And now, the Big Finish

For my final post of the day, in this special day of ten posts--I'd like to announce that I changed the quote at the top of the page.

Not the biggest of finales, but it has a certain charm.

Yes, but What Does it Mean?



Guess what this means? Send your best answers here and the winner will get mentioned on this very website.

One to go.

Some Thoughts on the Military

Read an article from Mackubin T. Owens on the current readiness of the Military. He states, "The Clinton administration paid lip service to readiness and transformation while under-funding both. Unfortunately, the under-funding continued under the Bush administration. Until 9/11, OMB refused to provide money to fund both current readiness and transformation, forcing Pentagon planners to choose between them. Most of the increase in defense spending since 9/11 has gone to the war on terrorism and to pay for personnel costs. It has not for the most part gone to increase U.S. capabilities . . .

In discussing the planned invasion of Iraq, he states, "Soldiers always want to hedge, and for obvious reason. They want to reduce risk and uncertainty. But they are not always right. (Take the case of George McClellan in 1862.) Leaks leading up to the war indicated that the military was only lukewarm about attacking Iraq. There are many recent cases in which the uniformed military has provided high estimates for what it would take to do a particular job in an effort to dissuade civilian authorities from undertaking it. Colin Powell did it in 1990-91. There is some indication that the uniformed military was doing the same thing this time.

On the other hand, some civilian technophiles wanted a much smaller force, some going so far as to tout the "Afghanistan model" of special forces and long-range air strikes. And, of course, air-power advocates argued that a "shock and awe" air campaign would make ground forces unnecessary.

The resulting plan was indeed a compromise, and that’s not a bad thing. It was a bold plan; it was also a flexible one. It is too bad that Helprin associates himself with the arguments of the second-guessing pundits and reporters who were quick to claim that the plan was flawed and that the force assembled for the war not large enough. This claim is essentially meaningless without considering "risk," which is measured in terms of the possible costs (time and casualties) of a given course of action."

His points are interesting, but he neglects one political aspect of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds desire to run a more efficient, cheaper Military. They don't want to spend money that could be going to a tax cut.

Two to go.

I Go Pogo

While there is a strong effort right now to rehabilitate McCarthy, and update his methods for the modern world, I thought it might be fun to revisit that era with a favorite Pogo Comic Strip.



Something to think about. But again, lets remember what the Conservatives are saying about modern day traitors. They are not accusing them of treason or of betraying their country (in a literal sense), but of HAVING THE WRONG OPINIONS!!! And they'll get away with it too, unless people stand up to them.

Come to think of it, I am in the mood for some pistachios.

Three to go.

France Redux

Bought a new CD today--New York Lounge. Made in France.

Also bought a pack of those little cheese cubes from "La Vache Qui Rit."

You know what gives me cheese a special savor and my musice a nice tingle--the fact that some people don't want me to listen to them.

Four to Go.

The World is A . . .

You know, Billy Corrigan aside, I'm not so sure that the World is a Vampire. I think it's more like a Frankenstein.

Five to go

France

Good article about how the French have been scapegoated to draw attention away from the questions of the Iraqi conflict. Particularly telling is this passage.

"Members of the Bush administration continue to attack people whose crime is being born French, and it’s clearly the administration’s duty to undo the damage before it’s too late. Responsibility for the first deadly atrocity—a possibility seemingly far-fetched until I witnessed the rapidly rising tide of irrationality drowning common sense and decency—will rest squarely on the shoulders of our leaders who unsubtlely signaled that patriotism should include animosity toward the French. A few well-chosen words from the president could halt this deplorable species of race-baiting, just as abruptly as a few well-chosen words fanned the flames."

Something to consider, although so far violence against French has been largely rhetorical.

Six to go.

The Propoganda Remix Project

Here's a picture from the propoganda remix project--I suppose it's a little simplistic, but in general terms, I think it's accurate.



Edited somewhat later in the day to add the link.

Seven to go.

Red White and Blue

An editorial at the New York Times, talked about a recent appearence of Karl Rove, in which, "[h]e made the Bush strategy clear: It's the terror, not the economy, stupid, even if the nation is suffering rolling deficits and relentless unemployment, and despite Mr. Bush's serial tax cuts for the captains of industry. Democrats may want to talk health care and other economic issues, but they will have to grapple their way through a patriotic blitz of a campaign, if Mr. Rove has his red-white-and-blue way. Democrats can rightly fear an "October surprise" coming color-coded by Tom Ridge next time around."

Here's the question Republicans want to be able to ask by next October. "If you love America, and don't want to see any further terrorist attacks, how can you not vote for Bush?"

Eight to go.

The Saturday of Ten Posts

Since I've been gone the last two days and haven't posted as much, I feel that I must now make it up to you--and hence I am annoucing that today I will be posting 10 different posts. Some will be political (of course), some will be humorous (as close as we can make it), and some will have pictures (message: I care).

9 to go.

The Cutting Dividend Tax Plan

Check out this chart, from a report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman.

Link via This Modern World. Lot's of links, not much writing--I'm on the road, you should be lucky to get this much.

Good News (From My Perspective)

In Ann Coulter's latest article she clarifies that all the ladies apparently don't want Senator Kerry. "American girls aren't good enough for Frenchy [Kerry]. We don't think he's so hot either." Parenthetically, I guess calling Kerry Frenchy is supposed to be a terrible insult. I don't see it myself.

But the good news--Ms. Coulter does not disillusion me. I'm still free to imagine that all the ladies want to get with me. And truthfully, I'm even more vulnerable to that Frenchy slam, as my natural father was apparently French.

In other news, I'm on the road today and tomorrow--so may not be available. Have a great Thursday and Friday if you don't hear from me.

The Memory Hole

Added a new link to the left there--the Memory Hole. Among other things they have revealed that an AP story suggested an Iraqi banner stated to the American Troops that "Sooner or later US killers we'll kill you." The Banner actually said, "Sooner or later US killers we'll kick you out." Not an irrelevant difference. Anyway, check them out.

The Election's Over

I know you were looking forward to an exciting and busy campaign season, watching our candidates debate the issues and articulate their vision for America. But it turns out that conservative columnists have determined that all the Democratic candidates are jokes and that President Bush has no chance of losing the election.

Consider these helpful words from Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator. "Just as in 1972, today's Democratic Party is a party in flux. But unlike 1972, there's no Watergate on the horizon. George W. Bush could hardly be mistaken for Richard Nixon. Nixon, a moderate, regulated wages and prices, pursued a soft-line foreign policy of detente and pulled out of Vietnam. Most of all, Nixon was paranoid about his political opponents.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, is a committed conservative and is fearless in staring down his political opponents. If Bush had been president in 1972, Republicans would have enjoyed two decades of uninterrupted presidential power. With the Democrats partying like it's 1972, today's Republicans have an opportunity to begin a new era of conservative dominance."

And Brent Bozell, noting that none of the Democratic candidates appears to be conservative, writes, "This whole field is outside the mainstream, collectively on the fringe left. . . . Democrats worry that none of the candidates is well-known enough to beat President Bush. Instead, they should worry that their candidates will become too well-known."

So you see, according to Conservatives, this election is already over. Democrats may as well pack it in, and if you pay attention to Ben Shapiro, you might not get another shot at it for 20 years. Unless of course, conservative columnists might have some vested interest in disheartening the Democratic party.

Your Weekly Rush

Listening to Rush babble on about Tax Cuts over lunch. He was ragging on the Democrats for not pushing Tax increases. After all we believe the recover of 1992-1993 was due to Clinton, whose only contribution economically was the Tax Increase, so why wouldn't we propose tax increases now?

Well, maybe because conditions were different in 1992 and currently. But let's not let that stand in our way.

Oh, and despite the fact that Rush had to admit that the Democrats are pushing for a tax cut now, he still felt comfortable trashing them a few minutes later for standing in the way of a tax cut. I guess Rush relies on his listeners having an attention span of about 30 seconds.

More Election News

Matt Towery, writing today at Townhall.com, says, "Bush's only potential Achilles heel remains the economy. That possibility has political pundits wondering whether they can go ahead and script a Bush post-war nosedive -- a la Bush senior in 1992 -- or if the president's re-election campaign will more closely resemble the GOP landslides of Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84."

I don't know, I see another couple of potential roadblocks. It's clear that there is a power struggle going on between Colin Powell's State Department and Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department. If either side wins decisively, than it could have negative repercussions. If Rumsfeld wins, than Bush will lose one of the few moderating forces in his presidency, and if Colin Powell is humiliated, and Bush Lets it happen, well, the Democratic candidate doesn't have to be a political genius to exploit that. If Colin Powell wins, which, let's be honest, has no chance of happening, than Bush will lose his base, and might lose the war as an issue--Rumsfeld has cleverly positioned himself as the military face of this administration.

The other potential problem is that Bush may have ceded the centrist position. He may be forced to run as an ideological conservative, which liberals may be able to turn into an issue. This is more of a long shot though.

And at any rate, we have nearly a year before the actual campaign starts, so we'll see what happens in between now and then.

Jingoistic Self-regarding Conquer Monkeys

You should really check out Sunday's Doonesbury. As an unabashed Franco-phile, I liked it.

A Subject Done to Death

This story has been done to death, but in case you missed it, here's Maureen Dowd's comments to President Bush, on his photo op last week.

"The Abraham Lincoln was practically docked, only 30 miles off shore, after 10 months at sea. They had to steer it away from land for you. If you'd waited a few hours, you could've just walked aboard. You and Rove are making a gorgeous campaign video on the Pacific to cast you as the warrior president for 2004 . . ."

And, as several have pointed out, can you imagine the comments if Former President Clinton had done this?

Free Speech Comments by John Leo

Great article today by John Leo about Free Speech. He comments on how "Free Speech" zones on colleges and in other areas are limiting free speech. "At least 20 campuses have set up "free speech zones," thus effectively converting 99 percent of each campus into a giant censorship zone. The authorities usually explain that noisy protests can interfere with classes, though disallowing bullhorns during certain hours would take care of this alleged problem." His initial argument refers to a sign held at an appearance by President Bush. Because the sign was not in the designated protest area, the holder is facing federal charges (the state charges have been dropped.

Mr. Leo ends his article with this comment. "Protecting the right to protest doesn't have to be one of those dread right vs. left "Crossfire" issues. If we want to improve the level of political debate, each side has to guard the other's right to speak." Inspiring words, and I hope all Americans share those sentiments.