about him, beyond his ability to speak well. This got him enough traction early on that he was able to sustain loss after loss to Senator Clinton once people actually started learning about him. His recourse has been less than inspiring.

    I'd like to explore that last point a bit more. As I mentioned, Senator Obama's traction in the primaries resulted from his status as sort of a novel, well-spoken newcomer. People took him at his word that he was really different than the rest of the politicians in Washington, because there was no evidence in the public sphere to either prove or disprove his statements. Now that more information is out there, and people have begun criticizing him on his proposed policies, or taking issue with the way he conducts himself, Senator Obama's recourse seems to be either outright dismissal of legitimate issues, or snippy remarks about those who criticize him and his associates. There are a few examples of this.

  • When Senator Obama's alleged spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, was shown to be a revisionist, liberation theology-inspired bigot, Senator Obama erroneously claimed that Wright's remarks were being taken out of context, even though any further investigation of either Wright or the Trinity United Church of Christ showed Wright's remarks to be consistent and prolific in their odiousness. This also showed Senator Obama to be inconsistent, as he claimed Wright as his spiritual mentor of nearly twenty years, while simultaneously claiming that he'd never witnessed such remarks. He tried to have it both ways, and he was called out on it, so he criticized the people who called him out on it. That's bad mojo.
  • Whereas the majority of potential first ladies act matronly and apolitical, Senator Obama's wife Michelle has made remarks that offended many Americans. Her statements have been partisan and incendiary on a number of occasions. To most people, these statements move her into the sphere of legitimate criticism; and most haven't impugned her character, they've reasonably attacked the statements themselves as evidence of the attitudes and beliefs of both of the Obamas. However, Senator Obama isn't most people, because he essentially demanded a cessation of all criticism of his wife. She can make incendiary political statements, and yet she's untouchable? Again, inconsistency, bad mojo.
  • Others in Senator Obama's personal orbit include Bill Ayers, a former anti-American terrorist, and Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and political fundraiser convicted of fraud and bribery. Given Senator Obama's near-complete lack of a political record, one would think that those he's associated with would be legitimate sources of insight into his character, judgment, and lifestyle. Instead, Senator Obama has balked at any such associations and refused to address them. More inconsistency.
  • Another item has been Senator Obama's alleged Muslim background. Now, I'm definitely not claiming that he's a Muslim, and I want to make that clear up front. However, there are a number of reasons why this belief has persisted. His father was a Muslim, and according to Islamic law, a child is considered to be a Muslim if his father is a Muslim. Senator Obama also touts his time as a "street kid" during a few of his younger years in Indonesia as sufficient foreign policy experience; he's even talked about how he had to study the Quran in school. However, instead of addressing these items calmly and rationally, he writes them off and claims that he's a Christian*, and that he's always been a Christian and never a Muslim. On this one, he could have it both ways to some degree, but the fact that he won't address this issue at all is another element of his inconsistency and, yes, bad mojo.

    Is this the political strategy we want from a potential president? A refusal to acknowledge any mistake at all, to include having been incorrect about the potential success of the Iraq surge strategy? As much as some people (to include Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas advisor) want to compare him to President Kennedy, his liberal policy proposals and "blame everyone else" mentality demonstrates far more similarity to President Carter, who is perhaps the most colossal failure in American history (rivalled only by New Coke). As much as I dislike both former President and Senator Clinton, I'll admit that they're good at two things: appearing moderate when it suits them, and taking criticism in stride.

    I considered posting a dramatic video comparing some of Senator Obama's campaign "promises" to a number of recent news clips, but I think I'll save that for next week. Instead, here's an outstanding video from Senator McCain's YouTube channel of a recent speech he gave.



    Okay, folks, that's my political blurb for this week. Check back tomorrow for a post unrelated to the campaign. In the mean time, have an outstanding day.

    * The Bible says that "by their fruit you will recognize them", meaning that if someone says something (like "I'm a Christian") and doesn't act consistently, that their actions will demonstrate the truth. As far as Senator Obama's "fruit", he's compared James Dobson to Al Sharpton, spent twenty years as a member of a revisionist/liberation theology church (apparently without paying enough attention to realize what kind of church it was), he's both pro-abortion and pro-gay (whether those are sincere - or just politically expedient - is unclear), and he's claimed that people in small towns "cling to guns and religion" because they're "bitter". This is just a sampling of his "fruit". Only Barack Obama and God know Obama's heart, but as far as his "fruits" - the actions coupled with the rhetoric - he's left me unconvinced of his religious sincerity. Senator McCain's a different story, but I'll save that for next week.
  • Fly Report: 31st July 2008

    Good morning. Okay, slow down, ma'am. What's this about a little old sailor eating spinach and beating up all of these bikers?

    It's 17° Centigrade and partly cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 89° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $126.30 - nuts. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,583.69. The exchange rate is $1.98 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 34.

    I want you to know, that you don't need me anymore. I want you to know, that you don't need anyone, or anything at all.

    30 July 2008

    Jihadi Observations

    How is it Wednesday already? Well, at least oil prices continue to drop. Here's hoping that the bubble's finally burst.

    First thing's first: politics. Not so much a post about politics, but a decision on policy. I've decided that I'm going to leave political issues (read: election coverage) to one day per week, probably Thursdays. That allows me to collect a few links as I run across them, while focusing the rest of the week on security analysis or random nonsense, the true lifeblood of TSTF. So, for those of you long-timers who remember the old, old, old days of me posting about politics all the time, look forward to Thursdays. If you don't like me posting about politics, that's going to be the day to skip... I think. Anyway, on with the show.

    One thing that I really want to let you all know about is a great project that's going on over at YouTube, that's being led by the Queen of Jordan, Queen Rania. She's running a project to break down people's stereotypes about the Arab world. There's a BBC article here, and you can check out her YouTube channel here. It's very much worth your time to watch a couple of the videos. This is one of the good things that the Internet can be used for.

    A couple of topics today: counterinsurgent strategy, and Hezbollah. The AFP reports that American troops in Iraq are employing some French strategies from the Algerian War. It's worth noting that the French lost that war, but the elements of the French strategy that the Americans are using appear to be promising. Meanwhile, the Rand Corporation has proposed an alternate strategy against al Qaeda(AFP, BBC) that focuses on intelligence and policing, vice force. I've been concerned for a long time with the misperception of Islamist terrorism as a criminal issue. Take this segment from the BBC article:

    "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, political scientist and lead author of the study.

    "The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaeda, it just needs to shift its strategy."

    The researchers at Rand, which is funded by the US government, studied 648 militant groups which existed between 1968 and 2006 and, based on their findings, the report concluded that only 7% were defeated militarily.

    Political settlements helped neutralise 43% groups and an effective use of police and intelligence information helped to disrupt, capture or kill 40% of leaders of such groups, the study says.

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism, terrorists, and their motivation. Some terrorists may be similar in many ways to criminals; for example, Hezbollah is involved in criminal fundraising activities in the United States, the Taliban exploits illegal opium, and al Qaeda is known to engage in numerous criminal endeavours. However, these groups don't see themselves as criminals; they're not the mob. They see themselves as holy soldiers. You can't stifle a presumptive holy warrior by treating his actions like criminal acts.

