...Let me tell you a thing or two about sweating a year off of a person's life worrying. I BEGGED you in '05 to come to my house. And let the record show that yes, historically speaking Titus' old house had never flooded before, the road (the ONLY ROAD) that led in or out of the sub-division you lived in flooded DURING ROUTINE AFTERNOON SHOWERS! Never mind a Cat 3 or higher.
I may add that with the two, maybe three feeder bands we've seen so far, I'll put money that road over in Ocean Springs is flooded now. And we still have 15-18 hours till landfall.
It was never my intent to stay in the apartment, but now that the worry is over and it's three hours from Labor Day, does Big Business have a responsibility to its regional workforce concerning issues like catastrophic weather or name your evacuation type concerns. It's no different than where Titus is in the event of a serious blizzard. Or is it the job of the Feds to make sure the concerns and needs of the "common person" are addressed?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
You're old enough to drink, drive and vote...
... but if you see that storm track move even 30 miles east, you have another Katrina or worse. I'm not listening to EITHER of you tell me that you have "seen far worse" in the past... the tracks aren't the Hoover Dam, and your window is the first thing the water is moving into if it goes over the tracks.
I understand that a trip to MN or PA is as much as hassle as a blessing, but no one is asking you to leave on a 20-hour drive. Get in the SUV, drive 4 hours north on state and county roads, ride out the remainder of the weather, and drive back south when its well inland.
Don't stay in the apartment, man... it's on the first floor with NO WHERE TO GO if the water is high. Just four hours north, and none of your family or friends need sweat a year off their lives worrying about your sorry ass.
You better be planning for the worst... that's all I have to say.
I understand that a trip to MN or PA is as much as hassle as a blessing, but no one is asking you to leave on a 20-hour drive. Get in the SUV, drive 4 hours north on state and county roads, ride out the remainder of the weather, and drive back south when its well inland.
Don't stay in the apartment, man... it's on the first floor with NO WHERE TO GO if the water is high. Just four hours north, and none of your family or friends need sweat a year off their lives worrying about your sorry ass.
You better be planning for the worst... that's all I have to say.
Hopefully this WON'T be my last post for a while...
... But Baddboy has been ordered out of the area effective immediately. So we may not hear from him for a little while.
My casino is actively shutting down now, with complete gaming floor projected done by 3:00 AM and guest evac from the hotel by 7 AM. Or 9 depending on who you listen to. My room mate Leona is not so fortunate, and that leads to my rant for the evening.
Around this same time three years ago we DID NOT evacuate because by the time the casinos shut down, the interstates and highways were locked solid. Contraflow from LA begins in 90 minutes from me typing now. My chances of going north by the usual routes are nil. Going east to I 65 and eventually PA are severely hampered by the estimated 1 million people getting out of Louisiana. From Baton Rouge down to Morgan City to the MS border if they can't get north they're coming at us.
Had the casinos shut down as promised in our post Katrina world 72 hours before projected landfall, I'd be gone by now. As it stands landfall is noonish Monday. I'm inside a 36 hour window and it's looking bleak.
Just for reference sake, Had they shut this bitch down noon Friday, or 72 hours before projected landfall, I'd be IN PA right now or MN.
Someone tell me who is responsible for this? Is it the gaming commission? Is it the individual companies? Haley Barbour?
I do not think a union could have expedited this process any but times like this make me wonder at the callous and absolute uncaring nature of big business towards the "common person."
I don't need FEMA, I don't need big government hand outs or programs, but I would like the ability to take care of myself. And if that means government oversight for shutting down industry so I can TAKE care of myself, then so be it.
My casino is actively shutting down now, with complete gaming floor projected done by 3:00 AM and guest evac from the hotel by 7 AM. Or 9 depending on who you listen to. My room mate Leona is not so fortunate, and that leads to my rant for the evening.
Around this same time three years ago we DID NOT evacuate because by the time the casinos shut down, the interstates and highways were locked solid. Contraflow from LA begins in 90 minutes from me typing now. My chances of going north by the usual routes are nil. Going east to I 65 and eventually PA are severely hampered by the estimated 1 million people getting out of Louisiana. From Baton Rouge down to Morgan City to the MS border if they can't get north they're coming at us.
Had the casinos shut down as promised in our post Katrina world 72 hours before projected landfall, I'd be gone by now. As it stands landfall is noonish Monday. I'm inside a 36 hour window and it's looking bleak.
Just for reference sake, Had they shut this bitch down noon Friday, or 72 hours before projected landfall, I'd be IN PA right now or MN.
Someone tell me who is responsible for this? Is it the gaming commission? Is it the individual companies? Haley Barbour?
I do not think a union could have expedited this process any but times like this make me wonder at the callous and absolute uncaring nature of big business towards the "common person."
I don't need FEMA, I don't need big government hand outs or programs, but I would like the ability to take care of myself. And if that means government oversight for shutting down industry so I can TAKE care of myself, then so be it.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Mrs. Palin goes to Washington
And I mean that in the truest sense of the expression, she IS the female version of Jimmy Stewart's character. She goes from the PTA to city council woman to mayor of a 9,000 person town, to governor, now to VP running mate.
Kudos to Titus for putting her on the short list within our forum, I certainly did not. I just witnessed her speech and let me tell you, I like her a lot. And get this, the Obama camp and their surrogates are attacking her for every reason middle America will love her - she's a outsider/hockey mom/Moose hunter/fiscal conservative/pro-lifer! The opposition actually criticized her for her small town roots - they truly don't "get" that patch of earth between New York and California. And my FAVORITE critique is the Obama press release that chastises McCain for putting a person "with limited experience a heart beat away from the presidency." HAAAA! Limited experience is their chief beef? You've got to be kidding me. And did you see that family? They looked like they walked out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Oh, and that 5 month old baby they have, has Down Syndrome. Contrast that with Obama's only association with a Down Syndrome baby. And their eldest son joined the army on 9/11/07. You couldn't write fiction better then this. And this puts energy on the table which has been a political loser for Democrats all year.
