April 2007 Archives

I think a majority of Americans would agree that a preemptive war is justified only against countries that pose an imminent threat to Americans. But what does that mean?

Merriam-Webster's: "ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head". Put another way, a clear and present danger.

Take a look at the novel definition Secretary of State Rice offered yesterday on ABC's This Week:

"I think that -- an imminent threat. Certainly Iraq posed a threat," Rice responds. "The question was, was it going to get worse over time or was it going to get better."

Rice goes on to say that the Bush administration assessment was that the threat from Iraq was "getting worse" and had to be dealt with.

"But [Iraq was] not an imminent threat," presses Stephanopoulous.

"George, the question of imminence isn't whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow," replies Rice. "It was the president's assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse from our point of view."

Lovely. By Rice's standard, a decision to preemptively attack another country hinges not on their capability to strike us, but rather on our capability to strike them.

What's wrong with this picture? First there's the moral considerations of, you know, killing a bunch of people who don't pose an immediate danger to you. Then there's the speculative nature of this policy. Even the best leaders are limited in projecting what risks lie ahead. Clearly, the current White House bunch has demonstrated it's not too accurate in reading the future.

This is important because unexpected developments might help avert a crisis. What if there's a change in power, or a regional shift that lessens hostilities? A dispute which appeared like it could head to confrontation might never reach the tipping point. But using Rice's formulation, a president might decide to launch a war before we even reach such a climax.

Which gets us to Iraq. Even if you buy this imminent threat rationale, the question still stands: why did we have to attack there in the spring of 2003? What was the supposed risk in waiting to attack until 2004? 2005?

Call me a cynic, but I suspect political rather than military considerations prompted the decision. Rice suggests that the president is to assess a threat based his ability to launch a war. Back in 2002/3 America was still coming to terms with 9/11 and there was plenty of ambiguity about Iraq's weapons programs. Had Bush waited, support for his war would have been undermined by a less panicked public and by UN weapon's inspectors busily not finding alleged weapons. So he had to act before the "situation"--i.e., the truth emerging--deteriorated any further.

Yes, this White House can be that twisted.

Really, how stupid does the White House think we are? Here's Deputy Spokesperson Dana Perino:

Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq – and the President listened. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq – and the President will veto its bill.

A baffling statement on several counts:

(1) I thought Mr. Bush didn't listen to polling. I thought Mr. Bush listened to the commanders in the field. Why the change after the election?

(2) I think most Americans know why they voted the way they did. But lest we need a reminder:

[T]the [latest WSJ/NBC news] poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.

I wonder: if a person continues to deny reality for an extended period, does he or she start to believe the fiction? Or does it continue to be a deliberate act?

(3) How is it possible that Democrats can vote for defeat? As far as I knew, major military combat operations in Iraq ended four years ago. That's what Mr. Bush told us. How, then, can defeat even be a possibility now?

If there was ever any question as to whether or not Mrs. Bush was a co-dweller in the President's reality bubble, those doubts were put to rest yesterday:

"No one suffers more than their President and I do when we watch this."

Yes, if there has ever a reluctant warrior occupying the White House, it's been Mr. Bush. The heavy burden of leading the nation into war has visibly weighed on his countenance since 2001. Mindful of the great sacrifice he and Laura are making, he has resorted to using American military force only when it was absolutely the last available option. Who can forget the last hours of the American/Iraqi peace negotiations, when Mr. Bush tearfully plead for Mr. Hussein to give UN inspectors one more chance to search suspected weapons sites? Even today, while Defeatocrats mindlessly call to put more American troops in harm's way, the first family's suffering has been an anchor of restraint amid the clamor for more bloodshed.

Last night I watched part of Bill Moyers' documentary "Buying the War," in which he outlined how most of the mainstream media were willing accomplices in the Bush administration's campaign to launch the Iraq war. Quite a trip down memory lane. From time to time it's enlightening to look back and reflect on how we got where we are today:

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

In this violent age, I'm glad we have a president who truly feels the horror and pain of war. Because that type of commander-in-chief only leads use into war when it's necessary to defend the republic. It's been a blessing, hasn't it?

My sister and family came here last weekend to visit.

Having not spend much time around babies, I found my nephew Seth amusing to watch. He has a five-second attention span (five seconds less than mine) and periodically utters random shrieks. Undoubtedly the novelty of this behavior would wear off if I had to deal with it 24/7, but it's pretty entertaining in short doses.

Click on the image for more pictures of the festivities.

