The one thing peaceniks and warmongers can agree on
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a good cause. A group of American servicemen and women serving in Iraq have formed a service organization to help the people of Iraq.
So...
Hippies! Innocent Iraqi children ravaged by war need your help! Please donate!
Hawks! The US Marines need your help to win hearts and minds! Please donate!
--THE HOUSE
Friday, April 23, 2004
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Attaboy, Arafat!
PA chairman Yasser Arafat has physically expelled a number of terrorists from his headquarters in Ramallah, where he has been penned in by the IDF for the last two years or so. Also for the last two years or so, Israel and the US have been saying that Arafat is not a suitable partner for peace negotiations due to his continuing embrace of violence and terrorism. But yesterday he kicked out a bunch of murderous goons! Hooray!
I don't expect more moves like this are forthcoming. Given the preferences of his constituents, it's hard for Arafat to do anything but embrace violence and terrorism. Of course, we shouldn't work too hard to excuse them because of this constraint-- Arafat and the PA have helped to shape those very same counter-productive, self-destructive preferences. It's a neat little trap that political leaders often set for themselves; in political science we call it blowback.
But I'd like to think that Arafat did this to signal his willingness to negotiate. And more or less regardless of his intentions, he should be rewarded for distancing himself from (other) terrorists. The question is, how can we reward him? Anything nice said about him by Bush or Sharon would be political poison for Arafat. It is a thorny problem, to say the least. Anybody got any ideas?
--YOHANNA BEN-DAVID
PA chairman Yasser Arafat has physically expelled a number of terrorists from his headquarters in Ramallah, where he has been penned in by the IDF for the last two years or so. Also for the last two years or so, Israel and the US have been saying that Arafat is not a suitable partner for peace negotiations due to his continuing embrace of violence and terrorism. But yesterday he kicked out a bunch of murderous goons! Hooray!
I don't expect more moves like this are forthcoming. Given the preferences of his constituents, it's hard for Arafat to do anything but embrace violence and terrorism. Of course, we shouldn't work too hard to excuse them because of this constraint-- Arafat and the PA have helped to shape those very same counter-productive, self-destructive preferences. It's a neat little trap that political leaders often set for themselves; in political science we call it blowback.
But I'd like to think that Arafat did this to signal his willingness to negotiate. And more or less regardless of his intentions, he should be rewarded for distancing himself from (other) terrorists. The question is, how can we reward him? Anything nice said about him by Bush or Sharon would be political poison for Arafat. It is a thorny problem, to say the least. Anybody got any ideas?
--YOHANNA BEN-DAVID
Iraqi kids need ten bucks more than you do
If you're reading this, then you probably have plenty of food, nice clothes, a place to sleep, a few toys, and a little money in your pocket. That puts you one up on three quarters of the people on this planet. You've been blessed. Want to give back?
The US Marines in Iraq are running a little program called Spirit of America. They give to the people of Iraq, both in order to win hearts and minds and just to help people who have suffered a lot and could use a break. You've got ten bucks. Kids in Iraq need ten bucks. Cough it up.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
If you're reading this, then you probably have plenty of food, nice clothes, a place to sleep, a few toys, and a little money in your pocket. That puts you one up on three quarters of the people on this planet. You've been blessed. Want to give back?
The US Marines in Iraq are running a little program called Spirit of America. They give to the people of Iraq, both in order to win hearts and minds and just to help people who have suffered a lot and could use a break. You've got ten bucks. Kids in Iraq need ten bucks. Cough it up.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Allegiance
It's hard to believe now, but there were people who worried that Jack Kennedy would be a tool of the Vatican. And there are certainly plenty of folks who think that a group of Jewish men in the Bush administration have put Israeli interests above American interests. Similar things have been said about Massachusetts governor and fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney.
Catholics and Jews don't scare me. And Mormons sure don't scare me. But I have to admit I get a bit nervous about Muslims. This is why. I could easily link to a dozen other similar articles. Islam is not the only religion with in which many adherents think of themselves as belonging to their faith community first and of their nation second. Mormons like myself might think the same way. But one of the Mormon articles of faith is: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". I think the same is true for Judaism, Catholicism, etc. There is a strong tradition of obedience to earthly laws and authorities.
