Deep in the Obituary:
"A human being has to look out for other human beings or there's no civilization..."
Rest in Peace Sir. A lot of people still feel that way.
Commentary and discussion on world events from the perspective that all goings-on can be related to one of the six elements of National Power: Military, Economic, Cultural, Demographic, Organizational, & Geographical. All Elements are interrelated and rarely can one be discussed without also discussing its impact on the others
"A human being has to look out for other human beings or there's no civilization..."
Rest in Peace Sir. A lot of people still feel that way.
A few good pics at the link, and the reason I wrote 'seems' above, is that in the handful of pictures at the link, someone saw fit to include a couple of pics protesting the US in Iraq from an earlier protest. This reflects either some sort of attempt at 'balance' or more likely very poor keyword discipline combined with an automated gallery building routine. I lean toward believing it is the latter, since that would imply incompetence vs. evil."We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace," said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife. "We want civilized, modern people there."
The problem is rooted in trying to do a Superpower's job on less than a Superpower Sidekick budget.
(I think there may be a special section in Hell for BBC apparatchiks.)“The current government is led by a party with its roots in Islamic politics while the civil service is one of the guardians of Turkey's secular status.
Critics of the decentralisation plan believe that allowing local government greater flexibility over the hiring and firing of civil servants could open the civil service to religious influence.”
“Turkey has repeatedly urged the Iraqi government and U.S. forces in Iraq to crack down on thousands of rebels from the outlawed separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who use northern Iraq to launch attacks inside Turkey”As ye sow, so shall ye reap...
Since the Hostages were taken from Iraqi waters under the pretext they were in Iranian waters:
1. British servicemen and woman had their uniforms taken away and made to read ridiculous statements about their alleged “guilt” of straying into Iranian waters.
2. Furthermore, the female sailor was forced to wear a head cover in keeping with Iranian law and the local mullah’s interpretation of the faith.
3. The female hostage reads on camera a ‘heart-wrenching’ statement to her young offspring.
4. Britain started working furiously to get the EU off their collective fat a** and make Iran feel the pain for their piracy. (also making polite statements about the unhelpful situation)
5. Iran said it would release the female hostage.
6. Iran ‘changed their mind’ and decided to keep the woman as hostage, saying to Britain: “We’re unhelpful? Well, we don’t like your attitude”
7. Britain keeps working furiously to get the EU off their collective fat a** and make Iran feel the pain for their piracy.
8. The Mad Mullahs and the twerp (Ahmadinejad) tried to whip up a frenzy in the populace, that didn’t seem to work all that well.
9. Somewhere in this process it comes out the Persians want some of their boys back and this is all revealed as a tit-for-tat play. (Wonder how much they REALLY asked for?) Problem all around for the good guys: the US can’t care about this MORE than the Brits, but the Brits can’t do the tit-for-tat without US help (the US has the ‘tat’ in hand while Iraq has the UK’s…)
10. The US stands by our friend’s decision, but it looks like it will be on the basis that the UK demands a better deal. I write ‘looks like’ because there is nothing to indicate the UK wasn’t also quietly telling the Mullah’s about Newt’s idea:
Look Chaps, if it were just up to us, we would be more cooperative, but my stout Friend here thinks we should just cut off your oil and gas flows and watch you squirm a while, so you shall be reasonable fellows won’t you?11. The EU informs the UK that under no condition will they get off their fat a**, but they will send a very nice letter of regret.
12. President George Bush is roundly tut-tut’ed about using the word (gasp!) ‘Hostages’.
13. Iran sees this scheme isn’t playing well on the home front either and says “deal, but we get to parade the hostages around one more time”.
14. The Hostage’s loved-ones back home are ecstatic about the announced upcoming release. Apparently not knowing the President was tut-tut’ed, one is quoted as saying:
"They should never have been taken hostage in the first place. They shouldn't have been using them for propaganda".
15. In what is probably proof-positive Iran didn’t like how this was playing out at home and abroad, they actually send the Hostages home and declare victory.
16. Everyone wants credit. Syria is claiming a role in the release.
17. Oh no! Syria was fitting that fabulous ‘Dhimmi Dahling’ Nancy Pelosi for a burqa at the time. How long before she claims credit as well?
Anyway, enough of the politics! I'm sure there will br much more hand-wringing and recriminations to go around for a while.
Welcome home to my Brothers-and-Sister-in-Arms!
I can hardly wait to hear things from your various perspectives in the future.....