    The other error that studies like this inevitably make is that the researchers invariably study groups like the Provisional IRA, ETA, and the Baader-Meinhof Group. I've written on this before, although I don't seem to have ever posted that particular article here at the blog. At any rate, I remember a podcast from 2007 in which Louise Richardson of Harvard's Radcliff Institute made illegitimate comparisons of al Qaeda and the IRA, based on her experiences as a young woman growing up in Ulster. (Listen) Although the IRA has worked with various Islamist groups, to include Colonel Qaddhafi and Hezbollah, there are profound differences in both modus operandi and philosophy. This continued attempt by so-called academics to paint Islamist terrorist groups in the same canvass as more moderate terrorist groups, and to suggest law enforcement strategies as the way ahead, is profoundly ignorant. How this isn't obvious from the failed counter-terrorism/policing policies of the Clinton administration is beyond me. Law enforcement is obviously an element of the strategy, and relates to the criminal fundraising efforts of these groups; but because these groups organize and behave so closely to military units, that has to be the predominate system of countering the problem.

    Speaking of opium, a columnist for FSM puts in article form a suggestion that I've been making for years: subvert al Qaeda/Taliban funding by using the Afghan opium trade for pharmaceuticals. It's worth the read, and makes the same points that I've been making for years, literally, for years.

    And speaking of Hezbollah, I've seen a couple of articles lately that relate to Hezbollah and are worth reading. The first, and most recent, is about how car bombs changed the world, and how Lebanon was the laboratory in which they were perfected during the 1980's. The second makes some fascinating points that suggest that Hezbollah may be fighting itself to extinction. I'm planning on writing an article in the next week or two about the recent Israeli/Hezbollah prisoner swap, and this article brings up some points that haven't been considered with all of the hand-wringing and criticism of the Israeli government. Both articles are worth the read.

    Finally, although I'm relatively happy in my current position and plan to stay here for a while, this phase of my life is designed around nomadism. Thus, I'm always interested in articles about whatever the next job will be. Today, I stumbled across a really fascinating one: what to focus on when your interviewer asks, "Why should I hire you?" If I run into that during my next job interview, I have some idea of what I'd say. So, that's your question of the day: if you were asked that question by an interviewer, how would you answer?

    Try to keep it under light speed, folks. Check back soon, because there's always more to come.

    Fly Report: 30th July 2008

    Good morning. Please don't go rushing by, stay and make my heart fly.

    It's 16° Centigrade and partly cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 88° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $122.22 - come on, come on. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,397.56. The exchange rate is $1.98 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 33.

    Just play another chord, if you feel you're getting bored.

    29 July 2008

    Tuesday Morning Speed Post

    Mornin', folks! I hope everyone had a great weekend. Just a couple of items this morning.

    MSN had an interesting article the other day about Hummer enthusiasts who refuse to give up their lifestyle despite high fuel prices and criticism by dirty hippies. A couple of thoughts. First, good on them, if they're willing to continue paying high fuel prices in order to head out with their vehicles, that's the beauty of capitalism. Second, I've driven Hummers (the M1025), and I have no clue why anyone would want to drive one of their own accord.

    I collect these articles, but I wanted to post this one today: Dogs of War: Life without Blackwater? is part of a continuing series of articles by David Isenberg about private military contractors, with a focus on security contractors like Blackwater Worldwide and Aegis. With operations in Iraq winding down, there's a real question as to where this new infrastructure of private security contractors will wind up.

    The article notes that a Blackwater executive was quoted as saying that Blackwater will discontinue security operations, when he really said that Blackwater's plan is to focus on developing other capabilities because the executive planners see logistical operations as the most likely future for their operations. This makes sense, as a great deal of the work done by security contractors in Iraq takes the form of convoy escort. Also, even if things continue to escalate in Afghanistan, the Afghan population is only four million more than Iraq, spread over an area that's roughly fifty percent larger than Iraq. Also, whereas Iraq has seen violence in all major areas, violence in Afghanistan has been largely confined to about a third of the geographic area of the country. As a result, even if Afghanistan gets really ugly again (which is tough to say), the demand for security contractors isn't likely to surge to the degree that it did in Iraq. It'll be interesting to watch in the upcoming months and years. The demand for security contracting work is huge, but the funding from the various developing country governments in need is questionable.

    Today's satellite image is Keflavik Airport in Iceland. It serves as a U.S. Navy/NATO base for the North Atlantic.

    Have a great day, folks!

    Fly Report: 29th July 2008

    Good morning. All those stars drip down like butter, and promises are sweet.

    It's 19° Centigrade and partly cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 87° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $125.25 - here we go again. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,131.08. The exchange rate is $1.99 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 32.

    When I'm still, she waits to break my will.

    28 July 2008

    Stuff Fly Wants: July 2008

    Field Gear
  • British special forces style rucksack (available at Silverman's in London, item number 35116) - £89.99
  • British SAS smock (available at Silverman's in London, item number 22001) - £90.00
  • British Desert DPM trousers and shirt
  • MARPAT Desert Utilities - $67.90
  • Six Color Desert Utilities - $39.90
  • Tiger Stripe Utilities - $39.90
  • Khaki Tru-Spec Tactical Response Uniform trousers (2) - $89.80
  • Sand Crye Precision R6 Field Pants - $105.00
  • UDT/SEAL Team Swimmer Trunks (2) - $71.90
  • Multicam Hunting Shirt - $27.95
  • U.S. Army ACU tan sweat-wicking uniform T-shirts (3)
  • Under Armour Cold Gear
  • Carhartt Double Front Logger Dungarees (2) - $93.00
  • 5.11 Tactical Polos (3) - $119.97
  • FN FAL
  • AR-15 Carbine

    Miscellaneous Clothing
  • Royal Marines T-Shirt - £10.96
  • More Cowbell T-Shirt - $17.99
  • Position Wanted: Pope T-Shirt - $20.00
  • Clan Cleland tartan kilt and kilt pin - $400.00-$700.00

    Household Items
  • Xbox DVD Movie Playback Kit - $29.99
  • Union Jack
  • Amazing Pasta Maker - $39.95 [click me]
  • Fouled Anchor lapel pin - $3.00
  • Walther PPK
  • Orkney satellite map
  • Britain and Ireland Map - $10.99
  • Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East Map - $10.99
  • Roman Mainz Gladius
  • The Maxim Coffin Coffee Table - $4135.00
  • Stikfas Assault Team - $22.99 (Amazon price $20.99)
  • Bentwood Chair and Ottoman - $179.99
  • Pawleys Island Tri-Beam Hammock Stand - $140.00
  • Pawleys Island Beach Quilted Hammock - $222.00 (Amazon price $184.36)
  • Discipline poster - $19.95
  • filing cabinet
  • book case

    Books
  • Travels of ibn Battutah - $18.00
  • Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab - $7.99
  • Contact Zero by David Wolstencroft - $7.99
  • Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg - $27.95 (Amazon price $16.77)

    Entertainment
  • Best of Chris Isaak (CD & DVD) - $24.98 (Amazon price $22.99)
  • James Bond Ultimate Collection - Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 - $359.92 (Amazon price $234.52)
  • 24 - Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 - $269.92 (Amazon price $154.53)
  • Space Above and Beyond - Complete Series - $41.99 (Amazon price $36.98)
  • Reno 911! - Season 2 - $39.98 (Amazon price $31.99)
  • Kids in the Hall - Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 - $179.90 (Amazon price $155.98)
  • Gladiator Extended Edition - $39.98 (Amazon price $29.99)
  • Apocalypse Now Redux
  • Gattaca - $14.94 (Amazon price $10.99)
  • Mars Attacks! - $9.98
  • Switchfoot - Nothing is Sound - $18.99 (Amazon price $13.99)
  • Switchfoot - The Legend of Chin - $11.98
  • Stephanie Schneiderman - Live at Kung Fu Bakery - $15.98
  • Mystical Chants of Carmel by the Carmelite Monks - $18.95
  • Fly Report: 28th July 2008

    Good morning. That's the biggest sumbitch out here.