In Islam, on the other hand, there is a strong tradition of conflating religion and politics, and respecting only the law of God. Islamic tradition also enjoins Muslims to help other Muslims and forbids them to act in ways injurious to other Muslims. So when Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are asked to choose between their governments and their religion, they have powerful incentives to choose the latter.
This is why I think it's a great idea to have American schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. And for immigrants and aspiring citizens to affirm loyalty to their new countries.
Promises matter, and we need to treat them seriously. Maybe it's time for us to be a little less blase about letting people stay in this country who would like to overthrow its laws.
--YAHYA AL-RIIFI
It's hard to believe now, but there were people who worried that Jack Kennedy would be a tool of the Vatican. And there are certainly plenty of folks who think that a group of Jewish men in the Bush administration have put Israeli interests above American interests. Similar things have been said about Massachusetts governor and fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney.
Catholics and Jews don't scare me. And Mormons sure don't scare me. But I have to admit I get a bit nervous about Muslims. This is why. I could easily link to a dozen other similar articles. Islam is not the only religion with in which many adherents think of themselves as belonging to their faith community first and of their nation second. Mormons like myself might think the same way. But one of the Mormon articles of faith is: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". I think the same is true for Judaism, Catholicism, etc. There is a strong tradition of obedience to earthly laws and authorities.
In Islam, on the other hand, there is a strong tradition of conflating religion and politics, and respecting only the law of God. Islamic tradition also enjoins Muslims to help other Muslims and forbids them to act in ways injurious to other Muslims. So when Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are asked to choose between their governments and their religion, they have powerful incentives to choose the latter.
This is why I think it's a great idea to have American schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. And for immigrants and aspiring citizens to affirm loyalty to their new countries.
Promises matter, and we need to treat them seriously. Maybe it's time for us to be a little less blase about letting people stay in this country who would like to overthrow its laws.
--YAHYA AL-RIIFI
Monday, April 19, 2004
Everyone else is linking to this article, too
Well, I'm back from New York with lots of pictures of my adorable nephew and niece. It also seems that my major research paper has a second reader, which hopefully means I can defend it soon and move on to the dissertation. Good. This dumb paper has been a thorn in my side for the last two years almost. I need to put in a few hours working on it tonight, so here's a quick link and then I need to go.
Soundfury points to a very scary look at the continually developing UN Oil-for-food program corruption scandal. Here's what it says:
Especially with the U.N.'s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms ? but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.
There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan.
Okay, so who got some of the money Saddam got thanks to crooks at the UN?
1. UN bureaucrats who kept the gravy train rolling.
2. Wealthy, well-connected scumbags in France, Russia, and elsewhere who made sure that Saddam got "No War" in exchange "For Oil."
3. Palace and monument-builders in Iraq, as well as miscellaneous cronies and relatives.
4. Reporters, especially in the Arab world, who acted as propagandists and apologists for the Baath dictatorship.
5. Peace creeps, including politicians like George Galloway.
And now we know one more bunch of bad guys who got bling-bling from Baghdad:
6. Terrorists, who did Saddam a favor by attacking his No. 1 enemy, the USA.
And it's all thanks to Kofi and our pals at the UN! Thanks for looking out for world peace and all that good stuff, guys! Way to go!
I wonder if folks in Iraq are as glad as I am that they have the United States and not the United Nations as their occupier. Holy freaking crap. Good thing John Kerry isn't president.
--ABDUL ALEM
Well, I'm back from New York with lots of pictures of my adorable nephew and niece. It also seems that my major research paper has a second reader, which hopefully means I can defend it soon and move on to the dissertation. Good. This dumb paper has been a thorn in my side for the last two years almost. I need to put in a few hours working on it tonight, so here's a quick link and then I need to go.
Soundfury points to a very scary look at the continually developing UN Oil-for-food program corruption scandal. Here's what it says:
Especially with the U.N.'s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms ? but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.
There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan.
Okay, so who got some of the money Saddam got thanks to crooks at the UN?
1. UN bureaucrats who kept the gravy train rolling.
2. Wealthy, well-connected scumbags in France, Russia, and elsewhere who made sure that Saddam got "No War" in exchange "For Oil."