Its a fantastic pick. You gotta love Mac's thinking on this - a runner up to Miss Alaska, NRA card carrying, state chief executive that puts the issues of energy, experience and reform on the table (reform read: she's the one that helped kill "the bridge to no where" and directed the AG to investigate corruption by members in her own state party). Not to mention she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. Which means she can effectively communicate her ideas - you don't get an approval rating like that by allowing your opponents to define you, that's for certain.
The base is fired up on talk radio and the blogs. The crowd she addressed was bursting with energy, it's a great momentum swing for MAC, and my favorite part of all? Twice during the first ever McCain-Palin rally in Ohio this morning, the entire (large) crowd broke into a a clear chant ... not "yes we can", not "we need change", not even their candidates name, but rather echoing through the chambers and hallways in that auditorium in middle America one could hear the deafening cry "U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A ......." Find me an Obama rally where THAT has ever happened.
Kudos to Titus for putting her on the short list within our forum, I certainly did not. I just witnessed her speech and let me tell you, I like her a lot. And get this, the Obama camp and their surrogates are attacking her for every reason middle America will love her - she's a outsider/hockey mom/Moose hunter/fiscal conservative/pro-lifer! The opposition actually criticized her for her small town roots - they truly don't "get" that patch of earth between New York and California. And my FAVORITE critique is the Obama press release that chastises McCain for putting a person "with limited experience a heart beat away from the presidency." HAAAA! Limited experience is their chief beef? You've got to be kidding me. And did you see that family? They looked like they walked out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Oh, and that 5 month old baby they have, has Down Syndrome. Contrast that with Obama's only association with a Down Syndrome baby. And their eldest son joined the army on 9/11/07. You couldn't write fiction better then this. And this puts energy on the table which has been a political loser for Democrats all year.
Its a fantastic pick. You gotta love Mac's thinking on this - a runner up to Miss Alaska, NRA card carrying, state chief executive that puts the issues of energy, experience and reform on the table (reform read: she's the one that helped kill "the bridge to no where" and directed the AG to investigate corruption by members in her own state party). Not to mention she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. Which means she can effectively communicate her ideas - you don't get an approval rating like that by allowing your opponents to define you, that's for certain.
The base is fired up on talk radio and the blogs. The crowd she addressed was bursting with energy, it's a great momentum swing for MAC, and my favorite part of all? Twice during the first ever McCain-Palin rally in Ohio this morning, the entire (large) crowd broke into a a clear chant ... not "yes we can", not "we need change", not even their candidates name, but rather echoing through the chambers and hallways in that auditorium in middle America one could hear the deafening cry "U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A ......." Find me an Obama rally where THAT has ever happened.
My response...
I don't know.
I am absolutely positive that there are historical examples of the FBI and numerous (probably ALL) local and State agencies using under-cover techniques to find intel about suspected terrorist groups within the US. The "neo-Nazis", the Klan, the Black Panthers, SDS, the Weathermen, etc. ALL had domestic intelligence services investigating them from the inside and the outside. More recently, the radical "militias" and fundamental Islamic groups here in the US have also had their share of "spies" I'm sure.
The powers of the Federal Law Enforcement agencies are broad and rather sweeping, to the best of my knowledge, especially since 9-11. States have their investigative powers defined by both the US Constitution and their own State Constitutions... and most are also quite broad.
Was it "constitutional" for the FBI to investigate and infiltrate organizations like MLK's inner circles, or to arrest and hold thousands of Americans ONLY because they were of Japanese or German decent? Probably not... but what much of America forgets is that since 1921, the US Federal court system has determined that "evidence" in a criminal investigation that is obtained illegally (i.e. "fruit of the poisoned tree") CANNOT be used against those being investigated... not EVER.
Now, some officials have said that simply "breaking the silence" is enough to stop a criminal action from happening. I take this to mean that it is often enough to bring the criminals to "light" through the investigative process, even if the evidence can't be used in a prosecution. I don't know enough about this to judge... so I leave it to my State Attorney General and local D.A.s. If the problem is solved even without a court case, I'm fine with that. That's how they got Capone, after all.
It doesn't matter to me that the most radical mosques in America are investigated to ensure that they are NOT cooperating with terrorists... as long as Christian churches that promote violence against American medical facilities that perform abortions are also investigated just as vigorously, or that Christian churches that promote violence against US Armed Forces veterans because of their service (like that one in Kansas) is also investigated to the fullest extent of the Law. It is the role of the Federal Government to ensure domestic security and tranquility... and having a mosque or a church that actively works to hurt this nation or its citizens falls under this jurisdiction.
I am absolutely positive that there are historical examples of the FBI and numerous (probably ALL) local and State agencies using under-cover techniques to find intel about suspected terrorist groups within the US. The "neo-Nazis", the Klan, the Black Panthers, SDS, the Weathermen, etc. ALL had domestic intelligence services investigating them from the inside and the outside. More recently, the radical "militias" and fundamental Islamic groups here in the US have also had their share of "spies" I'm sure.
The powers of the Federal Law Enforcement agencies are broad and rather sweeping, to the best of my knowledge, especially since 9-11. States have their investigative powers defined by both the US Constitution and their own State Constitutions... and most are also quite broad.
Was it "constitutional" for the FBI to investigate and infiltrate organizations like MLK's inner circles, or to arrest and hold thousands of Americans ONLY because they were of Japanese or German decent? Probably not... but what much of America forgets is that since 1921, the US Federal court system has determined that "evidence" in a criminal investigation that is obtained illegally (i.e. "fruit of the poisoned tree") CANNOT be used against those being investigated... not EVER.