• President Bush: 2006 Elections Were Mandate For "Surge". I think most of the freshman Democrats voted in last November must be surprised to learn today that they owe their seats due to the pro-surge wave that swept the American electorate.

  Bush continues to create his own reality



• In a series of investigative reports, Bill O'Reilly will be educating us how George Soros controls the media and is buying liberal politicians. Stay tuned for shocking exposés on how liberal websites such as Media Matters are undermining the foundation of our republic.


• Seventy-four people killed in an attack on an Ethiopia oil field


• Existing home sales fall in March:"Housing is not anywhere hear a bottom."


• Toyota tops GM in Q1 sales.

This reminds me of when "Brownie" got a vote of confidence:

THE PRESIDENT: The Attorney General went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.

Huh? Was Mr. Bush watching the same hearings that I saw? Oh, apparently not:

Perino later added that Bush did not watch the testimony but received updates from aides.

That might help explain Mr. Bush's bizarre comment. I don't know one could watch Mr. Gonzales claim 70+ times that he couldn't remember events related to the US attorney firings and think he did a good job. Even GOP senators said he should be fired. But the president seems to be creating his own reality now.

On another matter, it's interesting that Mr. Bush, citing the Virginia Tech shootings, elected not to tell any jokes at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. I certainly didn't miss Bush's comedy, and one can make a solid argument that this decision showed respect to the mourning families. But this sense of respect stands in stark contrast to the 2004 dinner, when Mr. Bush joked about not finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thirty-three people died at Virginia Tech; thus far 3,332 Americans have died in Iraq.

I've never done much number crunching on the issue, but it seems sports teams are often the beneficiary of public welfare. Often it comes in the form of stadium subsidies. But there are other ways taxpayers can help sports owners out, as this deal between Nashville and the Predators illustrates:

[Team owner Craig] Leipold told The Tennessean the NHL team averaged about 13,500 in paid attendance for home games this season, which allows them to put the city on notice for next season.

If average paid attendance is below 14,000 next season, the Predators could ask Metro to buy enough tickets to boost the team to that level. If Metro chose not to buy the tickets, the Predators could pay the city an exit fee of about $18 million and leave Nashville.

That sounds like a sweet deal. The team, apparently, is guaranteed a certain level of ticket sales, regardless of its record. The taxpayers stand to lose here, what about the owner(s)? What is his risk? Come to think of it, how often do sports franchises go out of business?

Interesting aspect of this related to the NHL:

One reason the Predators might invoke the clause is that beginning next season, the NHL is requiring teams to reach 13,200 in paid attendance to qualify for the league's full revenue-sharing package. Teams must average at least 14,000 in paid attendance in 2008-09 to qualify for full revenue-sharing benefits.

Seems the league may have over-expanded if it needs to enact attendance incentives. Or tickets simply cost too much for many fans. At any rate, I'm not sure how this requirement helps improve the NHL's competitive balance if the league limits revenue sharing to teams that are already struggling.

The Daily Show pretty well summarizes a day's worth of testimony into a couple minutes:

In short, Alberto Gonzales didn't remember anything, except that he had acted properly. He also apologized for the mistakes that were made, and yet would handle the firings the same way all over again.

You know that things are bad when at least six senators from your own party have called for you to resign. This is reminiscent of when the Harriet Miers nomination blew up; the only person left supporting Bush's guy (or gal) is Bush himself.

Like Atrios, I surprised by the margin of this poll number:

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.

Given election results in a few border districts last November, I'm not necessarily surprised that a majority of Americans support a path toward citizenship, but I am surprised at the 78% number. That's strong support.

If you've only been listening to right-wing radio types the past few years, you would be lead to believe that there's a mass political movement afoot to build a 3,000 mile wall and ramp up deportation. Well, if GOP candidates want to run on American nationalism in 2008, more power to them. I think there's a political reason Karl Rove never went down that path.

I'm not good at reading the public mind, but I suspect this poll question reflects the American realization that:

(1) We have a lot of illegal immigrants,
(2) They're needed to do jobs most Americans don't like,
(3) We aren't going to deport them, so
(4) We might as well work them into the system rather than force them to live as second-class humans.

At least that's my thinking. It's about time we get past this "amnesty" red herring and move forward with a realistic immigration policy.

I don't expect this to become a regular feature, but I have a positive post about Senator Corker. Via the League of American Bicyclists, I sent e-mails to my U.S. Senators and Representative voicing support for the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 (HR 1498, SB. 858). [I'm not a commuter, but I generally support all legislation favorable to cyclists.]