3. Palace and monument-builders in Iraq, as well as miscellaneous cronies and relatives.
4. Reporters, especially in the Arab world, who acted as propagandists and apologists for the Baath dictatorship.
5. Peace creeps, including politicians like George Galloway.
And now we know one more bunch of bad guys who got bling-bling from Baghdad:
6. Terrorists, who did Saddam a favor by attacking his No. 1 enemy, the USA.
And it's all thanks to Kofi and our pals at the UN! Thanks for looking out for world peace and all that good stuff, guys! Way to go!
I wonder if folks in Iraq are as glad as I am that they have the United States and not the United Nations as their occupier. Holy freaking crap. Good thing John Kerry isn't president.
--ABDUL ALEM
Saturday, April 17, 2004
New York City?!
Sorry to disappoint my imaginary readers by not posting for the last few days. I am down in New York visiting my sister and her family. My parents have also come up to visit, and so I have been able to spend some time with them as well, which is wonderful.
Being cut off from broadband, it's been hard to keep up with the news down here. But I saw a headline on one of the papers down here talking about terrible retention rates of US soldiers. It's in all the papers and all over the web. I just wrote about the terrific retention rates of US soldiers, though. And that story is also all over the place. Huh.
Let's get to the bottom of this. The numbers don't seem to directly contradict each other, so it must be that the two stories are choosing to emphasize different numbers from the same reports. The Big News about Terrible Retention seems to be that the US Army is on track to get 96% of their retention goal this fiscal year, in contrast to last year when they hit 106% of their goal. Wow. So, halfway through the year, one of the four service branches looks like it might be a thousand soldiers short. If you only look at retention.
Of course, retention is only half the picture. The other half is recruitment, which as it turns out, is ahead of goal.:
The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month this year, Smith said.
So, if the next six months play out like the last six months, then the US Army might retain 4% fewer soldiers than they would like. But they will more than make up for that loss with new recruits. Okay, how would you spin this story? "Despite war, US military has no trouble finding soldiers," or "Disastrous quagmire may cause tiny shortfall in US Army's retention goals."
The second headline is intellectually dishonest, and anyone who takes ten minutes to do some outside reading is going to find that out. But most people don't do that. They just trust that the reporters are honestly trying to report the news. It is a long-standing American tradition to be suspicious of government, wary of propaganda. That's good. That's healthy for democracy. Traditionally, though, Americans have been much less skeptical about the media. Maybe it's time to reevaluate. Certainly there are plenty of mainstream media sources that have lost my trust.
"Says here this news was made in... New York City!"
"New York City??"
"Get a rope..."
--MAJ. BLUDD
Sorry to disappoint my imaginary readers by not posting for the last few days. I am down in New York visiting my sister and her family. My parents have also come up to visit, and so I have been able to spend some time with them as well, which is wonderful.
Being cut off from broadband, it's been hard to keep up with the news down here. But I saw a headline on one of the papers down here talking about terrible retention rates of US soldiers. It's in all the papers and all over the web. I just wrote about the terrific retention rates of US soldiers, though. And that story is also all over the place. Huh.
Let's get to the bottom of this. The numbers don't seem to directly contradict each other, so it must be that the two stories are choosing to emphasize different numbers from the same reports. The Big News about Terrible Retention seems to be that the US Army is on track to get 96% of their retention goal this fiscal year, in contrast to last year when they hit 106% of their goal. Wow. So, halfway through the year, one of the four service branches looks like it might be a thousand soldiers short. If you only look at retention.
Of course, retention is only half the picture. The other half is recruitment, which as it turns out, is ahead of goal.:
The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month this year, Smith said.
So, if the next six months play out like the last six months, then the US Army might retain 4% fewer soldiers than they would like. But they will more than make up for that loss with new recruits. Okay, how would you spin this story? "Despite war, US military has no trouble finding soldiers," or "Disastrous quagmire may cause tiny shortfall in US Army's retention goals."
The second headline is intellectually dishonest, and anyone who takes ten minutes to do some outside reading is going to find that out. But most people don't do that. They just trust that the reporters are honestly trying to report the news. It is a long-standing American tradition to be suspicious of government, wary of propaganda. That's good. That's healthy for democracy. Traditionally, though, Americans have been much less skeptical about the media. Maybe it's time to reevaluate. Certainly there are plenty of mainstream media sources that have lost my trust.
"Says here this news was made in... New York City!"
"New York City??"
"Get a rope..."
--MAJ. BLUDD
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Reciprocity
Today I start putting up links to other blogs, beginning with those which have linked to me. In addition to those already mentioned, this includes Just One Minute and Being Swift. Thanks, people!