Now, some officials have said that simply "breaking the silence" is enough to stop a criminal action from happening. I take this to mean that it is often enough to bring the criminals to "light" through the investigative process, even if the evidence can't be used in a prosecution. I don't know enough about this to judge... so I leave it to my State Attorney General and local D.A.s. If the problem is solved even without a court case, I'm fine with that. That's how they got Capone, after all.
It doesn't matter to me that the most radical mosques in America are investigated to ensure that they are NOT cooperating with terrorists... as long as Christian churches that promote violence against American medical facilities that perform abortions are also investigated just as vigorously, or that Christian churches that promote violence against US Armed Forces veterans because of their service (like that one in Kansas) is also investigated to the fullest extent of the Law. It is the role of the Federal Government to ensure domestic security and tranquility... and having a mosque or a church that actively works to hurt this nation or its citizens falls under this jurisdiction.
Here's a question for you...
An historical point, if you may.
I was listening to the radio coming home, listening to the chief prosecutor against the "blind sheik" whose crimes against America are long and distinguished. The host wanted to know if the FBI had a plan, an intelligence gathering system in the mosques of America.
The author, a certain Andrew McCarthy, said not really, that intelligence gathering for the sake of having intelligence as opposed to gathering facts for a criminal case, was not the FBI's cup of tea. (My words, not his.)
Which brings me to the question. If domestic intelligence gathering by the federal government is illegal, intelligence gathering for the sake of gathering intelligence, not necessarily targeting specific individuals in a sense of criminal investigation, is it illegal for a private business to do so, contracted by the federal government?
Because if it is, the Pinkertons were illegal as hell.
I personally do not believe that it is illegal for intel to be gathered. (I.E. someone on a 21st century Pinkerton payroll joins a mosque and delivers reports on what is discussed there.) With certain government nods, the signal gathering (i.e. cell phone listening, internet monitoring) aspect of the operation could also "legally" be handled by this 21st century Pinkerton.
Is it legal?
If so, do you think it's necessary?
I was listening to the radio coming home, listening to the chief prosecutor against the "blind sheik" whose crimes against America are long and distinguished. The host wanted to know if the FBI had a plan, an intelligence gathering system in the mosques of America.
The author, a certain Andrew McCarthy, said not really, that intelligence gathering for the sake of having intelligence as opposed to gathering facts for a criminal case, was not the FBI's cup of tea. (My words, not his.)
Which brings me to the question. If domestic intelligence gathering by the federal government is illegal, intelligence gathering for the sake of gathering intelligence, not necessarily targeting specific individuals in a sense of criminal investigation, is it illegal for a private business to do so, contracted by the federal government?
Because if it is, the Pinkertons were illegal as hell.
I personally do not believe that it is illegal for intel to be gathered. (I.E. someone on a 21st century Pinkerton payroll joins a mosque and delivers reports on what is discussed there.) With certain government nods, the signal gathering (i.e. cell phone listening, internet monitoring) aspect of the operation could also "legally" be handled by this 21st century Pinkerton.
Is it legal?
If so, do you think it's necessary?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Constitution guarantees the persuit ...
... but Obama has GUARANTEED the results.
FIRST - did you see the Mac commercial just now? He stopped and acknowledged Obama's historic achievement on the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream Speech." He said, "Too often the achievements of our opponents go unacknowledged. Tomorrow we will be back at it, but tonight, job well done." That was the entire commercial. NowTHAT'S class.
Fantastic observation about "proletariat language." It wreaked with "workers of the world unite."By my count every time he said "compassion" or "dignity" it cost us another 10 billion.
One other observation - his intro biography and various references about his past during the speech. It wasn't his. He talked about his grandfather, grandmother, even astronauts, but none of those were his experiences. Even at the end he quoted MLK , and the Bible (of course he had to call it "scripture" so as make it seem like some distant fictional account written in calligraphy). His resume is razor thin so he's borrowing a little here, a little there. If I were Mac I'd have about a half hour bio intro - that oughta get us to his POW years.
Oh - and he criticized Mac for being in the Senate for 23 years, the classic "insider" reference. Hmmm ... what was the name of that guy that's been in the Senate for 36 years? ... hold on, I'll think of it ... rhymes with Moe Giden .......
The bottom line is that he's an unabashed socialist with excellent speech giving abilities whose relationship and views on America have been "odd" to say the least.
On Mac's challenge, no one has ever doubted Barak's speech giving abilities. Give him a prompter and 80 thousand people and he'll knock some socks off. However, the 2 "Town-Hall" meetings with Mac are his Achilles heel. Intimate settings will crush him ... they force him to be somewhat specific, and no socialist running for PoTUS can afford to do that.
He'll lose by ten points.
FIRST - did you see the Mac commercial just now? He stopped and acknowledged Obama's historic achievement on the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream Speech." He said, "Too often the achievements of our opponents go unacknowledged. Tomorrow we will be back at it, but tonight, job well done." That was the entire commercial. NowTHAT'S class.
Fantastic observation about "proletariat language." It wreaked with "workers of the world unite."By my count every time he said "compassion" or "dignity" it cost us another 10 billion.
One other observation - his intro biography and various references about his past during the speech. It wasn't his. He talked about his grandfather, grandmother, even astronauts, but none of those were his experiences. Even at the end he quoted MLK , and the Bible (of course he had to call it "scripture" so as make it seem like some distant fictional account written in calligraphy). His resume is razor thin so he's borrowing a little here, a little there. If I were Mac I'd have about a half hour bio intro - that oughta get us to his POW years.
Oh - and he criticized Mac for being in the Senate for 23 years, the classic "insider" reference. Hmmm ... what was the name of that guy that's been in the Senate for 36 years? ... hold on, I'll think of it ... rhymes with Moe Giden .......
The bottom line is that he's an unabashed socialist with excellent speech giving abilities whose relationship and views on America have been "odd" to say the least.
