Fallout
Dr. S and I had a lengthy conversation about the Columbia Tragedy as the story was breaking. The conversation had a number of threads, only a few of them are publishable.
Terrorism?
Not a chance in the world. At 200k feet and Mach 18, there is nothing on Earth that could bring this machine down. That stated, I have no doubt that some wackos will call Art Bell in his trailer in Roswell and submit something that sounds like this:
A) �I think it was that Israeli Jew-boy astronaut that blew up the shuttle in order to have the Americans blame Iraq.�
B) �I saw some Al Qaeda guys standing in a field with a shoulder mounted rockets and towels from the Ramada Inn wrapped around their heads. They did it. I called the FBI and they didn�t listen to me�
And there are plenty of people who will absolutely believe it. Great. Just what we need.
This is dangerous business
I was writing my Master�s comps when the Challenger blew to pieces back in the 80s. I was aghast, but a professor � Eddie Bowen � helped to put this in perspective. He opined that seven people were basically sitting atop a massive bomb and he was surprised that it didn�t happen more often. Dr. S, a statistician amongst other things, said that flying around in space is extremely hazardous occupation, that it is a lot more dangerous that taking a cab across Manhattan (or the Bronx for that matter).
And despite the recent boom in space-type tourism, I�m inclined to believe this.
One must also remember that the shuttle is basically late �70s technology. Were we to build it from scratch today, it would look and function a lot differently.
Dancing in Ramallah
I�m waiting for footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets of Ramallah or Gaza over the death of the Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon. Another thing to help their cause here in The States. Any bets on parties being thrown in Baghdad?
01 Feb 03 dpny
Saturday, February 01, 2003
"If an empire falls in Africa will you hear the crash?"
In today's International Herald Tribune under the picture of two French legionaires evacuating a French citizen from Abidjan --"For France the end of an era". Maybe for some. But for many others the end of the era has long come and gone. This is merely the proof positive that France can not put it's money where it's mouth is -- a peace agreement, brokered in Paris, by Jacques Chirac, that the primary signator's constituency will not honor. I wonder how fast it will take Chirac to swing over to America now that they have been proven impotent in Cote d'Ivoire?
Pretty fast, I reckon. For all that, the French military do train well and I would match their mountain guys against any in the world. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that living and training in the Alps year round produces better alpine troops than those training at Fort Drum, New York. But then again, France doesn't have NY Senator Chuck Schumer fighting to keep a base open for economic reasons, rather than moving it to a better location for training reasons. Their special operations forces are top notch and in line with U.S. capabilities. Their air force has fine pilots and their navy has a long distinquished history. The trouble with is not with France's military, though there is not enough money to fund them properly for the optempo they have now, nor are there enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, if you will, since conscription was ended in favor of a professional force because, again, there is no money for it.
The trouble is with France's politics. Having embraced socialism as a counter-action against classic capitalism, or Market Force capitalism, due to massive corruption at all levels of government and business, (laiss�-faire what?) the end of a World War and a tanking economy a couple of decades later, the French have chosen a slow path to irrelevence. The situation in Cote d'Ivoire proves the point. Not able to compete with the U.S. in the sixities Charles DeGaul chose to "push" the U.S. out of France. There has since, ever so often, been talk by some parties of coming back to NATO but they are only interested in a leading role, without bringing anything to lead with to the table.
No, if the "hexagon" could speak, it would say, "Our contribution to the world is not in support of war but rather peace and the art of living. We bring to the world a mindset that demands civility, savoir-vivre, and l'amoir above all." The trouble with this philosophy is that they left the barn door open when they asked the U.S. to leave and they let in much of North Africa and the Middle-East. What the Ottoman's weren't able to do in the 18th century, the Mahgrebians are doing today. Twelve percent of the population of France is of North African or Middle Eastern origin.
That's 12 percent of the voting population.
The government of France has traded "laissez tomber" for laiss�-faire for good reason - self preservation of what's left of their pride. With no empire, not enough forces to be effective, nor enough money to put the ones they have out in front to begin with, they have no projection of power. The mouse that roared is the equivelent of what Chirac is doing on the security council.
Our government lives with this, and indeed has not been saying much against France, other than the odd comment or two by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled when he's a tad constipated. In the end, France will support the U.S. In the end it's about pride and without a say in the rebuilding of Iraq, dealing with rioting muslims in the suburbs of Paris, Marseille, and Nice, will be just too much.
In today's International Herald Tribune under the picture of two French legionaires evacuating a French citizen from Abidjan --"For France the end of an era". Maybe for some. But for many others the end of the era has long come and gone. This is merely the proof positive that France can not put it's money where it's mouth is -- a peace agreement, brokered in Paris, by Jacques Chirac, that the primary signator's constituency will not honor. I wonder how fast it will take Chirac to swing over to America now that they have been proven impotent in Cote d'Ivoire?