    It's 14° Centigrade and foggy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 90° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $123.65 - here's hoping. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,370.69. The exchange rate is $1.99 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is very cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 31.

    Too much is not enough.

    25 July 2008

    Friday Evening News

    Bollocks. I'm out of beer.

    Arbeit Macht Freitag

    Hey folks! Just a couple of quick items today - and Stuff Fly Wants for tomorrow.

  • Article: Filipino war's lessons for Iraq by Michael Medved
  • Article: Playstation 2 component incites African War
  • Satellite image: the British Museum, site of a new exhibit about Emperor Hadrian

    Just one more political jab for this week. First off, it's not surprising that the folks at the British Museum would make a point of constructing an exhibit around Hadrian, a Roman emperor who was well known for having a romantic relationship with a teenage boy and who, unbeknownst to me, consolidated his predecessor's gains by pulling troops out of Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). At any rate, I saw an article earlier this week: What Hadrian can teach Obama. There are just three small issues: Senator Obama isn't president yet; it's far from certain that he'll ever be president; and, oh yeah, despite his circus act of a world tour, the Europeans who he's trying to garner support and adulation from can't vote. Interestingly enough, I heard a rumor that the freshman Senator from Illinois was greeted by Israelis with McCain campaign signs at the airport in Tel Aviv. You can't write comedy like that. On the other hand...



    "Democrats have accurately predicted seven of our last two recessions." Ouch.

    Alright, folks, time for me to head to work. Take it easy, and for those of you who check the blog from work, have a great weekend.
  • Fly Report: 25th July 2008

    Good morning. Esse quam videri.

    It's 14° Centigrade and cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 85° Fahrenheit with isolated thunder storms.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $125.76 - here we go again. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,389.28. The exchange rate is $1.99 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 30.

    Three o'clock in the morning, it's quiet and there's no one around.

    24 July 2008

    The Fly's Errands

    Hey folks! I hope everyone's having a great week. Rather than post a bunch of news stories that can all wait, I'm just going to blather on about errands. Have you gotten to the point in your life where running errands and crossing an item or two off of your list seems like a major accomplishment? I got some important errands taken care of last night after work.

  • I dropped off my Birks* to be repaired, after having been unable to wear them for more than a year. They'll be ready on Saturday.
  • I picked up a Hoppe's Pistol Cleaning Kit and some ammo, in preparation for taking courses from Blackwater International at some point during the next year and a half. (I'll continue to slowly build a bigger stock of ammo in the coming months.)
  • I bought a leather journal from Barnes and Noble. I started keeping a journal when I moved to Van Dieman's Station a year ago, it's almost complete, and I want to fill up at least one more between now and my eventual departure.

    I have some errands planned for today, too, and I think I'm actually going to pull them off.

  • I need to stop by Wal Mart to use a gift card for a couple of items.
  • I need to buy groceries - I'm not completely out of food, but I'm mostly out of food (save for MRE components, but those are best saved for special occasions and/or the Apocalypse.
  • I need to get pictures printed from my Independence Day/birthday trip to see the Butt Rubber and Olive Oil. That will be a Target run, and I may pick up a few other items while I'm there.
  • I need to see about getting the battery replaced in my good wristwatch; if that doesn't do the trick, I'll have to send it back to [Hometown] to be repaired.

    I'll have some things to take care of on Saturday, too, and I have a really good feeling about my prospects for accomplishing them.

  • I'm going to check out the Blackwater Pro Shop.
  • I have to pick up my aforementioned Birks.
  • I think there are some more.

    Just one more thing. When I was dropping my Birks off at the shop in Norfolk yesterday (something I'd originally intended to do yesterday, and then planned to put off until today), it was in the middle of an electrical storm. Long-time readers will know that I'm from the Pacific Northwest, so I'm uniquely accustomed to rain. I basically had to run to get my sandals to the shop before it closed, but once I'd finished that, I was able to just plain walk. It was so... Calming, to walk through the rain. I got quite wet, and the streets were literally flooding. It had been quite a while since I'd just walked down the street, in the rain. Aside from the fear of being struck by lightning, it was a really beautiful experience. Having been here for a solid year at this point, it's very easy to feel uncomfortable. In my life, this is and has been the most open-ended absence from my own stomping grounds that I've ever experienced, and that can be very uncomfortable sometimes. Having a few moments in which I was in my element (even if that element is water falling from the sky) was great.

    Stick with me, folks. I think I'm going to have some really interesting material to share with you in the next couple of weeks. I have this incomprehensible feeling that I'm about to really hit my groove.

    * Special thanks to Mighty Mo for being my stationary information source. That's right, she's like Miss Moneypenny, but without the sexual tension.
  • Fly Report: 24th July 2008

    Good morning. Free the oppressed.

    It's 15° Centigrade and partly cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 84° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $124.05 - come on, come on. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,632.38. The exchange rate is $1.99 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is cool. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 29.

    Stay with the demons you drowned.

    23 July 2008

    Plain and Simple Chaos

    Hey folks! As I write this, I'm preparing to go see The Dark Knight with Disc Golf Champ. I'll be out late, so I'll be sleeping late, which means that I have a short time to get this written.

    Following my frustration with Senator Obama this morning, he appears to have made amends with yet another gaffe. Remember how he was going to speak at the Brandenberg Gate? Well, he was persuaded to do it at the Berlin Victory Column instead. Just one problem: if you read the Wiki article closely enough, you'll note that this particular monument was sort of used by the Nazis during the late 1930's for various political and aesthetic purposes. (For the record, it also appeared in the music video for the U2 song Stay (Faraway, So Close!), but that's another issue.) Is this a bit nitpicky on my part? It is, but this is one of those things that goes to Senator Obama's credibility to lead our country. Why should I believe that he's capable and qualified, when neither he nor his staff were able to take the thirty seconds to check the Wikipedia entry that said "1939" in it? Do they have any ability to check and see what was going on in Berlin in 1939? Given Germany's uniquely touchy history, one would think such research would be a must. Apparently not.

    Meanwhile, The Times (London) has a slide show of the Barack Obama's World Tour thus far. Those of you who haven't worked with the military might not pick up on this, but it didn't take me long to notice that Senator Obama isn't wearing body armor or a helmet in any of the pictures. Contrast this with this article from 2007, which clearly shows Senator McCain in body armor. There are two things that you should take from this:

  • For all of his talk of fact-finding, and the media spin of visiting hostile war zones, Senator Obama hasn't gone anywhere that required heavy protection.
  • For all of his talk of the "failure" of President Bush's Iraq policy, and the implications that the troop surge has failed, the reality is clear: the troop surge in Iraq has produced such markedly improved security that Senator Obama didn't need protective armor. This is in direct contrast to those leaders who have actually visited Iraq more than just once since Senator Obama was elected in 2004
    (like Senator McCain).