On Mac's challenge, no one has ever doubted Barak's speech giving abilities. Give him a prompter and 80 thousand people and he'll knock some socks off. However, the 2 "Town-Hall" meetings with Mac are his Achilles heel. Intimate settings will crush him ... they force him to be somewhat specific, and no socialist running for PoTUS can afford to do that.
He'll lose by ten points.
C'mon, Barry!
Sheesh... B. H. Obama's been reading the blog.
He's obviously a HUGE fan of "New Deal '08" huh? Federalize the education system. National programs to institute alternative fuel production and distribution. Tax cuts for the "small business" and an end to Capital Gains for 90% of "working-class" Americans (I'm thinking 90% of working-class Americans never see a "capital gains" anything...). Ready to hold "Big Business" accountable for the treatment and compensation of the workers.
He successes tonight? Taking a "moderate" position in his speech. Yes, he used terms like "cut taxes" and "help small business" to appeal to the moderates still waving between Mac and him, and it will pay off, I do not doubt.
His failures? He forgot to remove the "prolitariate" language from his speech. He used words like "workers", "oppressed", "down-trodden", "fair labor practices" FAR too much. Lenin hardly made that much of a "workers unite!" speech.
Still, it was a good speech, and Mac will ahve his work cut out for him to beat it.
He's obviously a HUGE fan of "New Deal '08" huh? Federalize the education system. National programs to institute alternative fuel production and distribution. Tax cuts for the "small business" and an end to Capital Gains for 90% of "working-class" Americans (I'm thinking 90% of working-class Americans never see a "capital gains" anything...). Ready to hold "Big Business" accountable for the treatment and compensation of the workers.
He successes tonight? Taking a "moderate" position in his speech. Yes, he used terms like "cut taxes" and "help small business" to appeal to the moderates still waving between Mac and him, and it will pay off, I do not doubt.
His failures? He forgot to remove the "prolitariate" language from his speech. He used words like "workers", "oppressed", "down-trodden", "fair labor practices" FAR too much. Lenin hardly made that much of a "workers unite!" speech.
Still, it was a good speech, and Mac will ahve his work cut out for him to beat it.
I hear you, guys...
Knowing that I am 1,200 miles from the Coast, even I am glued to the TV/computer watching the projections roll by.
Like Baddboy, I think I could handle the storm itself. Even the 12 hours that Katrina sat on the Coast was almost bearable compared to the two weeks immediately following the storm. I recall trying to sleep in 98 degree temps on a wet, stinking mattress that first night after the storm (after being up more than 24 hours previously) that I would have killed for the opportunity to simply plug in a small fan... just ONE... so that I could sleep just a few hours. The heat, the stink, the humidity... and I couldn't even shower or bathe except in a bucket in the back yard. Hell, I even had to use a bucket as a toilet for the first 14 days!
Nope. I'm GLAD I'm not there.
Like Baddboy, I think I could handle the storm itself. Even the 12 hours that Katrina sat on the Coast was almost bearable compared to the two weeks immediately following the storm. I recall trying to sleep in 98 degree temps on a wet, stinking mattress that first night after the storm (after being up more than 24 hours previously) that I would have killed for the opportunity to simply plug in a small fan... just ONE... so that I could sleep just a few hours. The heat, the stink, the humidity... and I couldn't even shower or bathe except in a bucket in the back yard. Hell, I even had to use a bucket as a toilet for the first 14 days!
Nope. I'm GLAD I'm not there.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I think I'm going to be sick ...
All in the same week:
1.) The DNC Convention.
2.) I put a 2 foot scratch down the side of my NEW truck! It's gonna cost me $500! Man I used some adjectives on that day!
3.) My good bud and countless other family members are facing ANOTHER storm!
4.) The DNC convention .... (again).
"Didn't we just do this?" is right Jambo. If you have to go to PA I almost wish I could get off work. I can taste the Stella already ... put on your Marlon Brando face - STELLA! Maybe I could if I wasn't spending my money scratching up my truck ... in a hurry for work no less. All the damn construction in this town and I decide to chance a safety fence opening near the employee enterance and several cuss words later Ryan learns a hard lesson which has eluded him low these many years - leave for work earlier!!!!
At any rate, I'm sure if you ride it out and have to deal with some version of a post-storm South MS that Biden and Obama will be there handing out water bottles, in the middle of the RNC convention no less - you can't make this stuff up! Maybe you can get your copy of "The Audacity of Hope" autographed and tell him that because of your big brother gay and lesbian issues are of paramount importance to you .... he,he,he. I still wish I would of snapped a shot at the front of that hardware store.
Just kidding around - I figured even in the middle of storm prep you would HAVE to stop and laugh at a "gay-Titus" joke ..... ha!
Keep in touch and if you get a hankering, Vegas is always open to South Mississippi storm refugees!
1.) The DNC Convention.
2.) I put a 2 foot scratch down the side of my NEW truck! It's gonna cost me $500! Man I used some adjectives on that day!
3.) My good bud and countless other family members are facing ANOTHER storm!
4.) The DNC convention .... (again).
"Didn't we just do this?" is right Jambo. If you have to go to PA I almost wish I could get off work. I can taste the Stella already ... put on your Marlon Brando face - STELLA! Maybe I could if I wasn't spending my money scratching up my truck ... in a hurry for work no less. All the damn construction in this town and I decide to chance a safety fence opening near the employee enterance and several cuss words later Ryan learns a hard lesson which has eluded him low these many years - leave for work earlier!!!!
At any rate, I'm sure if you ride it out and have to deal with some version of a post-storm South MS that Biden and Obama will be there handing out water bottles, in the middle of the RNC convention no less - you can't make this stuff up! Maybe you can get your copy of "The Audacity of Hope" autographed and tell him that because of your big brother gay and lesbian issues are of paramount importance to you .... he,he,he. I still wish I would of snapped a shot at the front of that hardware store.