Pretty fast, I reckon. For all that, the French military do train well and I would match their mountain guys against any in the world. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that living and training in the Alps year round produces better alpine troops than those training at Fort Drum, New York. But then again, France doesn't have NY Senator Chuck Schumer fighting to keep a base open for economic reasons, rather than moving it to a better location for training reasons. Their special operations forces are top notch and in line with U.S. capabilities. Their air force has fine pilots and their navy has a long distinquished history. The trouble with is not with France's military, though there is not enough money to fund them properly for the optempo they have now, nor are there enough soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, if you will, since conscription was ended in favor of a professional force because, again, there is no money for it.
The trouble is with France's politics. Having embraced socialism as a counter-action against classic capitalism, or Market Force capitalism, due to massive corruption at all levels of government and business, (laiss�-faire what?) the end of a World War and a tanking economy a couple of decades later, the French have chosen a slow path to irrelevence. The situation in Cote d'Ivoire proves the point. Not able to compete with the U.S. in the sixities Charles DeGaul chose to "push" the U.S. out of France. There has since, ever so often, been talk by some parties of coming back to NATO but they are only interested in a leading role, without bringing anything to lead with to the table.
No, if the "hexagon" could speak, it would say, "Our contribution to the world is not in support of war but rather peace and the art of living. We bring to the world a mindset that demands civility, savoir-vivre, and l'amoir above all." The trouble with this philosophy is that they left the barn door open when they asked the U.S. to leave and they let in much of North Africa and the Middle-East. What the Ottoman's weren't able to do in the 18th century, the Mahgrebians are doing today. Twelve percent of the population of France is of North African or Middle Eastern origin.
That's 12 percent of the voting population.
The government of France has traded "laissez tomber" for laiss�-faire for good reason - self preservation of what's left of their pride. With no empire, not enough forces to be effective, nor enough money to put the ones they have out in front to begin with, they have no projection of power. The mouse that roared is the equivelent of what Chirac is doing on the security council.
Our government lives with this, and indeed has not been saying much against France, other than the odd comment or two by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled when he's a tad constipated. In the end, France will support the U.S. In the end it's about pride and without a say in the rebuilding of Iraq, dealing with rioting muslims in the suburbs of Paris, Marseille, and Nice, will be just too much.
Thursday, January 30, 2003
With friends like these...
It is being reported that France and Syria have "discussed ways [on] Thursday to coordinate their positions on the U.N. Security Council to avert a war on Iraq, the official Syrian Arab News Agency reported."
Well, isn't this a happy development.
The Left, lead by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) have been hammering the George Bush, always finding some reason for the US to not attack Iraq. First, they screamed that The Administration didn't consult them and demanded that a debate take place. After it took place, the wanted a resolution, which passed the Senate 77 to 23. Then, they demanded that President Bush seek the blessings of the UN Security Council. After Resolution 1441 passed unanimously, Senator Kennedy stated that this is the "wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent and it would distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security ... terrorism and the crisis with North Korea." For his part, Daschle pooh-pooh's the President's desire to go it alone, implying that our European Allies weren't behind us on this one. However, today's letter in The Times of London effectively squashed that argument. The last shred of respectability for the policy of appeasement were a truculent France and Germany saying that they would not support us should the UN verification process ultimately uncover that Saddam Hussien is in violation of UN Resolution 1441. Apparently, Daschle thinks the Iraqis voluntarily disarmed years ago and is keeping the news a secret. Following the SOTU speeach, Sen. Daschle is quoted as saying "I don't think the administration has presented adequate, convincing evidence to say that [Iraq] can produce weapons to share with terrorist."
A journalist present asked him to clarify.
"You don't think Saddam disarmed unilaterally, do you?" the journalist asked.
"We don't have any concrete evidence that he has not," Daschle replied. "And that's the issue."
And now we have the French-Syrian axis. Lovely.
Since that the anti-war left has been embraced by the likes of Syria, I think they are done for in the minds of the average American. And I'd be willing to bet that when the tanks roll, and Iraq is liberated, we find that France and Germany are waist deep in illegal trade with the butcher of Baghdad. And Sen. Daschle will be looking for another job.
30 Jan 03 dpny
It is being reported that France and Syria have "discussed ways [on] Thursday to coordinate their positions on the U.N. Security Council to avert a war on Iraq, the official Syrian Arab News Agency reported."
Well, isn't this a happy development.