    Enough about Senator Obama, hopefully for at least a couple of weeks.

    There have been several interesting articles about Russia lately. Last week, I posted an article about the disposal of surplus Russian nuclear submarines. Here's part two. Also worth reading is this article, Is Russia Strong or Weak?, and Russia's weaponry shows signs of age. For all of their bolster, Russia has failed to produce much of anything new lately. I'm not convinced that Russia is the resurgent threat that the Soviet Union was, but given the looming energy problem, the looming Iran problem, the looming China problem, and a handful of other problems, Russia is going to continue to be a monkey on America's back for a while yet.

    And now, on a lighter note. You all know that I love satellite imagery, and post satellite image links all the time. Well, the other day at 1913 Intel, I found a link to Australia's version of the NGA. The link features an imagery analysis quiz. I did fairly well on it, although I had to correct a couple of my answers. Why not take it and post your score in the comments section?

    Okay, I have things to do. Stay tuned, folks, there's always more to come.

    UPDATE: Saw The Dark Knight last night. Enjoyed it, although I think that plot was a bit convoluted. One thing that was quite interesting was the improvement that Aaron Eckhart made to the abysmally bad Two Face as played in 1995 by Tommy Lee Jones. I may see it again in order to flesh out a bit of the plot for myself. By the way - could Maggie Gyllenhaal be any worse of an actress? Whoever decided to cast her in this role could have done better. There's a Time Online article about her that claims that she's completely and totally wonderful in every way; honestly, I went in with an open mind, and was completely underwhelmed.

    Please note that oil has dropped into the $120-$130 range, and stocks are up. Let's hope this keeps up, even though it means less opportunity for me to make money when I sink my entire Federal Government Boondoggle Check into the market. Joy.
  • Fly Report: 23rd July 2008

    Good morning. If I can pull all of this up, I'm basically going to be the most badass guy alive.

    It's 18° Centigrade and partly cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 85° Fahrenheit with sunshine.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $126.89 - keep dropping! The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,602.54. The exchange rate is $1.99 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is astonishing, and much better than yesterday's video of people dancing. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 28.

    If I could stay, then the night would give you up.

    22 July 2008

    The Sidebar Solves Boredom

    I spent most of yesterday afternoon with Mighty Good Leader and Mrs. Good Leader, so this will be a brief post. I added a few links to the sidebar, and they are as follows:

    I've added Snorg Tees - mostly just T-Shirts with one-liners from Will Ferrell movies, but it's just barely worth adding to the "Awesome Shirts" section.

    I've added NIST security publications, InfoSec Writers, and IT Security to round out what is now the "Defense, Intel, & Security" section. Have you ever wondered what you can do to stop Chinese gangsters from stealing your credit card number from that text file you keep in "My Documents" with all of your financial information in it? These are some great publications and articles, to include two of my favorites: 51 Things You Can't See on Google Maps, and Botnets, Zombies, and IRC Security. For the record, the former omits this area of the Netherlands, and the second features the following line:

    Zombie armies are forming at this very moment.

    I've added Radio Sawa and ArabicPod.net to the "Listening In" section. You all know that I work every week to expand my Arabic skills, and these are two of the tools I intend to use in the near future.

    I've added South Park Studios, NBC (watch Earl!), CBS (watch How I Met Your Mother, Star Trek, and MacGyver!), and Hulu (watch Firefly!) to the "Time Wasters" section. Let's face it, a lot of you check my blog in order to find something to pass a little bit of down time at work, so these should help.

    For the readers in the group, I've added Strategy (MCDP 1-1), Campaigning (MCDP 1-2), Tactics (MCDP 1-3), and Intelligence (MCDP 2). More of these will be added shortly, as I begin research and development on a new, short-term project. Some of you may remember my ancient history archive CD, and I seem to remember Peter actually receiving one. For my own purposes, I want to expand this and start archiving a number of other items, to include some Army and Marine Corps doctrine and field manuals.

    Interestingly enough, relating to Firefly - did you know that Adam Baldwin isn't related to the Baldwin Brothers? This actually made my day when I found it out a week or two ago, because I think Adam Baldwin is awesome, and I think that the rest of the Baldwins (well, those four) are absolute tools. Brilliant!

    As many of you know, my time living and working in the Mojave Desert was formative. In addition to my own equipment that made it out of the Desert with me, I've taken to procuring certain pieces of equipment that were issued to me by my employers. The major items that I've found a great deal of us out of are my Garmin eTrex and my Cabela's Outfitter XL Cot. I've identified one more item that could come in handy during future moves and storage efforts: Rubbermaid Action Packers. These things are exceptionally useful, and six or eight of them could seriously reduce the number of boxes I have to store. I've been hauling boxes around for the last two and a half years, so the ability to more effectively store my crap, or the boxes used for hauling my crap, is an ability that's highly valuable as far as I'm concerned.

    Bollocks. I have to get myself put together... Alright, things to do, things to do. I'll have a few more things to discuss in the coming days; several projects that I'm going to start sketching out, and I'll likely inform you folks of them as they begin to take form. Planning, mostly, but all planning is aimed at future accomplishments. Stay tuned.

    UPDATE: I am really starting to get frustrated with Senator Obama. I saw the following headline this morning as I was checking my E-Mail: Iraqi backing of Obama plan irks White House. The sub-heading reads: "Says Baghdad may be using U.S. election as leverage in negotiations". Allow me, an experienced journalist and media analyst, to translate that first headline for you: "Senator Obama tells Iraqi leaders what he thinks they want to hear in order to secure more media attention". This undermines and jeopardizes America's military policy which, until January, is the purview of President Bush (whose status as President of the United States makes him Commander-in-Chief). Senator Obama's status as a single, solitary legislator in the Senate, representing the state of Illinois, affords him the authority to vote in the Senate on funding issues relating to the military. That's pretty much it.

    Most frustrating to me is the fact that Senator Obama now appears to be making disingenuous statements to foreign leaders in an effort to mask his complete lack of any foreign policy experience. It's one thing to make disingenuous statements to the American public - we expect that from politicians. Senator Obama is proving himself to be just that. Senator Obama isn't actually using this trip as a "fact-finding tour" (as opposed to the political stunt that it obviously is), in which he can allegedly refine his policies based upon what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's doing what conservative commentators have claimed all along: he isn't changing any of his positions at all, and he's making outlandish and illegitimate claims to foreign leaders in order to generate perceived political capital. To subvert American foreign policy for political gain like this shows a profound lack of character and judgment, and voters should seriously consider that.

    Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article entitled The Audacity of Vanity, that discusses the trip (and specifically Obama's plan to use Germany's Brandenberg Gate for an appearance to the German people). Perhaps the greatest portion of the article:

    What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

    Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

    Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech.

    Alright, enough politics for now. And, as I've said before, I'll try to keep these rants to a minimum as we approach the election - I'm still more interested in posting security news and random nonsense than getting back into extensive politics coverage. Take it easy, folks!

    Fly Report: 22nd July 2008

    Good morning. I walked across an empty land; I knew the pathway like the back of my hand.

    It's 12° Centigrade and cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 87° Fahrenheit with afternoon thunder storms.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $131.59 - wait for it, wait for it. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,467.34. The exchange rate is $2.00 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is a video of people dancing? What the hell? The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 27.

    Don't worry, everything's just fine... Just fine.

    21 July 2008

    One Year On

    Hey folks! I hope everyone had a good weekend. Mine was fine, with little of any significance to report. Most of Saturday was spent writing an article, most of yesterday was spent doing church stuff. Most notable, though, was that Saturday marked one year that I've been in Virginia. Wednesday will mark one year since I started inhabiting Van Dieman's Station, a sort of outpost of self-exile (yes, I have a bit of a flare for the dramatic at times). A number of things have changed since last year, and I may write up some reflections on that at some point this week. Now that I've been here for a year, I have a reasonable idea of what my plan for the rest of my time here is, and I have some idea of how long that will be. More on that later. For now, a couple of quick items:

  • Did you know that there were Roman ruins in Beirut?
  • Did you know that in addition to al Hurra TV, the American government sponsors a network of radio stations around the world known as Radio Sawa? This, in addition to the BBC's Arabic service, is a great resource for people who want to listen to spoken Arabic (or just something that's not in English, not unlike Gregorian chant).

    Okay, time to get the ball rolling for the day. Take it easy, folks.
  • Fly Report: 21st July 2008

    Good morning. Discipline is choosing between what you want now, and what you want most.

    It's 12° Centigrade and cloudy in Kirkwall. In Cody, the forecast calls for a high of 89° Fahrenheit with isolated thunder storms.

    A barrel of oil is trading at $129.91 - wait for it, wait for it. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 11,496.57. The exchange rate is $2.00 for £1, or £0.50 for $1.

    Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is boring. The picture at the Orkneyjar Photoblog is not new.

    Today's scripture reading is Isaiah 26.

    What do you want?

    18 July 2008

    Another Climate Change Diatribe

    I'm posting this, in its entirety, today. It'll probably take most folks all weekend to read it, anyway. Have a great weekend, folks!

    * * *

    Okay, like I said previously, I've owed Chazza a response to a long blog post that she wrote back in January. The more I read through her post, the more I think that this will probably take me far too long... But here goes.

    For starters, Chazza made extensive mention of a NASA physicist named Dr. James Hansen, who's a devoted climate change advocate. There was apparently an investigation that determined that Hansen's views, and the views of other climate change whistle blowers in NASA, were "censored". I have two points to make regarding Dr. Hansen.

    First, in his role as the administrator of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he is overstepping his bounds to try and inject himself into politics in the way that he's done, and as far as I'm concerned, his seniors were right to prevent him from publishing his views. That's what they are: his views. In his role with NASA, he is a civil servant in the Executive Branch, and essentially serves at the will of the President of the United States. In this capacity, he has no business making political statements - in fact, there are federal regulations that expressly forbid civil servants from making political statements. I know, because I work for the government, alongside federal employees, and I've had to read the regulations on the matter that they have to follow. At any rate, you may agree with what he has to say, but just because you agree with him doesn't make him some kind of martyr for global warming. If anything, Dr. Hansen should have been either dismissed or fined for these statements he's made from NASA's podium.

    Second, and more importantly: no matter how much you may agree with him, and respect him, Dr. Hansen is not a dispassionate, unbiased source. One need look no further than his Wikipedia entry to see that he's Al Gore's science advisor, for crying out loud. He may have a doctorate in physics, but at the end of the day, he's interpreting data. As respected as he may be, there are numerous scientists who disagree with his interpretation. Am I supposed to pay special attention to him, solely because he happens to have found himself heading an federal installation? Should I find him more, or less credible, given that he's used his position as an unauthorized soap box in order to air his political views? Should I be more outraged by his alleged victimization at the hands of NASA administrators, or at the very real persecution suffered by someone like Bjørn Lomborg?

    While I appreciate your citation of Dr. Hansen, Chazza, it's really just one more drop in the bucket. Even if James Hansen wasn't a combination scientist-politician, and was really just a dispassionate, neutral interpreter of the data, there are still hundreds or thousands of other scientists who strongly disagree with his interpretation of the data, and they're every bit as credible and nowhere near as politically motivated/connected as he is. As Michael Crichton points out in his outstanding lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming:

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    I don't want you to think, Chazza, that I'm dismissing Dr. Hansen out of hand; he could very well be right. However, at this point in time, the science is disputed, and despite his political position, he's no more or less qualified to judge the data than the dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of other scientists who disagree with him. As a result, I have no choice but to view him as one scientist/politician, tied to unreliable and controversial former Vice President Gore (which does nothing for Hansen's credibility), who thinks that climate change is occurring. Great, that's his opinion, duly noted. Further, the "facts versus money" line is completely asinine, and it's below you as an educated and sophisticated scholar, to have used it. Dr. Hansen is no more or less committed to facts than any of the highly reputable scientists who disagree with his interpretation of the data. I expect better from you, Chazza.

    You mentioned Ozone, and the Ozone layer. I'd just like to point out that the Ozone issue is one that, I think, harms the climate change rhetoric, as opposed to helping it. I was about nine when I first learned about "global warming" in school, and I was told that global warming was caused by a hole in the Ozone layer, which was caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in things like aerosol cans, refrigerators, and car air conditioners. Since the early 1990's, America and other Western nations have essentially eliminated their CFC usage altogether; and from what I understand, the Ozone layer is pretty much good now. Even so, we're still lectured on wearing sunscreen (because obviously, the billions of people who lived in previous centuries were always in danger of skin cancer prior to the invention of sunscreen), and we still hear all of the same rhetoric about global warming or, as it's now called, "climate change". Sorry, that doesn't really help the credibility of the environmentalist cause.

    You mentioned rising sea levels, and claimed that it would eliminate places like "San Francisco, New York, Shanghai, Sydney, etc."; as far as I can tell, you're ignoring two things. First, Western Civilization has known since at least the third century BC, thanks to Archimedes, that a body displaces its own mass in water; thus, if the polar ice caps actually did completely melt, the possibility of a catastrophic rise in the level of the Earth's oceans is next to nil because they're currently displacing the amount of water that they would release. Second, if you'd care to fill up a plastic bottle with water, all the way to the top, and then put it in the nearest freezer, you'll find that water actually expands when frozen. This isn't advanced stuff, this is basic fluid mechanics. Yes, I realize that some of the ice is above the surface of the ocean, but I'm less than convinced that a great catastrophe is looming; and from everything I've heard, the most realistic data speaks of the possibility of the world's sea level rising by a matter of inches, if that. Something tells me that the entire world could be ninety degrees Fahrenheit, and San Francisco, New York, Shanghai, Sydney, and yes, even Orkney, would be just fine - miserable, but still there, dry as a university physics lecture.

    You made mention of disappearing plants and animals, and how every little delicate piece has a crucial effect on the ecosystem in which it resides. What about all of the species that died without any impact from humans? We don't have dinosaurs, or trilobites, or smilodons, or North American lions, or thousands of other species around anymore, but here we are, and the ecosystem always adjusted. I'm certainly not advocating for the forced extinction of any species; but according to the generally accepted theories regarding biological evolution, species supposedly come and go all the time. As such, isn't it safe to believe that some species will continue to die out, with or without the involvement of humans? Why shouldn't I believe that some species will die out through no fault of human beings?