Just kidding around - I figured even in the middle of storm prep you would HAVE to stop and laugh at a "gay-Titus" joke ..... ha!
Keep in touch and if you get a hankering, Vegas is always open to South Mississippi storm refugees!
Man oh Man...Here we go again
Hey Titus, you are the man and thanks for the invite. For right now the wife wants to stay put. I'm not so sure so I'm getting the trailer ready for a road trip and starting tomorrow going into lock down at Casa De Badboy. I hate to use these terms in a public forum but "THIS BLOWS MONKEY BALLS"!!!!!
I don't think I can do this again, I'm not usually one to sweat this kind of stuff and usually take it in stride but if we get butt wiped again I can't stay. I can't go back to Vegas, the work was great and my wife has some of the best connections in the city but not Vegas. NEPA might be nice but I'm thinking maybe Oregon or Washington. We have a new grand daughter in Washington and the humidity is manageable. The biggest problem is finding work, well good paying work.
I'm not to worried about a job in the immediate. I'm on orders until the end of October and then the problems would kick in but for now....well who knows. I'm just a rambling fool.
Guess we'll just have to watch the gulf coasts favorite TV channel and see which way this monster is going to go.
For those of us that pray, pray this thing does as little damage as possible no matter which way it turns.
I don't think I can do this again, I'm not usually one to sweat this kind of stuff and usually take it in stride but if we get butt wiped again I can't stay. I can't go back to Vegas, the work was great and my wife has some of the best connections in the city but not Vegas. NEPA might be nice but I'm thinking maybe Oregon or Washington. We have a new grand daughter in Washington and the humidity is manageable. The biggest problem is finding work, well good paying work.
I'm not to worried about a job in the immediate. I'm on orders until the end of October and then the problems would kick in but for now....well who knows. I'm just a rambling fool.
Guess we'll just have to watch the gulf coasts favorite TV channel and see which way this monster is going to go.
For those of us that pray, pray this thing does as little damage as possible no matter which way it turns.
A note to Democrats....
If you drink at that altitude, you may become interesting!
Stephen Colbert, 8/25/08
Man that guy is funny!
Anyway, depending on which route is available to us, it's either Minnesota or PA. Haven't heard from Baddboy yet but he's got evacuation in style down to a science in the form of a kick ass trailer fully equipped with TVs, satellite, generators and all the creature comforts. There's a dog house a person could grow to love! If he decides to drive the 1250 miles to PA... Well, then you can meet this champion of snow covered piles of poop!
By the way, Baddboy... Two Sundays into CCD and I'm 2 for 2 on Martin Luther jabs. GOD I love my job!
Anyway, the stress of watching the weather channel and weather underground.com constantly is beginning to crack me. Tomorrow I'm 7 crazy for poker pit 6, Friday I'm a ten hour 5 bj pit 3, and after that I'm more than likely a refugee. Again.
Damn it. Didn't we JUST do this?
Stephen Colbert, 8/25/08
Man that guy is funny!
Anyway, depending on which route is available to us, it's either Minnesota or PA. Haven't heard from Baddboy yet but he's got evacuation in style down to a science in the form of a kick ass trailer fully equipped with TVs, satellite, generators and all the creature comforts. There's a dog house a person could grow to love! If he decides to drive the 1250 miles to PA... Well, then you can meet this champion of snow covered piles of poop!
By the way, Baddboy... Two Sundays into CCD and I'm 2 for 2 on Martin Luther jabs. GOD I love my job!
Anyway, the stress of watching the weather channel and weather underground.com constantly is beginning to crack me. Tomorrow I'm 7 crazy for poker pit 6, Friday I'm a ten hour 5 bj pit 3, and after that I'm more than likely a refugee. Again.
Damn it. Didn't we JUST do this?
The Devil is moving UP to the Coast...
I will be damned, but nearly 3 years to the DAY after "the Storm", Jambo and Baddboy are looking at the very real possibility of another... Gustav.
Strengthening back to a Cat 3 by Sunday, and most projections putting it only 200 miles south of New Orleans, I'd say that by Mon-Tues, Jambo and Baddboy will be VERY busy. 3 of 5 of the computer models have it strengthening to a Cat 4 or bigger before it gets to the mainland.
Jindal has promised to not leave LA if the storm even LOOKS like its going to hit the Coast... even if it means he misses the RNC. He has 700+ buses ready to evacuate all of New Orleans (starting Friday, if need be) and ALL the Coast states have the "contra-flow" Interstate Highway plan in place and ready to roll.
How's this for interesting? "Gustav" and "Katrina"? BOTH names with definite Swedish origins. This is the "European" connection to the "Bush caused Katrina" conspiracy we hear so much about, even now. There is OBVIOUSLY a link between really devestating storms hitting the US and Sweden (a member of the EU, but a nation that STILL flatly refuses to join or participate in NATO operations, the Iraq effort, Afghanistan, and is a firm supporter of "dialog" with Iran.
Seriously... I know neither of you guys want to be there for the storm, or the immediate aftermath... and my house is always open and the beer flows quite freely (just ask James or Ryan). Bring the kids, the pets, and some sleeping bags, and ride out the storm in comfort and style.
There is NO rule written that says you can only have a "hurricane" party in hurricane country... NEPA is due for a bash!
Strengthening back to a Cat 3 by Sunday, and most projections putting it only 200 miles south of New Orleans, I'd say that by Mon-Tues, Jambo and Baddboy will be VERY busy. 3 of 5 of the computer models have it strengthening to a Cat 4 or bigger before it gets to the mainland.
Jindal has promised to not leave LA if the storm even LOOKS like its going to hit the Coast... even if it means he misses the RNC. He has 700+ buses ready to evacuate all of New Orleans (starting Friday, if need be) and ALL the Coast states have the "contra-flow" Interstate Highway plan in place and ready to roll.