The Left, lead by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) have been hammering the George Bush, always finding some reason for the US to not attack Iraq. First, they screamed that The Administration didn't consult them and demanded that a debate take place. After it took place, the wanted a resolution, which passed the Senate 77 to 23. Then, they demanded that President Bush seek the blessings of the UN Security Council. After Resolution 1441 passed unanimously, Senator Kennedy stated that this is the "wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent and it would distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security ... terrorism and the crisis with North Korea." For his part, Daschle pooh-pooh's the President's desire to go it alone, implying that our European Allies weren't behind us on this one. However, today's letter in The Times of London effectively squashed that argument. The last shred of respectability for the policy of appeasement were a truculent France and Germany saying that they would not support us should the UN verification process ultimately uncover that Saddam Hussien is in violation of UN Resolution 1441. Apparently, Daschle thinks the Iraqis voluntarily disarmed years ago and is keeping the news a secret. Following the SOTU speeach, Sen. Daschle is quoted as saying "I don't think the administration has presented adequate, convincing evidence to say that [Iraq] can produce weapons to share with terrorist."
A journalist present asked him to clarify.
"You don't think Saddam disarmed unilaterally, do you?" the journalist asked.
"We don't have any concrete evidence that he has not," Daschle replied. "And that's the issue."
And now we have the French-Syrian axis. Lovely.
Since that the anti-war left has been embraced by the likes of Syria, I think they are done for in the minds of the average American. And I'd be willing to bet that when the tanks roll, and Iraq is liberated, we find that France and Germany are waist deep in illegal trade with the butcher of Baghdad. And Sen. Daschle will be looking for another job.
30 Jan 03 dpny
SOTU
Larger minds than mine have weighed in on the President�s State of the Union so I�ll leave them to the meat and potatoes of rhetorical analysis. Two things struck me though.
The first was the commitment to subsidize the AIDS fight in sub-Sahara Africa. While US$15 Billion is not nearly enough to stem the problem, it�s a great start. I am curious though, if the sanctimonious Europeans will pony up matching cash.
The second is a proposal to fund research into hydrogen fuel cells. For those who don�t know, hydrogen is a virtually inexhaustible fuel source that "burns" perfectly clean. Switching our economy from petroleum-based to hydrogen based is highly problematic and would require a massive investment in infrastructure. However, such a switch would do a couple of things. First, it would deprive our "friends" in the Middle East the cash they use to fund terror, amongst other things. Second, it would allow for guilt-free SUVs. If they don�t pollute and don�t subsidize terrorism, I guess the loony left will just find something to complain about them. I have every confidence in them.
A ringing endorsement
I have never said this in print, but I must express qualified agreement with Bill Keller�s piece in the New York Times Magazine comparing George W. Bush to Ronald Reagan. Both are plainspoken men of the West, who have moral clarity in their political stands, programs and outlooks. Before it�s all over with, they may both grace the obverse of some American Currency.
The Myth of European Unity against the US vis-�-vis Iraq
The leaders of eight European countries signed a letter published in a number of European newspapers supporting the American crusade against Iraq�s Saddam Hussien. Methinks that the French and Germans are starting to find themselves boxed into a corner, where they are the only people in support of appeasing Saddam. If they press this game too long, they will absolutely find themselves frozen out of Iraq post-war. Both, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schr�der may be self-destructive enough to allow that to happen. As for the Russians, they know that we�ll take care of them with regards to their deals with Iraqi government. They just don�t want to commit now because it may be weeks before we pull the trigger. That disruption would cost them millions in oil and gas revenue. Look for a last minute "come to Jesus" moment from Bush to Vladimir Putin.
One picture is worth a thousand words
This picture should be one of the framing arguments concerning Iraq II and the lack of French support.
30 Jan 03 dpny
Larger minds than mine have weighed in on the President�s State of the Union so I�ll leave them to the meat and potatoes of rhetorical analysis. Two things struck me though.
The first was the commitment to subsidize the AIDS fight in sub-Sahara Africa. While US$15 Billion is not nearly enough to stem the problem, it�s a great start. I am curious though, if the sanctimonious Europeans will pony up matching cash.
The second is a proposal to fund research into hydrogen fuel cells. For those who don�t know, hydrogen is a virtually inexhaustible fuel source that "burns" perfectly clean. Switching our economy from petroleum-based to hydrogen based is highly problematic and would require a massive investment in infrastructure. However, such a switch would do a couple of things. First, it would deprive our "friends" in the Middle East the cash they use to fund terror, amongst other things. Second, it would allow for guilt-free SUVs. If they don�t pollute and don�t subsidize terrorism, I guess the loony left will just find something to complain about them. I have every confidence in them.