I got an e-mail back from Corker (the only one thus far) which reads, in part:

It is important that we continue to reduce energy consumption when possible, and now is a perfect time for us as a country to really get serious about energy alternatives and conservation. As Mayor of Chattanooga I promoted cycling and created bicycle lanes in our urban areas and wrote a bicycle master plan. I am an avid cyclist myself. I appreciate your interest in a letter being circulated by Senators requesting support for the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007. I have received this letter and as I look into signing it I will certainly consider your thoughts about S. 858 and incentives for bicycle commuters in general.

That sounds like support. Let's hope so. It would be nice to have your senator vote your way every once in a while.

On related note, earlier I posted on the "Jeff Roth Bicycle and Pedalcyclists Protection Act of 2007." It appears that the House and Senate bills have been consolidated and the measure is awaiting passage in the House.

UPDATE: Congressman Duncan mailed a letter suggesting that he also supports the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007.

Perhaps the Imus-inspired, heart-searching national dialog on race relations that the chattering class promised us will resume in a few days. Or maybe not. American Idol is still going, isn't it?

For the time being, MSNBC has short profiles on the VA Tech shooting victims.

Talk Left sensibly points out that now is not the time to debate gun policy. I agree. I've grown weary of news programs filling air time with silly gun control arguments. Sure, there's a time to debate firearms, but it isn't now. The discussion is too colored by this isolated incident. Wait until things cool off and we again have a broader perspective.

A horrible tragedy. The bottom line is that sometimes awful things happen in life and there's not a satisfactory explanation as to why. Sometimes people fail to recognize this.

There's a lot of idle chatter regarding whether or not Virginia Tech handled the situation properly. I'm reserving judgment until more facts come out (interesting concept, cable news). I will say it's a lot easier to fault decision in the hindsight of a disaster than it is to make them in real time with incomplete information.

In the interest of saving many hours of TV airtime, I'll answer a few questions:

--Yes, this could happen at X college. (Whatever your nearby school is.)

--There are no security measures which will stop people intent on going on Kamikaze-style killing sprees.

--No, we don't need metal detectors and other fortress-like security measures on college campuses.

--No, right-wing radio, the fact that the shooter was an alien does not mean international students are about to lay waste to America.

--This could have occurred regardless of what the Blacksburg gun laws are.

--This could have occurred regardless of how many violent movies or video games were sold last year. [Not that those aren't legitimate issues, but speculative cause/effect chatter on these topics before you know anything about the suspect's background is silly.]

A trivial matter in the grand scheme of things, but I thought this clip yesterday afternoon is insightful in how our news media works. Here Wolf Blitzer asks if President Bush will be attending today's ceremony at Virginia Tech:

HENRY: No indication yet. Obviously, that's one event certainly the White House is weighing.

Typically in situations like this, although there's never been anything quite like this on a college campus -- but whenever there's some sort of a disaster or tragedy, the president, and this president in particular, tries to stay away in the early days, let local and state official do what they need to do. And then within a few days he usually goes, after they've had a chance to grieve, but also deal wit situation on the ground -- Wolf.

Huh? Where did reporter Ed Henry get that analysis from? Sounds to me like he merely repeated a talking point the White House floated as it decided whether or not Bush would attend. Anyway, it was obviously wrong. Apparently, Mr. Bush is going to get in the way of local officials doing what they need to do.

I got 8 out of 9 correct on this Pew Research Center news quiz (via Nashville is Talking). I'm too embarrassed to admit which one I got wrong. But I did score at the 91st percentile. Nice to see that all those hours of watching Anna Nicole Smith and American Idol coverage on the cable news channels have finally paid off.

Speaking of news IQ:

A new survey of 1,502 adults released Sunday by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that despite the mass appeal of the Internet and cable news since a previous poll in 1989, Americans' knowledge of national affairs has slipped a little.
. . .
Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report.
. . .
Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly.

Heh.

• South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier calls for the removal of the confederate flag from the state capitol. I agree; it's time to turn the page.
• David Bauder writes on Democratic presidential candidates boycotting Fox News Channel debates:

  The risk to this strategy is it could make the candidates look like, well, weenies.

  "If you can't handle the people at Fox News Channel, it makes people wonder if you can handle the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians and maybe even the Canadians," said Ellis Henican, a Newsday columnist and Fox News contributor.

  To which, if I was in one of the campaigns, I would respond using in-kind rhetoric: "We don't what to reward bad behavior by appearing on Fox News."


• R. Neil notes inefficiency in a ethanol subsidies. Don't forget the higher food prices.