Update 04/06/07
Well I wish now I had seen the Brit's press conference after they got back in the UK before I posted last night. If I had, I would have looked for the full videos of them in captivity instead of relying on quick clips, still pics and written reports on what they looked like and how they conducted themselves. Since the press conference's reading of a prepared written statement looked a lot like CYA to me I got a real uneasy feeling, so I thought 'let's go to the videotape' . Ugh - it made me physically ill.
Of course, no one can say exactly what they would or wouldn't have done unless they were there, but I can't imagine any of the Brits I worked with in the 80's or now EVER smiling for a captor's camera UNLESS it was supported by an obscene gesture.
My personal lesson-learned in all this is: Don't rely on excised video clips and stills with transcripts when there are full recordings out there.
The feeling I have now for these guys (including their command structure), is basically the same feeling I had once on jury duty. I want to scream -- "c'mon guys, give me something positive in your defense!"
“Well, if 63% of the American public says it, it must be true, right? That's how science works!”Which is a great deal more entertaining than flatly pointing out that some people are engaging in Argumentum ad numerum .
And based upon those responses I’ll bet an even higher proportion of them are unskilled and unaware of it (.pdf).And if you think the people in the survey are unqualified to weigh in on such matters, they beg to differ: 71% of them agreed with the statement "I consider myself an intellectual," and 59% agreed that "I have more ability than most people." We'll bet a high proportion of them read Scientific American.
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses inked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.I view this ‘poll’ for what it is: an indicator of the how well the global-warming scaremonger propaganda machine has performed to date. Too bad for the ‘Warmer’s side that Langmuir plays the long game.
If you were just passing along the info, you should have mentioned that fact in your post where I could have seen it BEFORE I lumped you in with SciAm's Mim at my place. Advocacy such as: "It’s clear that the public is not waiting for the government to take the lead. Americans no longer think it’s entirely the domain of government to solve environmental problems. They expect companies to step up and address climate change and other concerns” when passed along without comment,looks an awful lot like "agreement".
1. Don't provoke the 'Great Satan 'directlySpook 86 makes a good summary of the likely game they are playing, i.e. 'swapping' the Brits kidnapped from Iraqi waters for the pile of Iranian 'operators' we seem to have been collecting lately.
2. Can get the desired results by scooping up Coalition partner troops.
LOUISIANA CORRUPTION
John Fund
Corruption as Usual
Louisiana's history of corruption bodes ill
Louisiana Corruption Roundup
Corruption Costs Jobs : August 16, 2005
Now this is the second Lancet sham piece on the subject of Iraqi war deaths (as I’m sure you’ve heard about by now or remember the first), so one wonders how much longer he will be at the helm of what was once the “world’s leading independent medical journal” given his apparent proclivity to spew this nonsense, alienate others in his profession AND bite the hand that feeds him.Now that there has been additional exposure to the scale of this sham, will Horton soon be gone?
UPDATE: The lead 'researcher' of this 'study' is the same as the last one. Coincidentally, he just happens to be a New York Democrat with political aspirations AND (Surprise!) an apparent bug up his sphincter about the war in Iraq.All I did at the time was do a 'search' on the study author's name. What took the Times so long? (Just kidding I'm sure they and a lot of other people knew somehere and maybe I just missed the coverage).
First Choice Vote Breakdown:
Romney 21%
Giuliani 17%
Brownback 15%
Gingrich 14%
McCain 12%
First and Second Choice Breakdown:
Giuliani 34%
Gingrich 30%
Romney 30%
I visited the links that HH listed and took away two main observations:
1. It looks like Romney was ‘salting the mine’ at CPAC.
2. It is striking how strong a guy who isn’t even going to decide on whether or not to run for another year (Gingrich) is a strong contender.
Oh, of course the Gingrich naysayers are out in force – but they are thinking inside the box. Consider Newt Gingrich taking the indirect approach. What if he doesn’t have eyes on 2008, but rather is once again thinking long term?
Newt Gingrich:
1. Is able to work with people from other parts of the ideological spectrum,
2. Has organized and led powerful political alliances before,
3. Is a proven creative thinker capable of big ideas,
4. Is an articulate communicator who can get those big ideas across to the whole of America and the world and
5. Is capable of being a leading agent for change and is more than comfortable in that role.
Is there anything in the above list that wouldn’t make Newt Gingrich an ideal Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008?
Vice President Cheney could someday soon be referred to as the SECOND most powerful Vice President in history.
I’d really like to vote for Gingrich as President. If not that, then having him on the ticket could motivate me to vote for a few more other candidates that I otherwise might have trouble supporting without holding my nose. Here’s a draft for MY bumper sticker: