Calling Coyotes by Cross-Country Communication in all Counties

Monday, October 27, 2003

Lieberman Campaign: Right on Track

From Slate:
Unlike Gephardt, who tried to mute his difference with Kerry and John Edwards over the $87 billion for Iraq, Lieberman went after those two senators vociferously for flip-flopping on the vote. When Al Sharpton asked whether Lieberman would meet with Yasser Arafat, Lieberman made his case against such a meeting—a position obviously unpopular with the crowd—in such a forceful, well-argued way that the crowd ended up applauding him. Later, when he was asked about being "Bush lite," Lieberman replied, "I get angry when people say to me somehow that I'm not an authentic Democrat because I'm strong on defense, strong on values, and willing to talk about the role of faith in American life. I'm not going to yield that ground to the Republicans. I'm Joe Lieberman. I'm an independent-minded Democrat. And as president, I'm going to restore prosperity and security to the American people." The only flaw in his otherwise powerful delivery was a classic Liebermanism: a grin as he called himself angry.

You'd grin too if things were going this well.

Sunday, October 26, 2003

Joke post of the month

(Thanks to Yourish for linking to it first)

Note: I have called November 29th for the Arafat Death Watch.

Saturday, October 25, 2003

I know I'm late to post on this, but if you haven't read this, you should. This is probably the best example of what is wrong with the Muslim political world. Unitentionally insightful quote:

There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel that they can do nothing right. They believe that things can only get worse. The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews. They will forever be poor, backward and weak. Some believe, as I have said, this is the Will of Allah, that the proper state of the Muslims is to be poor and oppressed in this world.

But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves? Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy?

The scapegoatism that Jews are used for reinforces the idea that antisemitism is promoted by Muslim leaders to deflect blame for their complete negligence of the welfare of their people. Does any semi-sane person anywhere have an explanation for how 13 million Jews are "responsible" for the backwardness of 1.3 billion Muslims?

Next: A discussion of the Rumsfeld Memo, and why it is insignificant to the public at large.

Monday, October 20, 2003

Israeli Pilots and Democracy

See this post in response to this article. Also see this post on the international and military law standpoint.

More to come.

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

Thursday, October 02, 2003

Zero Hour in North Korea

If North Korea isn't bluffing (which, given its past accusations of bluffing, would make this one hell of a bluff) then the time for mere talk is over. Bush needs to take serious action in the next week, or the consequences will not be pretty. Here are two of my ideas of what serious action could entail.

1) Tell North Korea that they can start a bilateral negotiation on a short-term treaty with the U.S. to conclude within weeks, under the unbending condition that the U.N. has total access to all facets of North Korea's nuclear program, and will totally dismantle said program, in exchange for a promise by the U.S. that it will not engage in a conflict to destroy the North Korean government. Also warn that if they do not accept the offer within a week, the U.S. will seek U.N. and NATO cooperation in a war to remove the North Korean government and thereby destroy its nuclear program.

2) (This is less a separate option than a truncation of the above) Create and implement plans to bomb or otherwise destroy all known nuclear infrastructure, while simultaneously beginning operations to eliminate the leadership of the North Korean government. Follow up with complete quarantine of North Korean borders through naval and aerial means to ensure that nuclear materials do not leave North Korea. At this point the country could be disorganized enough for U.S. forces to movein with significantly less casualties then a straight invasion would inflict. Tactical air strikes should also be implemented on all known artillery positions within range of Seoul.

To be honest, neither of these plans will be an improvement of the current situation. The second one should have the caveat that effectively accomplishing the goal of destroying the North Korean government will likely require carrying out a tactical nuclear strike on Pyongyang. The first one has the problem that what will happen becomes much fuzzier and there is an increased risk that North Korea will somehow export nuclear technology or materials. Both of them bring the immense risk that China will become involved. It is unlikely, however, that they will make things worse than the situation will be with continued inactivity. Bush has to ask himself if a nuclear-armed North Korea is an acceptable risk to America's national security. If not, he must act now.

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Lt. Smash is the Indepundit

I am he,
And he is me,
And we are we,
And now we’re all together.
I am The Indepundit.
I am L.T. Smash.
I am the Walrus.
Goo goo g’joob.

Lt. Cmdr. Smash (formerly Lt. Smash) reveals himself to be the Indepundit, someone I have never heard of. So, until next time, I am NF.

That was a joke. And the link is being updated.