• What is web 2.0? I really don't know. But this video is pretty cool:

Finally we're getting to the heart of the matter. We learn (via Fark) that the real reason Don Imus was fired was because he was about to reveal 9/11 secrets:

In a clear sign of its intent to reign in dissident American media personalities, and their growing influence in American culture, US War Leaders this past week launched an unprecedented attack upon one of their most politically 'connected', and legendary, radio hosts named Don Imus after his threats to release information relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks upon that country.

There you have it.

On a more serious note, I might as well weigh in on this saga.

I note at the outset that I don't feel sorry for Imus. He's been saying stupid and offensive things for years and it finally caught up with him.

That said, I find the media reaction to this to be one of the more interesting angles to the story. As Gwen Ifill pointed out today, we've had elite news and opinion leaders going on air for years as Imus carried on his act, and they hardly said a thing about it. Then, magically, the switched flipped and it suddenly became cool to pile on Imus under the guise of a national discussion on civility/meanness/racism/whatever.

Why were all these people seemingly okay with the coarseness until last week? I heard more than one "journalist" attempt to justify his/her change of heart on the incident after seeing the Rutgers basketball players being paraded before the TV cameras. I'm not sure when we started needing victim impact testimony to determine if a remark was sufficiently offensive or not. What if several Rutgers players had come out and said that Imus' remark didn't bother them at all? Would that have made his comments okay?

Anyway, I'd like to believe that this was truly the start of a national conversation and soul-searching about public racism, mean-spiritedness, and shock radio. But my suspicion is that issue has a shelf-life of no more than three more news cycles or the next media pile on, which ever comes first.

In advance of his congressional testimony this week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has opinion piece in today's Washington Post.

In short, Gonzales says, "I'm sorry you've been so confused about what the Department of Justice did":

What began as a well-intentioned management effort to identify where, among the 93 U.S. attorneys, changes in leadership might benefit the department, and therefore the American people, has become an unintended public controversy.

What Gonzales fails to say, and what has never been satisfactorily explained, is how the firing of these eight U.S. attorneys benefited the Justice Department.

What we do know, or rather all Gonzales thinks we should know, is that the dismissals were not "improper":

I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

That's a unsurprising non-admission.

Even you accept what the Bush administration says at face value--that the attorneys were not fired for political reasons--there's no real way to get around the big "C" word. You know, the issue that's plagued the administration since day one: competence.

Gonzales offers his own indictment:

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

Eight U.S. attorneys were fired, and Gonzales can't remember if he made that decision? Is anyone running the Justice Department? If so, who?

Buried amidst all the Don Imus/Duke lacrosse brouhaha today are two interesting stories regarding the Iraq war effort:

First, a day after President Bush tried to blame Congress for over stretching the military and lengthening troop deployments, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced tours of duty would be extended to 15 months.

Darn those Democrats! If they had only passed a non-restrictive emergency spending bill 12 hours earlier, all of this could be avoided. Now the troops must pay the price.

In another development, the Washington Post revealed that the White House is looking to to create a "War 'Czar'" to handle responsibilities previously managed by the Commander-in-Chief. Here's the money quote:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job.

I don't know that I've ever seen a more succinct summary of the Bush administration's Iraq war management.

Per Kos, Governor Richardson is the only "major" (Democratic) presidential candidate calling for American troops to withdraw completely out of Iraq.

(He actually calls for this to happen within a year, which is easier for him to say because that's before the election.)

This is a nice goal, but I don't think it's a good strategy now. The risks of that country melting down are too great for the U.S. to completely abandon it.

At the same time, following President Bush's "plan" of an indefinite status quo is unworkable; a waste of American life and treasure with no end in sight.

The way out, it seems, lies somewhere in between. A reasonable plan involves the following:

(1) A drastic downscaling of the American presence. Iraqis have to take charge of their own security. Yesterday. It's their country; they've got to work their problems out. It's become obvious that the issues plaguing Iraq will continue to simmer just below the surface as long as the U.S. military continues babysitting the country. Moreover, we cannot afford to maintain this a failed nation building-via-military-force policy. Ultimately, 150,000 American troops are not going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, no matter how hard they try. The solution has to come from the Iraqi people.

(2) Maintenance of a safety net. That said, in the near-term America must maintain a force there in case the bottom drops out. I'm not a military strategist, so I don't know exactly how many would be needed. I assume at a minimum we'll need something like 30,000 troops there for the next three years to dose fires. This doesn't need to be a highly visible force, subject to danger, but it probably needs to be there to ensure stability.