How's this for interesting? "Gustav" and "Katrina"? BOTH names with definite Swedish origins. This is the "European" connection to the "Bush caused Katrina" conspiracy we hear so much about, even now. There is OBVIOUSLY a link between really devestating storms hitting the US and Sweden (a member of the EU, but a nation that STILL flatly refuses to join or participate in NATO operations, the Iraq effort, Afghanistan, and is a firm supporter of "dialog" with Iran.
Seriously... I know neither of you guys want to be there for the storm, or the immediate aftermath... and my house is always open and the beer flows quite freely (just ask James or Ryan). Bring the kids, the pets, and some sleeping bags, and ride out the storm in comfort and style.
There is NO rule written that says you can only have a "hurricane" party in hurricane country... NEPA is due for a bash!
Monday, August 25, 2008
The devil went down to Denver.
Ahhhh ... so the collective masochism of about 50% of the nation begins tonight. Kicked off with none other then Michelle Obama in prime time.
****
First to Jambo - I've got a solution. Move to Vegas, it NEVER rains here! Assuming of course that you can bring the kids, forgo any memory of the color green, learn to speak Spanish, pay triple for everything, and embrace year round schooling that is ..... in other words, be thankful that out of us three YOU were able to reamain and make a life in the place I still (and will always) consider "home." By the way, I received my clothes but I had to put down the pigeon. Poor bastard must have hit Nevada by way of Tel Aviv...
****
Titus ... I CAN NOT believe that at this late date you have posted a grand total of ONE commentary on Russia (alright, maybe two). I know I covered the situation extensively, so I can only assume that our resident pseudo-Sovietologist agrees with my bristling and cogent analysis. It must be tough being a casino big-wig ... he,he.
****
Now, to as what inspired my little verbal venture today. There was a forum that didn't get much air time in the media, and for good reason: Barak H. Obama was an unadulterated disaster. But I'm jumping ahead ... do you remember during the primaries when Barry vowed to meet the GOP nominee quote, "anywhere, anytime" in a debate or town-hall forum? Well, subsequent to his and Mac's clinching the nomination Barak had a town-hall of his own, on his own (I forget where). The point is that "off-script" as they say, he was a bumbling, stumbling buffoon. And that's being charitable I assure you. And eyebrows were raised, for it was naturally assumed that Obama, given his undeniable oratory skills at speech giving, would wipe the floor with whomever his opponent was. BUT, there was suddenly this disconnect: how could it be that an orator so clearly skilled at giving speeches be so inept at a spontaneous Q&A such as a town-hall meeting? The answer was clear to me. He IS in fact good at the spontaneous, the problem is that when one tries to mold their true (and radical) belief system into one more palatable for the mainstream, a lot of "ummm, well, ahhh" begins to creep in as filler. In other words he is trying to be "true" to what he believes while simultaneously attempting to put it in "mainstream" terms. And thats one really square peg being shoved in a round hole ... thus the hemming and hawing.
Well Mac, perhaps smelling blood in the water, requested no less then 10 joint town-hall meetings. Obama countered with an offer of 2. So much for "anywhere, anytime." Which brings us to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California - the forum which I described as not getting much air-time in the media (outside of FOX and conservative radio that is). Pastor Rick Warren, whom seems to be the heir apparent to the mantle of Falwell and Graham as America's new "Christian leader", extended an invitation to conduct a live audience sit down at this church. McCain suggested they make it a joint appearance - just the three of them sitting at a table, talking. No lights and buzzards or "show of hands" such as at the sanitized sub-par spectacle that has become our modern debate forum. Obama declined the "joint" portion, but agreed to show up with Warren one at a time ... and oh MAMMA! I realize that I need not convince anyone here that voting for Barry is societal suicide, I get that. But I think its important to view this get-together in order to mark just how extreme the leadership, personified in its choice for nominee, of the modern Democrat Party has become. As you might expect the questions were largely religiously oriented - abortion, evil in the world, etc. But Barak's answers, as he sought to find a way to make acceptable his extreme points of view, revealed just how radicalized an individual he is. I was taken aback. You can view the entire 49 minutes at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/08/obama_at_saddleback_church.html
And just for proper perspective, let me focus for a moment on the back drop to the abortion question Rick Warren asked, which was, "When do you believe life begins?" In Illinois, Chicago to be specific, there was an infamous abortion procedure that caught the local headlines. It would seem that during an attempted abortion on a down-syndrome baby, the child was "accidentally" birthed alive. A botched abortion in other words. Now, apparently there were no laws on the books at that time on just what to do in a "botched" abortion. "No laws" that is assuming the doctor, mother and staff don't consider the living, breathing child to be an actual human being!!! At any rate, the hospital staff quite monstrously simply placed the child in the soiled laundry room, knowing that without medical attention it would die. Let me pause here. Does anyone else see a frightening resemblance to this practice in the Year of Our Lord 2008, to acceptable practices of discarding "defective" babies in Sparta, Greece, 2,750 years ago? I would argue infanticide is NOT too strong a word here. But I digress. A guilt ridden nurse snuck into the soiled laundry room, picked up the child, and held it for 45 minutes before setting it back down, where it eventually died.
Were murder charges brought? No. Manslaughter? No. Neglectful homicide? No. However, even in very liberal (for the most part) Illinois, the state had a collective shame over the matter. So in March 2001 some Republicans (who then narrowly controlled the IL legislature) attempted to enact a state law entitled "THE BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT", which in part stated that any "fetus" that was accidentally birthed in an "incomplete" abortion would be protected under all the rights and laws of any other living, breathing human being ... you know, BECAUSE IT IS ONE! The fact that we even need a law with that title is a disgrace.... but again I digress. Well, the measure failed in the Illinois Senate, with one then State Senator Barak Obama voting a very auspicious "present." Then in 2002 the IL legislature changed hands and Obama became the Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committee. He then went about holding up the bill as long as possible (he had domain over such legislation obviously) until it finally came to the floor for a vote - he voted "NO." He wanted doctors and staff to retain the right to infantacide if the intention was to abort the child.
