UncommonSense

3/1/2002

Daily Read

X-Files moment of the week. But who says these sorts of familial relations are limited only to rednecks in Florida?

Thanks to Buzzflash reader Bill for pointing this out. The Associated Press report I linked to yesterday about the nuclear clock being moved ahead two minutes, didn't do a very good job of reporting why the clock was moved (scroll to bottom). The AP blamed September 11th, when it really had more to do with Bush's unilateralism. Once again, a big Thanks Easter Bunnypants! for bringing cockroaches one step closer to world domination.

Daily Screed

The latest from Paul Krugman:

"Top of the list, surely, is the claim that drilling in ANWR is a national security issue, the key to ending our dependence on imported oil. In fact, the Energy Information Administration's preferred scenario says that even a decade after development begins, ANWR will produce only between 600,000 and 900,000 barrels of oil a day — a small fraction of the 11 million barrels we currently import."

Speaking of national security, this has bothered me for some time, and Mr. Krugman's article served to bring it to the front burner.

The vast majority of our oil comes from politically unstable regions filled with lunatic fundamentalists and terrorists who hate America, like the Middle East, South America, Indonesia, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska.

Our military is powered by oil. Our fighter jets and bombers burn petroleum, tanks burn petroleum, personnel carriers burn petroleum, most of our ships burn petroleum. Without oil from these unstable regions, pretty much the only thing we have left in our aresenal are missiles and nuclear-powered ships.

Isn't it the height of strategic folly to have our military totally dependent on power derived from such vulnerable resources? It would be like Napoleon relying on Russia to supply horses for his cavalry. I'm no expert steeped in military logistics and obscure economic theory, but I do read such classics as Frank Herbert's Dune. In that book, if you'll remember, Paul Muadib says 'he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.' It's no accident or authorial whim that this book is about the struggle for a vital galactic resource available in only one place - a desert.

Shouldn't the military be leading the way in the search for alternative energy? I mean, if I were Patton fighting the Germans in WWII, I'd kill to have tanks that didn't need petroleum to run. That's what stopped the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge - their entire plan hinged on capture of Allied fuel dumps, because they didn't have enough of their own reserves to complete the operation. They failed to capture that fuel, ran out of gas, and were forced to retreat.

That's the weakest part of any military operation, the one most vulnerable to attack, the one way in which a weaker force can paralyze a stronger force - attack their lines of supply, attack their resources. If I can remove one of those vulnerabilities, doesn't that make me stronger, doesn't that free me up to operate in the field with greater flexibility?

So why do our tanks still burn petroleum? Why do our field operations still depend entirely on maintaining lines of supply trucking in thousands of heavy barrels of liquid fuel? Why isn't military science blazing this trail to alternative energy?

It doesn't take a genius to realize the strategic advantage of alternate energy. So what gives?

2/28/2002

Daily Read

To borrow from The Onion, after eight long years of (relative) peace and prosperity, the world has edged back toward nuclear holocaust. Thanks, Easter Bunnypants!

Republican Senators are now grasping at straws, desperate for some way to kill Campaign Finance Reform. To date, they haven't displayed much concern over reforming the way elections are held, until a couple of genius Democratic Senators decided to try to add a little election reform amendment to the finance reform bill currently under consideration in the Senate. Sensing an opportunity to divide and conquer, Republicans immediately took offense and declared it a terrible idea that could derail finance reform. Advice to the Democrats - if you want to reform elections, then write an election reform law (and please provide the funds to pay for enforcement). Leave election reform out of finance reform.

Strange things happen, and not all of them are connected. But it is hard to imagine a way in which these things aren't. There's a Tom Clancy novel playing out in Memphis right now. I keep looking for Jack Ryan to make an appearance.

Mr. Cheney, I think I hear the fat lady clearing her throat.

Why racial profiling of terrorists won't work.

Shopping with Satan? Oh my Lord, what will Betty Bowers have to say about this?

Daily Screed

Now we learn that, not only does the gub'ment have nothing on the prisoners in Guantanamo, they have nothing on anyone they have disappeared here in America, either. With all the increased ability to investigate granted by the USA Patriot Act, the FBI can't find one connection to the September 11th hijackers.

Doesn't this also mean the the USA Patriot Act will do nothing to prevent future acts of terrorism? Since, as the article says, the hijackers entered the country legally and committed no crimes while here, couldn't future terrorists, following the same methods, also escape detection? So remind me again why we surrendered Liberty for Safety?

Or does this mean, just maybe, that the reason they can't find a connection is because the people they think hijacked those planes aren't really the ones who hijacked those planes? Isn't our entire assumption of the perpetrators of that crime based almost solely on the report of a single cell phone call from one the planes describing the hijackers as Arab-looking? I won't go into the conspiracy theories today, because I'm not a compulsive link saver - it will take time to find all the links I need. But still, there are questions that need asking. The first one emerges from the report that started today's screed:

"The hijackers entered the country legally, committed no criminal acts and avoided contacts with people being watched by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement, the officials said."