    A number of my life experiences, and a lot of what I know about biology, comes from my experiences as a hunter. When I took Hunter Safety instruction, I learned about a concept called carrying capacity. Contrary to you description of prey animals running amuck in the absence of predators, each given ecosystem has only enough resources to support a given amount of plants and animals. Don't believe me? I have one question for you: what kind of shift in the deer, elk, and antelope populations occurred when wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming and Montana a few years back? Not much, which means that, save for Chronic Wasting Disease, they were doing just fine before the wolves were reintroduced in 1995. That's another debate for another time, but the point is that these claims of chaos over the elimination of one species are nothing more than plain and simple scare-mongering, often using attractive animals like the majestic gray wolf, or the polar bear to garner emotional sympathy in lieu of hard facts to support the environmentalist position. If we're going to be using these issues to set policy, they have to be based on facts, not on emotions. Hence, it doesn't matter if polar bears are or aren't "awesome". I can also list the example of the Miller Lake Lamprey in Oregon, a species that was intentionally destroyed in the 1950's before it was realized that they were a unique species. Within the majority of their native habitat, the MLL was
    completely obliterated, not to be rediscovered until the 1990's
    . Did their destruction have a catastrophic ripple effect on the ecosystem? No, it did not. There are many examples of this, both from natural and man-made extinction. I'm not advocating the destruction of animals or whole species, I am merely pointing out that the talking points about ecological chaos from one or two disappeared species is both anachronistic and inaccurate. It isn't based upon facts.

    Speaking of which, I'd like to address your highly emotional paragraph about polar bears, in abbreviated form.

    Take the Polar Bear[...] This awesome animal is now listed as threatened.

    I actually heard a radio show about this recently, and it's my understanding that moving the polar bear into the "threatened" category was a largely political move, the result of years of incessant lobbying. There are actually areas in the Arctic in which polar bear populations are growing, and the growth appears to be comparable in scope to the areas in which bear populations appear to be in decline. I'll agree that they're now listed as "threatened", which is a fact; I won't allow you to claim that it wasn't a decision that was influenced largely by environmentalist lobbying.

    It is expected that the population of these animals will decrease by 30% over the next 45 years.

    By whom? You have to provide more evidence than that, Chazza. This is where the credibility issue comes in yet again. Environmentalists, claiming to be dispassionate scientists, have been making outlandish claims such as these for so long now that I can't possibly take a simple statement like this seriously without some hard evidence, of which you've provided none.

    Without a predator, an animal will overpopulate and decimate the ecosystem where they live, causing the same sort of ripple effect. The environment requires a steady balance, and all of this happening too fast to maintain that balance.

    I've mentioned the concept of carrying capacity in an earlier paragraph, so I reject the claim about ripple effects and overpopulation outright. It's just plain fear-mongering. And with respect to the speed at which the balance is supposedly being disturbed - this is a brand new academic field! The researchers who are peddling these theories - I hesitate to even call them "scientists" - have almost no volume of research on which to base these claims. You need to do better than this, Chazza, and so do the activitsts - that's what they are - who are trying to get the entire world to change its policies over this one issue.

    Two or three degrees is a big deal. Every 10th of a degree has an impact. And, the degree of warming has been greatly increased in the past few decades in contrast to the years before.

    Two or three degrees is not a big deal, and every tenth of a degree does not have a major impact. These differences in temperature are negligible; also, the evidence that humans have had any impact whatsoever on this alleged warming trend is similarly negligible, not to mention disputed. Also, from what I understand, the degree of warming hasn't increased in the past few decades; my understanding is that the hottest year on record was back in the thirties, and the news carried a story earlier this year that said that the world has cooled since a 1998 high. We'll broach that subject again later.

    By the end of this century, the earth could warm up another 11 degrees. 11 degrees!

    Based on what evidence?! No legitimate scientist that I've ever heard of is claiming that there's going to be an eleven degree rise in the Earth's atmospheric temperature by 2100.

    Please tell me you're not one of those people that thinks, heck, it's a little warmer outside, how could that be a bad thing?

    I hate the sun, and I wish I had a way to blot it out and live in the cold and dark. Believe me, if I thought there was sufficient evidence to back up the climate change claims, I'd be all over it. I have a vested interest in cooling the planet, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that human activity has any impact. If you ask me, that gives me credibility on the subject.

    You mention Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian Tsunami as evidence of the world "answering back" at us for our polluting ways. Hurricanes have been happening for centuries, Chazza; they are no more or less frequent than they were before, and the damage and chaos caused by Hurricane Katrina stemmed largely from the corrupt Democrat leaders in the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, and their negligence. The chaos caused by Hurricane Katrina had far less to do with the hurricane itself, and far more to do with the fact that New Orleans is a city that was built below sea level, protected by levees that had been neglected by liberal politicians for decades so that they could divert pre-allocated levee funds into social programs in order to keep getting elected. The Indonesian tsunami was caused by an earthquake, and no credible scientist will claim that earthquakes are caused by depleted ozone, excessive atmospheric carbon, methane, or any other such nonsense. Again, I expect better scholarship from you than such a statement.

    We can't stop the warming, but we can slow it down and give nature and us sometime to adapt to it.

    Show me evidence that we can slow the warming down. I've seen no compelling evidence of this, from you or anyone else. I've seen some circumstantial evidence that has left me unconvinced, and it's all come from people who have plenty of reasons for pushing these proposed policy changes, climate change or not. If I'm expected to dramatically slash my quality of life, I need more. The burden of proof is on those who want me to change, not on me for not wanting to change.

    Even if you don't believe global warming is a result of human impact and all that, you've got to adapt to what's happening.

    If I'm not even convinced that global warming is happening, let alone the "result of human impact and all that", doesn't the proper way for me to adapt to what's happening consist of either a warm jacket, or a cold beer? Both of these are a far cry from the proposed solutions of not driving, eating less, buying less, closing down airports, and the thousands of other limitations on my personal freedom that mainstream client activists and lobbyists are proposing.

    Try to curb the use of fossil fuels, try to produce less waste, slow down the rate of urbanization and remember that there are places in the world that should be preserved, and conserve what resources we still have.

    I have no problems with any of these things. If I can completely disagree with you about climate change, and yet completely agree with you about these things, why is it that the only way to convince others is by forcing the disputed climate change agenda on them? If good policy is good policy for it's own sake, political pressure, scare tactics, and incessant regulations shouldn't be necessary.

    I think of it this way. I drive less, I use less gas, I help the environment. You think of it this way. I drive less, I save money. Me: I recycle, less things end up in a landfill, I help the environment. You: I recycle, I save money (by taking your recyclables and getting money back). Or, I recycle, why not? Me: I buy less or buy locally-produced items, less transportation costs and emissions to get the item to me, less waste to produce the item, I help the environment. You: I buy less or buy locally, I save money. Me: I live in a smaller house or apartment to reduce the amount of land that has to be urbanized for me to live on, I help the environment. You: I live in a smaller house or apartment, I save money. Me: I use CFL's in my house, I help the environment. You: I use CFL's in my house, I save money (up to 20%, plus they last longer!).

    I have a few immediate issues with this train of thought, primarily because it implies that conservatives, capitalists, and other people who disagree with you are more concerned with money than they are about the environment - I don't believe that's true at all, particularly given that many conservatives love outdoor recreation, to include responsible hunting (which requires sustainable natural areas). My second problem is the implication that people are somehow bad if they don't drastically cut their driving and other travel, recycle incessantly, buy locally-produced items, and live in little shoebox houses and apartments.