Almost simultaneous to this the issue was taken up on the federal level, and the Infant Born-Alive Protection Act, nearly identical to the Illinois version, was passed which saw even the likes of pro-abortion fanatics such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) CA, voting "yes." Bush of course signed it into law. By the way, add that to his successful championing of making partial-birth abortions illegal and I never again want to hear that "presidents don't matter" when it comes to abortion. That's patently ignorant.
So, with that as a back drop, what was Barak's response to Warren's question, "When do you believe life begins?" He responded .... "That's above my pay grade."
I see. And what office was it that you're seeking again?
I hope the Democrats across this nation understand they're about to put forth the MOST radically left candidate in the history of the United States of America. I can't believe I'm saying this but they'd of had a much better shot with Madam Hillary. In any generic match-up, due to it being a bad GOP year (their own fault), unnamed Democrats have a 10 to 15 point lead on their Republican opponent. Now, putting aside that unnamed Democrats always do better then named ones, Obama and McCain are currently tied at 45% each according to the most recent USA Today/Gallop Poll. Hey Barry! Does the name McGovern mean anything to you?
Oh, and the final night of the convention when Barak gives his acceptance speech has been moved from Denver's Pepsi Arena to the Bronco's stadium! They're going to pack 75,000 people in, with Obama on the field on a podium in the middle. Can you imagine what that will look like all lit up in the night air there in Nuremberg ... errrr .... I mean Denver? By the way, that spinning noise you'll hear tonight as the DNC begins its little foray? Harry Truman hitting warp speeds ......
****
First to Jambo - I've got a solution. Move to Vegas, it NEVER rains here! Assuming of course that you can bring the kids, forgo any memory of the color green, learn to speak Spanish, pay triple for everything, and embrace year round schooling that is ..... in other words, be thankful that out of us three YOU were able to reamain and make a life in the place I still (and will always) consider "home." By the way, I received my clothes but I had to put down the pigeon. Poor bastard must have hit Nevada by way of Tel Aviv...
****
Titus ... I CAN NOT believe that at this late date you have posted a grand total of ONE commentary on Russia (alright, maybe two). I know I covered the situation extensively, so I can only assume that our resident pseudo-Sovietologist agrees with my bristling and cogent analysis. It must be tough being a casino big-wig ... he,he.
****
Now, to as what inspired my little verbal venture today. There was a forum that didn't get much air time in the media, and for good reason: Barak H. Obama was an unadulterated disaster. But I'm jumping ahead ... do you remember during the primaries when Barry vowed to meet the GOP nominee quote, "anywhere, anytime" in a debate or town-hall forum? Well, subsequent to his and Mac's clinching the nomination Barak had a town-hall of his own, on his own (I forget where). The point is that "off-script" as they say, he was a bumbling, stumbling buffoon. And that's being charitable I assure you. And eyebrows were raised, for it was naturally assumed that Obama, given his undeniable oratory skills at speech giving, would wipe the floor with whomever his opponent was. BUT, there was suddenly this disconnect: how could it be that an orator so clearly skilled at giving speeches be so inept at a spontaneous Q&A such as a town-hall meeting? The answer was clear to me. He IS in fact good at the spontaneous, the problem is that when one tries to mold their true (and radical) belief system into one more palatable for the mainstream, a lot of "ummm, well, ahhh" begins to creep in as filler. In other words he is trying to be "true" to what he believes while simultaneously attempting to put it in "mainstream" terms. And thats one really square peg being shoved in a round hole ... thus the hemming and hawing.
Well Mac, perhaps smelling blood in the water, requested no less then 10 joint town-hall meetings. Obama countered with an offer of 2. So much for "anywhere, anytime." Which brings us to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California - the forum which I described as not getting much air-time in the media (outside of FOX and conservative radio that is). Pastor Rick Warren, whom seems to be the heir apparent to the mantle of Falwell and Graham as America's new "Christian leader", extended an invitation to conduct a live audience sit down at this church. McCain suggested they make it a joint appearance - just the three of them sitting at a table, talking. No lights and buzzards or "show of hands" such as at the sanitized sub-par spectacle that has become our modern debate forum. Obama declined the "joint" portion, but agreed to show up with Warren one at a time ... and oh MAMMA! I realize that I need not convince anyone here that voting for Barry is societal suicide, I get that. But I think its important to view this get-together in order to mark just how extreme the leadership, personified in its choice for nominee, of the modern Democrat Party has become. As you might expect the questions were largely religiously oriented - abortion, evil in the world, etc. But Barak's answers, as he sought to find a way to make acceptable his extreme points of view, revealed just how radicalized an individual he is. I was taken aback. You can view the entire 49 minutes at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/08/obama_at_saddleback_church.html
And just for proper perspective, let me focus for a moment on the back drop to the abortion question Rick Warren asked, which was, "When do you believe life begins?" In Illinois, Chicago to be specific, there was an infamous abortion procedure that caught the local headlines. It would seem that during an attempted abortion on a down-syndrome baby, the child was "accidentally" birthed alive. A botched abortion in other words. Now, apparently there were no laws on the books at that time on just what to do in a "botched" abortion. "No laws" that is assuming the doctor, mother and staff don't consider the living, breathing child to be an actual human being!!! At any rate, the hospital staff quite monstrously simply placed the child in the soiled laundry room, knowing that without medical attention it would die. Let me pause here. Does anyone else see a frightening resemblance to this practice in the Year of Our Lord 2008, to acceptable practices of discarding "defective" babies in Sparta, Greece, 2,750 years ago? I would argue infanticide is NOT too strong a word here. But I digress. A guilt ridden nurse snuck into the soiled laundry room, picked up the child, and held it for 45 minutes before setting it back down, where it eventually died.