More to come later.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Today I start putting up links to other blogs, beginning with those which have linked to me. In addition to those already mentioned, this includes Just One Minute and Being Swift. Thanks, people!
More to come later.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Welcome, Ace of Spades readers!
My heartiest thanks to the wickedly funny and unapologetically conservative blog Ace of Spades for adding this site to their New Blogger Showcase. (This reminds me that I still have not put up links to other bloggers on my site. A terrible oversight that will soon be rectified.)
What can I say? It's an honor, and not just because Victor Davis Hanson is one of the other featurees. Thanks again, Ace and for the record, let me just say that your blog has the Best. Front page quote. Ever.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- H.L. Mencken
Beautiful.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
My heartiest thanks to the wickedly funny and unapologetically conservative blog Ace of Spades for adding this site to their New Blogger Showcase. (This reminds me that I still have not put up links to other bloggers on my site. A terrible oversight that will soon be rectified.)
What can I say? It's an honor, and not just because Victor Davis Hanson is one of the other featurees. Thanks again, Ace and for the record, let me just say that your blog has the Best. Front page quote. Ever.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- H.L. Mencken
Beautiful.
--HOUSE OF PAYNE
Dogs of War
The recent fighting in Iraq has again brought the world's attention to the problems and opportunities which arise from the use of mercenaries. On March 31, four security contractors working for the Coalition were killed in an ambush in Fallujah, after which their bodies were mutilated and hung up from a nearby bridge. There was an immediate public outcry against the barbarous act, followed by a prominent left-leaning commentator making disparaging remarks about the "mercenary" contractors not deserving sympathy.
This, of course, provoked an overwhelming reaction from the blogosphere, especially from those either in the military or employed as private contractors by the military. Actions speak louder than words, though-- the mercenaries were vindicated a few days later when an attack on US government headquarters in the Iraqi city of Najaf was repulsed by one American soldier and eight security consultants from Blackwater, the same company which employed the four contractors killed in Fallujah.
So what's wrong with mercenaries? They kill for money, but so do all soldiers. The founders of this country were distrustful of professional armies and preferred citizen militias. After two world wars and the cold war, the American public seems to have got past this feeling. (Indeed, there are those who argue that Americans have too much faith in our soldiers.) We do not worry about paying soldiers, except to wonder if we are paying them enough.
Evidently, though, we are, since the military is hitting its recruitment and re-enlistment goals. (Retention in the National Guard seems to be a problem, though.) Another indicator that the US military is doing something right: the large numbers of foreigners who join up.
It is especially interesting to see this influx of foreigners considering that the American public's reputed sensitivity to the deaths of our GIs. Maybe the US should just start its own foreign legion.
Back to work. More later.
--MAJOR BLUDD
The recent fighting in Iraq has again brought the world's attention to the problems and opportunities which arise from the use of mercenaries. On March 31, four security contractors working for the Coalition were killed in an ambush in Fallujah, after which their bodies were mutilated and hung up from a nearby bridge. There was an immediate public outcry against the barbarous act, followed by a prominent left-leaning commentator making disparaging remarks about the "mercenary" contractors not deserving sympathy.
This, of course, provoked an overwhelming reaction from the blogosphere, especially from those either in the military or employed as private contractors by the military. Actions speak louder than words, though-- the mercenaries were vindicated a few days later when an attack on US government headquarters in the Iraqi city of Najaf was repulsed by one American soldier and eight security consultants from Blackwater, the same company which employed the four contractors killed in Fallujah.
So what's wrong with mercenaries? They kill for money, but so do all soldiers. The founders of this country were distrustful of professional armies and preferred citizen militias. After two world wars and the cold war, the American public seems to have got past this feeling. (Indeed, there are those who argue that Americans have too much faith in our soldiers.) We do not worry about paying soldiers, except to wonder if we are paying them enough.
Evidently, though, we are, since the military is hitting its recruitment and re-enlistment goals. (Retention in the National Guard seems to be a problem, though.) Another indicator that the US military is doing something right: the large numbers of foreigners who join up.
It is especially interesting to see this influx of foreigners considering that the American public's reputed sensitivity to the deaths of our GIs. Maybe the US should just start its own foreign legion.
Back to work. More later.
--MAJOR BLUDD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