If this is true, then how did the government produce, within 24 hours, the names and photos of all the hijackers, even though none of them were listed as passengers on those flights?

Call me crazy for wondering.

2/27/2002

Daily Read

How crazy is this? Let's say for some odd reason, the government decides it wants you to disappear, or come in an answer some questions - same thing, really. Now let's say they want to do it when nobody is around to witness your nabbing by the men in black helicopters. Well, with this nifty little device, implanted under your skin - voluntarily, of course, provided you want to keep your job, after all, drug tests are voluntary, too, right? Right? With this little miracle under your skin, they can monitor your movements until you are all by your lonesome self, driving down a road to buy a pack of rubbers, or whatever, to drop down and wrap you in an orange jumpsuit and spirit you away to some island military base. But of course, this device is for your own safety, to help police find you if you are kidnapped. After all, kidnapping is such a major problem here in America, right? Right?

Were you wondering about that 'too-good-to-be-true' photo moment between Sasha Cohen and Bush at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics? Read this. I noticed how, after she sat next to His Majestery, Sasha acted like she thought she was going to win the gold without even having to try. I guess she thought, with friends like Bush and the Cattleman's Association, the fix was in. If it weren't for them damn Canadians, she might have won, too!

The Pentagon has admitted that they have no evidence able to stand up even under their lax 'military tribunal' rules of evidence, which might be used to convict anyone they have captured during the war in Afganistan. So why are they holding those guys in Guantanamo? For shaving their beards?

Daily Screed

Thank God I didn't run out last August and spend that \$600 tax refund of MY MONEY, like the president told me I should. No, instead I put it in the savings account, where it could earn a whopping 1% interest, thanks to Bush's destruction of the economy. Because last night, I did my taxes, and now I have to give MY MONEY back to the government. If I had taken the president's advice and spent it, I would now be \$600 in the hole and scrambling for some way to pay for it just when I need every dime I can scrape together because we are buying a house tomorrow. If I had spent that \$600 last August, like the president advised, on something like a trip to Florida or Texas, I probably would now have to cancel my purchase of a new home.

So remind me again how this tax rebate was supposed to help the economy. If I had spent it, I would not now be purchasing a house. By saving it so that I could give it back to the government, I can now afford to purchase a house.

Yes, by wisely investing in the future, I now have a future. I am pumping into the economy, not a meager \$600, but (over 30 years) close to $300,000. Doesn't this sound like Clinton economics? And doesn't blowing that \$600 on a trip to Disney, even though it squanders future prosperity, sound a lot like voodoo/Reagan/Bush/Enron economics?

When I learned last year that the 'refund' was really an ADVANCE against an expected refund, I tried to tell as many people as I could. Most refused to believe me - after all, Dan Rather told them it was free money. Some people who like to Freep the MWO message board even called me a liar. Well, check out line 47 on your 1040, boys and girls - Unka Dubya needs that money back so he can give rebates to wealthy friends who never paid taxes in the first place. Read Paul Krugman to learn more.

2/26/2002

The Daily Read

Chris Matthews has obviously lost his mind, as he has begun criticizing Bush's war effort.

What do Enron, the CIA, the DEA, Mena airport, Mohammad Attah and Osama bin Laden all have in common? Answer: Rudy Dekkers.

Bush's recent Asia trip is said to be a victory of low expectations. So when is the media going to nail the White House down on what they 'expect' BEFORE they leave?

Think you have Freedom of Speech? Think again.

The Daily Screed

Daniel Pearl is dead. Who did it is important, but just as important is why. Why is a question that's gotten awfully unpopular these days, what with Bush and Cheney warning Congress not to dig too deeply in their investigation of the intelligence failure on September 11th. Everybody wants to find who did it and make them pay, but finding out why and how is called unpatriotic.

In the case of Daniel Pearl, maybe he was kidnapped because they really thought he was from the FBI. After all, there are FBI agents in Pakistan disguised as journalists. Since good journalists (as opposed to the whore media) actually investigate things, just like the FBI investigates things, how exactly is a Pakistani thug supposed to know who is and who isn't an agent?

By pretending to be journalists, the FBI is endangering real journalists. Why can't they pretend to FBI agents? Or is it their plan to make things dangerous for journalists, to keep them away from the dirty little war that is being waged on behalf of Unocal and \$.99/gallon gasoline.

2/25/2002

This is my first entry in what I plan to use to vent my frustrations and stop bothering BartCop with three or four emails a day that he probably doesn't read unless I give them really snappy titles.

This will be like Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points, only not so intelligent or informed.

It will also be like Andrew Sullivan's web site. I figure that whatever Andrew can do, so can I. Except there are some things that Andrew does that you wouldn't catch me doing for a million bucks. Like vote for Bush and support his policies. After all, I have some self respect.