A ringing endorsement
I have never said this in print, but I must express qualified agreement with Bill Keller�s piece in the New York Times Magazine comparing George W. Bush to Ronald Reagan. Both are plainspoken men of the West, who have moral clarity in their political stands, programs and outlooks. Before it�s all over with, they may both grace the obverse of some American Currency.
The Myth of European Unity against the US vis-�-vis Iraq
The leaders of eight European countries signed a letter published in a number of European newspapers supporting the American crusade against Iraq�s Saddam Hussien. Methinks that the French and Germans are starting to find themselves boxed into a corner, where they are the only people in support of appeasing Saddam. If they press this game too long, they will absolutely find themselves frozen out of Iraq post-war. Both, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schr�der may be self-destructive enough to allow that to happen. As for the Russians, they know that we�ll take care of them with regards to their deals with Iraqi government. They just don�t want to commit now because it may be weeks before we pull the trigger. That disruption would cost them millions in oil and gas revenue. Look for a last minute "come to Jesus" moment from Bush to Vladimir Putin.
One picture is worth a thousand words
This picture should be one of the framing arguments concerning Iraq II and the lack of French support.
30 Jan 03 dpny
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Will PETA get behind this?
According to published accounts in Israel, Palestinians are now using donkeys are unmanned homicide bombs. While no people were hurt in this barbaric act, one can only wonder two things. A) where is PETA -- that magnificent manifestation of the wacky Left -- now that Yassir Arafat's murderous gangsters are using dumb beasts in their genocidal attacks against Israel? B) Has Arafat -- and the alphabet soup of imitators -- finally run out of foolish teenagers who refuse to die for his personal fiefdom?
Iran used the same "suicide bomber" tactics in their defense of their homeland from Saddam Hussien in that Jimmy Carter backed war back in the 80s. While hundreds initially signed on to die for Islam and crush the infidels, the recruit pool quickly dried up when they realized that the mullahs' kids never signed up. Besides, it never seemed to work anyway.
But that's Realpolitick. My interest swirls around the Looney / neo-socialist Left and there apparent silence about this. After all, these are the same people who protest the capivity of dolphins at Marine Aquarium theme parks and demand that everyone start conforming to their vegan lifestyle in order to "Save the Planet".
Now, don't get me wrong: I have always suspected that there are some true belivers in PETA. They probably saw Disney's Bambi as a impressionable child and thought it a documentary. However, I have also suspected that the vast majority of PETA's members were either using their menbership as a fashion statement or in it as a way to bed the stoopid. Neither of those groups interest me either.
So how come PETA's leadership has not stood by their convictions at started protesting Arafat et al.? I had the same reservations about their veracity when tapes of Iraqi nerve gas experiments on dogs surface a few years ago. Not a peep of protest, certainly not on the scale of the anti-war protest a week ago in Washington and other locations about the country.
What? Too busy protesting Mommy and Daddy's lifestyle to care about anything outside your backyard?
26 Jan 03 dpny
According to published accounts in Israel, Palestinians are now using donkeys are unmanned homicide bombs. While no people were hurt in this barbaric act, one can only wonder two things. A) where is PETA -- that magnificent manifestation of the wacky Left -- now that Yassir Arafat's murderous gangsters are using dumb beasts in their genocidal attacks against Israel? B) Has Arafat -- and the alphabet soup of imitators -- finally run out of foolish teenagers who refuse to die for his personal fiefdom?
Iran used the same "suicide bomber" tactics in their defense of their homeland from Saddam Hussien in that Jimmy Carter backed war back in the 80s. While hundreds initially signed on to die for Islam and crush the infidels, the recruit pool quickly dried up when they realized that the mullahs' kids never signed up. Besides, it never seemed to work anyway.
But that's Realpolitick. My interest swirls around the Looney / neo-socialist Left and there apparent silence about this. After all, these are the same people who protest the capivity of dolphins at Marine Aquarium theme parks and demand that everyone start conforming to their vegan lifestyle in order to "Save the Planet".
Now, don't get me wrong: I have always suspected that there are some true belivers in PETA. They probably saw Disney's Bambi as a impressionable child and thought it a documentary. However, I have also suspected that the vast majority of PETA's members were either using their menbership as a fashion statement or in it as a way to bed the stoopid. Neither of those groups interest me either.
So how come PETA's leadership has not stood by their convictions at started protesting Arafat et al.? I had the same reservations about their veracity when tapes of Iraqi nerve gas experiments on dogs surface a few years ago. Not a peep of protest, certainly not on the scale of the anti-war protest a week ago in Washington and other locations about the country.
What? Too busy protesting Mommy and Daddy's lifestyle to care about anything outside your backyard?
26 Jan 03 dpny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)