    The next thing you know, you'll be telling people to either have few children, or no children at all. After all, if people have much smaller families, they'll be able to drive a Prius instead of those big, gas-guzzling minivans. And without all of those kids running around, they could live in tiny shoebox apartments, where they could huddle together for warmth in the winter (due to the absence of electric or natural gas heating), and then just suffer in the summer like all of the poor starving masses in all of those developing countries that don't have air conditioning. Sound ridiculous yet? That's because it is; the more reasonable among the climate change folks just haven't thought the suggestions through yet. This is the eco-socialism that I've been warning folks on my blog about lately.

    I also take issue with CFLs, beyond the fact that they cast an uncomfortable, unnatural light into a room. They are only made in China, a strategic competitor of the United States, which means that forced conversion to CFLs is forced support for a regime that continues to become a bigger and bigger foreign policy nightmare with each passing year. Also, they not only contain mercury, which is a toxic chemical; but China's environmental controls with regard to manufacturing are horrible, which means that claiming that CFLs are a "green technology" is about like saying that you never engage in domestic violence because you get your cousin to beat your wife for you. Contrary to popular belief, goofy fluorescent light bulbs do nothing to help the environment, and everything to shrink American freedom and security, as evidenced in the video attached to this post from June.

    Chazza mentioned a couple of other items. She noted that Al Gore and James Hansen have certainly endured criticism; to which I say that they haven't endured the kind of criticism and attacks that the skeptics have. Not by a long shot. Al Gore received an undeserved and completely political Nobel Peace Prize, and an Academy Award for his "documentary" (which includes footage from a Hollywood movie that's passed off as natural footage, as well as misleading and fabricated data). Bjørn Lomborg basically can't even publish anymore, because the rabid cult of global warming fanatics have labeled him a heretic. This isn't facts versus money, because the facts (along with the "facts") are inconclusive. I'll get back to this later.

    It might damage Big Oil's profits, and they just can't have that. I respect the fact that you've got to help out your interests, but in this case, it is the money guys that are not allowing the free flow of discourse.

    You're wrong. You have no proof to back this up, because the proof doesn't exist. It's not being stifled, it's just plain not there. As I will demonstrate shortly, the so-called "money guys" are trying to adjust to the market so that they can continue making money through the potential of the new market, which is demanding green technologies - they see it as an opportunity. The free flow of discourse is being stifled by environmentalists.

    Honestly, I would just rather look at it as humans are having a big impact on the earth and maybe it's time to tone it down a little. Give the developing countries a break, give the animals a break, give the planet a break. Whether warming is happening or whatever, there's no disputing that there's overconsumption, overpollution, and a complete disregard for the natural world. Wouldn't everyone like a prettier earth, one that's cleaner, one where no animals are in danger of extinction, one where there's more equality for everyone? You're right, this doesn't have to be about global warming, this should be about giving ourselves a better place to leave by cleaning up a little and consuming a little less.

    With the exception of the blatantly socialist undertones of the statements about developing countries and perceived equality for everyone, I have no disagreement with this statement. This is part of my overwhelming problem with the climate change fanatics: their case for cleaning up the planet is strong of its own accord. Why force everyone to believe this climate change nonsense? It's completely unnecessary. It's pure and simple fear-mongering, and that's completely unacceptable.

    But, for some, the reality of global warming is like a call to action. It gets people moving. It's a problem, and people want to fix it.

    The English language has a word for that: it's called brainwashing, and it's something that cults do. It's a way of getting people to do what you want them to do, even if there's no inherent reason to do so. The fact that you're okay with this absolutely boggles my mind, Chazza.

    So, let them.

    I have more integrity than that. It's the same reason why I don't want people to vote for Senator McCain just because of a false belief that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim. (I want them to vote for Senator McCain because he's much better qualified than Senator Obama, and because Senator Obama's proposed policies, incoherent positions, and inconsistent personal history narratives are all bad for the country.) I think that such a lack of integrity is one of the things that is fundamentally wrong with our nation and our world. In fact, I think that a lack of integrity in the world is far more dangerous than global warming, particularly since it ties directly into the hysteria.

    If you don't believe all the evidence is there, good. Be skeptical, find out for yourself. But, don't use what you believe to be the unreality of global warming as an excuse for continuing to treat the planet in the same way that you always have. (Now, that isn't really for you Fly. I know you're a minimalist and you have no desire to despoil the whole earth with your frugal ways. You get an A in my book.)

    And I love you dearly, and have not ruled out the remote possibility that we may one day be happily and fruitfully married, saving the world together as man and wife.

    * * *

    Okay, although I've answered many of Chazza's specific points, I have a few things I'd like to add. Surprising, huh?

    I'm really starting to get concerned with the direction that the climate change rhetoric is going. As I've mentioned previously, I have very little problem with a number of the things that the global warming fanatics are actually advocating. Less pollution is a good thing. More efficient factories, automobiles, and assorted machines would be a good thing, too. Replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy (like nuclear) over the next couple of decades would be an absolutely brilliant development, although I've noted before, and I'll note again, that we will never be clear of oil as long as it remains crucial to industrial processes (like the production of plastic, or as a lubricant).

    Chazza mentioned the greenhouse effect; but equally impressive sources claim that the Greenhouse Effect is grossly overstated. Climate change advocates claim that the Earth is fragile and prone to devastating ripple effects; but with developments like oceanic algae clearing pollution from the atmosphere at a much faster rate than was expected (AFP, Guardian), it seems to me that the environment is far more resilient and versatile than the environmentalists seem to give it credit for. The activists claim that humans are having a negative impact on the temperature of the globe; but undisputed evidence indicates that the Sun is burning hotter than it has in a millennium, and all of the other planets are warming, too - Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, all of them. I know that humans haven't polluted Mars or Jupiter enough to cause climate shifts, and we haven't dropped jack on Pluto yet, nor have we ever jettisoned anything into the Sun. And despite claims that the entire planet is heating up, it snowed in Tehran, Baghdad, and throughout the rest of the Middle East this past winter - the Middle East! Yeah, that Middle East, the one that's almost always hot enough to melt the rubber in the soles of your shoe! Skeptical climate researchers have even published books on the subject of past natural warming trends, to include this one that I listened to an interview about on the radio as I was driving from Zoo Station to [Hometown] in the closing days of 2006, and they say the whole process, if it's occurring currently, is completely natural!

    Does any of this sound like indisputable evidence of human-caused global warming to you folks?

    Meanwhile, the rhetoric continues to heat up, if you'll excuse the pun. I've seen two stinging and well-written editorials this week that jumped out at me, and both of them are definitely worth reading.

  • The Guardian: Greens are the enemies of liberty
  • Family Security Matters: Climate Hysteria? Why Andrew Bolt Is Right

    In fact, data released a few months ago would seem to dispell most of the climate change hysteria. As fate would have it, the planet has cooled since 1998. Now, one would think that such a development could be counted as a good thing, right? And since it's hard data, there's no chance that it could be disputed by biased activists for political purposes, right? Please note that I used the appropriate article from The Telegraph. Why didn't I use the corresponding BBC article, as I'm prone to do? Well, just have a look at this.