I ride my bike on Cherokee Boulevard fairly often. For those unfamiliar with the area, it's a 2.6 mile divided road that goes through a residential area and along the Tennessee River. It's one of the more popular spots in Knoxville for cyclists, joggers, and walkers. There's a park bordering the water.

I like riding there because: (1) the traffic is relatively safer (slower paced with room for vehicles to pass), and (2) it has a mixture of hills and flats. Did I mention the female joggers? I typically do several out-and-backs.

Yesterday I took my camera along and took a few pictures of what was left of the spring blossoms. I should have done this last week, as the weekend freeze really took a toll on the colors. But here's what was left.

Click on the picture to see the album.

I'm using an old computer that had 256 MB RAM. Rightly or wrongly, I decided that adding more RAM might help speed some tasks up. I got on eBay and ordered a 512 MB stick of Kingston. It arrived today, and I just installed it.

It took me two attempts to get the machine running. The first time started it the computer simply sat there beeping. Apparently, I didn't have the memory sticks securely latched in their slots. I tried again and it now works.

Conclusions:

(1) Too early to tell how it affects system speed. I haven't done memory intensive tasks yet.

(2) Whoever designed inside the computer box sure didn't allow very much room for your hands when installing more memory.

(3) It sure does get dusty inside a computer if you don't clean it for a few years.

This weekend, after the our service, I dropped by a reception for an in-coming associate pastor and his wife. I don't recall meeting either of them before.

Both of them were greeting people at a receiving line. As I reached her (first), I extended my hand and prepared to introduce myself.

"You're Brian, right?" she asked.

"Yes," I said. more than a little surprised.

"Didn't you major in business or long-term health care?" she followed up.

"No, but I did take a few classes from that department."

"My roommate was in a class with you."

"Oh, who was that?"

"Lisa ___."

"Sorry, I don't recall her."

[Bear in mind that I graduated from college over ten years ago.]

Then I greeted the pastor.

"Hi Brian."

"Hi," I laughed

"I believe I talked to your dad earlier."

I wondered how he knew me. Apparently, he was a freshman in college the year I graduated.

Either these people have a freakish memory, or there's an FBI file out on me. Anyway, the contrast highlights how bad I am when I meet people. Here's me trying to get to know someone:

"Yeah, I know you told me what your name was five minutes ago, but can you repeat it?"

Yes, it's that bad.

Funny how human memory works.

On Tuesday I did my second annual spring ride up the Cherohala Skyway. I rode from Tellico Plains, TN, (900 feet) up to Santeetlah overlook, NC, (5,390 ft) and back.

It was a great day to be out riding. The bank sign said it was 79F when I started. That's a bit too warm for the first few miles of climbing, but it felt pretty good above 3,000 ft. Since it was an April weekday, there was hardly any traffic to content with. I largely had the road to myself.

The ride starts with an easy and scenic five-mile stretch along the Tellico River. Then the climb gets nasty. I estimate that 20-22 of the next 25 miles is uphill, much of it at 5%+.

It's because it's early in the season (I haven't done much climbing), I'm out of shape, or what, but I thought about mailing it in several times the during the last ten miles. Time also became an issue--I wanted to get back to see the Lady Vols play in the NCAA championship.

Anyway, I tapped into my determination reservoir and made it to the top in 2:30. It was cloudy up there, but fortunately it wasn't too windy; otherwise I might of gotten cold. Interestingly, the major annoyance turned out to be insects. I didn't expect them at that elevation in early April, but they were all over as soon as I stopped.

I had a quick energy snack and headed back west. Fortunately, it's almost all downhill, because my legs started cramping. There's four or five notable uphill stretches on the descent, and a couple times I thought I might have to stop because my muscles were acting up.

But I had just enough to work through it. I rolled back into Tellico Plains at 7:30 p.m., completing another great day on the bike.

Ride statistics

--Distance: 61.3 miles
--Riding time: 3:57:30
--Average speed: 15.4 mph
--Fastest speed: 42 mph

Congratulations to the Lady Vols for winning their seventh national championship!

Time flies, doesn't it? Back when the Lady Vols won their third consecutive national championship in 1998, I didn't imagine it would be nine years until their next one. I was started to wonder if there would be another one.

But everything fell into place this year. First with the other top seeds being knocked out in the Dayton region. Then with two gutty, defensive performances in the Final Four. As poorly as their offense was playing, I didn't think they could overcome a double-digit deficit against UNC in eight minutes. But they did. Then they out-hustled Rutgers to claim the title.

Way to bring another trophy home to UT!