    Pressuring journalists to change their articles with threats of attacking their credibility? That doesn't sound like a legitimate method of political and scientific discourse. Meanwhile, Chazza mentions Dr. James Hansen, and holds him up as a moderate and reasonable advocate for adjusting our society to the challenge of climate change. Well, assuming that most of you won't bother to read that "Greens are the enemies of liberty" article from the Guardian that I linked to above, let me just include a pertinent chunk that just happens to feature Dr. Hansen:

    Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech. Last month James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate change scientists, said the CEOs of oil companies should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature. They have been "putting out misinformation", he said, and "I think that's a crime". This follows green writer Mark Lynas's insistence that there should be "international criminal tribunals" for climate change deniers, who will be "partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths". They will "have to answer for their crimes", he says. The American eco-magazine Grist recently published an article on deniers that called for "war crimes trials for these bastards… some sort of climate Nuremberg."

    Trying the CEOs of oil companies for crimes against humanity and nature? International criminal tribunals for climate change deniers? A "climate Nuremberg" for global warming skeptics? Is this really evidence that, as Chazza said, "the money guys that are not allowing the free flow of discourse"? Or is it evidence that the mainstream climate change activists are unwilling to discuss the hard facts for one reason or another? These strike me as the statements of individuals who follow this climate change ideology in the way that many people follow a fundamentalist religious faith. They don't seem willing to consider anyone else's opinion on the issues but their own. As with other forms of socialism, I believe that a great deal of eco-socialism stems from the secularist, humanist belief that mankind is the ultimate power in the universe, capable of and responsible for solving each and every problem. I believe that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of man's innate weakness and fallibility. Furthermore, I believe that it represents a fundamental and tragic misunderstanding of both the nature and utility of governments. If this situation is really the mess that environmentalist activists claim that it is, it would be far more effective to harness both human nature (selfishness) and the free market and solve the issue that way. The fact that the activists don't understand this is troubling, and raises grave questions about both their intellectual credibility and their competence.

    Don't believe me that this climate change hysteria is truly getting out of hand? Well, don't take it from me. Back in early June, I mentioned a BBC News podcast that I'd heard, in which the BBC interviewed Czech President Václav Klaus. I've taken the liberty of transcribing that interview. If there's anyone who knows about the illegitimate and brutal suppression of discourse for purely political reasons, without any other justification whatsoever, it's a leader who spent most of his life in communist Czechoslovakia. Don't believe me? Read this.

    Rebecca Kesby: Are the challenges of tackling climate change also driving us into a new era of totalitarianism, a climate of fear, an atmosphere of control? According to the Czech Republic's president, Vaclav Klaus, they are. He's just written a book, called Blue Planet, Green Shackles, and in it he argues that environmentalism could be as dangerous as communism was. He believes humanity runs the risk of losing civil liberties, and perhaps ultimately freedom, as politicians bring in more taxes, regulations, and laws aimed at saving the planet. The World Today's Richard Howells asked him to expand on his idea.

    Vaclav Klaus: The title of the book is, I think, important; but, on the other hand the subtitle of the book, in my understanding, is even more important. The subtitle is: What Is Endangered, Climate or Freedoms? So for me this is the real question of this global warming, global climate change debate, and the real danger is that this ideology, I call it - environmentalism is trying simply to destroy our freedom, by means of threatening us with this incredible consequences of potential global warming, so that's my worry, and this worry stems from my very strong sensitivity, or maybe oversensitivity, which comes from my past, from the communist era I lived most of my life in. So, so I feel, I am very sensitive to all issues where our freedom can be endangered.

    Richard Howells: So why do you think people's freedom is so at risk from the environmentalist argument about the current threat to planet Earth?

    Vaclav Klaus: It's very simple, because the ambitious politicians who want to mastermind the world and mankind and everything, you and me, they are permanently searching for a good argument why to do it, and in the past it was in the name of socialism, in the name of the masses, in the name of the proletariat. Now, it's in the name of the, of the destruction of the planet and how to avoid it, so that's for them a perfect way how to push various forms of government controls, intervention, regulation, prohibiting one thing or another. So that's a perfect excuse, and I am very sorry to see this excuse, it's really very good for them.

    Richard Howells: Isn't there, though, the argument that the, the challenge of climate change, the risks that are, if you like, addiction to a carbon economy, isn't there the, the argument, though, that there could be an opportunity in this, in the way that, you know, giving up smoking is good for you, giving up oil could be very good for us, and we could change the way that we produce power in, in new and environmentally less damaging ways? It, it could be an enormous opportunity for everybody.

    Vaclav Klaus: No, there are many which that would be good for us, but to be environmentally concerned is one issue; we should be, and I really am, but the current environmentalism is really something else, this is not the taking care of the, of the environment, and when you say 'the carbon economy', it's nonsense. There are many nonsenses, because I, I think that ten years ago the fashionable idea was the knowledge economy, and I protested as an economist that is a non-description and non-definition of the economy. Now, carbon economy, just a fashionable, empty phrase, which a serious person should never dare to use, and to express, so there's no carbon economy, non-carbon economy, as an economist I have never heard anything like, like that, I've never seen anything like that in a serious economic, economic study.

    Richard Howells: But won't future prosperity and freedom be inhibited if action isn't taken to reduce the issue of global warming? Because, you know, in a free society, the poorest won't be able to make themselves richer because their local environments will have been destroyed or damaged by the effects of global warming.

    Vaclav Klaus: Which is the upside-down argument, because the current environmental ideologies are taking much more the poor people in developing countries than the rich countries, the rich people in Great Britain and the United States. On the contrary, the current environmentalism is a radical attack on poor people all over the world.

    Rebecca Kesby: Czech president, Vaclav Klaus.

    I reiterate my previous points, both from this post and from the first and second posts, as follows:

  • In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of global warming, and the similar absence of incontrovertible evidence of human involvement in global warming (if it's happening at all), it's irresponsible to make sweeping policy changes in an effort to combat a phenomenon that we can neither prove the existence of, nor yet fully understand.
  • The burden of proof in this matter lies on the environmentalist activists, who propose radical and sweeping changes to all areas of our lives, draconian restrictions on personal and economic freedoms, and a near-total shut-down of global commerce, industry, and economic systems. If they want measures like the ill-conceived Kyoto Protocol to be enacted, they need to produce conclusive, incontrovertible evidence that proves their case beyond the shadow of a doubt. "Concensus" doesn't count.
  • Given that many (if not most) of the policies proposed by environmentalists regarding sustainable industrial and consumer practices are reasonable of their own accord, the hostile emphasis on restricting freedoms for the sake of unproven global warming theories is unacceptable, as are the fear-mongering, propaganda, brainwashing, academic and political assassinations, and various other tactics and strategies employed by the activists. These practices harm their cause, rather than helping the United States and the world unite in an effort to improve the way we treat the planet.
  • If policy is going to be changed, it needs to be changed (or maintained, or reversed) based on facts, not on emotions. Pictures of polar bears and shaky data about them being ambiguously "threatened" don't cut it.
  • I think there was some more, but you get the idea, and this post is eight pages long in Wordpad, which means that it was probably three or four pages that I could have written into one of my novels.

    As a consolation to Chazza, I would like to propose the following compromise, in the interest of fairness, continuing dialogue, and common sense solutions to legitimate security and environmental challenges: let's just agree to ban NASCAR. It wastes fuel, it's boring as hell, and it amounts to little more than a hillbilly procreation scheme. Agreed?