Were murder charges brought? No. Manslaughter? No. Neglectful homicide? No. However, even in very liberal (for the most part) Illinois, the state had a collective shame over the matter. So in March 2001 some Republicans (who then narrowly controlled the IL legislature) attempted to enact a state law entitled "THE BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT", which in part stated that any "fetus" that was accidentally birthed in an "incomplete" abortion would be protected under all the rights and laws of any other living, breathing human being ... you know, BECAUSE IT IS ONE! The fact that we even need a law with that title is a disgrace.... but again I digress. Well, the measure failed in the Illinois Senate, with one then State Senator Barak Obama voting a very auspicious "present." Then in 2002 the IL legislature changed hands and Obama became the Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committee. He then went about holding up the bill as long as possible (he had domain over such legislation obviously) until it finally came to the floor for a vote - he voted "NO." He wanted doctors and staff to retain the right to infantacide if the intention was to abort the child.
Almost simultaneous to this the issue was taken up on the federal level, and the Infant Born-Alive Protection Act, nearly identical to the Illinois version, was passed which saw even the likes of pro-abortion fanatics such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) CA, voting "yes." Bush of course signed it into law. By the way, add that to his successful championing of making partial-birth abortions illegal and I never again want to hear that "presidents don't matter" when it comes to abortion. That's patently ignorant.
So, with that as a back drop, what was Barak's response to Warren's question, "When do you believe life begins?" He responded .... "That's above my pay grade."
I see. And what office was it that you're seeking again?
I hope the Democrats across this nation understand they're about to put forth the MOST radically left candidate in the history of the United States of America. I can't believe I'm saying this but they'd of had a much better shot with Madam Hillary. In any generic match-up, due to it being a bad GOP year (their own fault), unnamed Democrats have a 10 to 15 point lead on their Republican opponent. Now, putting aside that unnamed Democrats always do better then named ones, Obama and McCain are currently tied at 45% each according to the most recent USA Today/Gallop Poll. Hey Barry! Does the name McGovern mean anything to you?
Oh, and the final night of the convention when Barak gives his acceptance speech has been moved from Denver's Pepsi Arena to the Bronco's stadium! They're going to pack 75,000 people in, with Obama on the field on a podium in the middle. Can you imagine what that will look like all lit up in the night air there in Nuremberg ... errrr .... I mean Denver? By the way, that spinning noise you'll hear tonight as the DNC begins its little foray? Harry Truman hitting warp speeds ......
Russia... again
So, the latest is Russia calling for the recognized independence of the two break-away Georgian districts of Osettia and Abkhazia... collectively, about as much square mileage as the Coast Counties in MS.
This smacks of the kind of petulance that a 5-year-old would show. You know the routine... "Well, YOU guys supported Kosovo's independence from Serbia... why can't WE support these two districts?"
Does anyone realise that we are talking about the Osettian region having a general population of LESS THAN 100,000 people? Of these 100,000 Osettians, less than HALF speak the Osettian dialect (a seemingly obscure off-shoot of Iranian in the Indo-European family), and it is only by the LANGUAGE that one is determined to be Osettian anyway... no other factor is considered when placing this particular ethnic label on someone.
The ONLY possible benefit that Russia could find in taking up this cause is to destabilize Georgia... there aren't enough "ethnic" Russians in the region to constitute a crisis. It is only the status of the Russian tongue as a lingua Franca within the Georgian state that even lends the "ethnic" issue an ounce of credibility!
This smacks of the kind of petulance that a 5-year-old would show. You know the routine... "Well, YOU guys supported Kosovo's independence from Serbia... why can't WE support these two districts?"
Does anyone realise that we are talking about the Osettian region having a general population of LESS THAN 100,000 people? Of these 100,000 Osettians, less than HALF speak the Osettian dialect (a seemingly obscure off-shoot of Iranian in the Indo-European family), and it is only by the LANGUAGE that one is determined to be Osettian anyway... no other factor is considered when placing this particular ethnic label on someone.
The ONLY possible benefit that Russia could find in taking up this cause is to destabilize Georgia... there aren't enough "ethnic" Russians in the region to constitute a crisis. It is only the status of the Russian tongue as a lingua Franca within the Georgian state that even lends the "ethnic" issue an ounce of credibility!
I always preferred the term "shell shock."
Post traumatic disorders just don't sound right three years after the event, but I wanted to share this.
It's Monday, 4:24 AM August 25 and we're getting the remnants of Tropical Depression Fay. Wind, rain, you know. Nothing scary. I've finished an exhausting Sunday (teaching, prep for teaching, prep for the fantasy draft tomorrow, prep for teaching tomorrow, then relief in blackjack for a dead assed Sunday, oh joy. Not enough coffee in the county) and I should be sawing logs something fierce.
Want to know what I can't do? STILL?
Sleep when it rains. Two years and three hundred sixty one days after the storm and I cannot sleep to the sound of rain.
Ever wonder when the drama ends?
Here I am, by all accounts should be dead to the world because tomorrow is even worse. Kids come over 7:30. Kids go to school 8:10. Megan has a dentist appointment 9:30. Football draft in Ocean Springs 12:00. Kids from school 3:30. Teaching CCD 4:15. Kids homework as soon as we get home. Dinner and bed. I should be sleeping right now damn it but it's raining and I'm as awake as awake can be.
You know? I never had to swim, I never had flood water in my house, I didn't watch anyone die, and we were all pretty pro-active when it came to recovery, so one would think I'd have purged all this "trauma."
Yet here I am typing away to the sound of rain coming down the apartment building gutters and rain hitting my windows, the wind howling at 15-25 knots outside and the occasional computer ding as WLOX Weather Center alerts me online to severe weather watches.
Damn.
It's Monday, 4:24 AM August 25 and we're getting the remnants of Tropical Depression Fay. Wind, rain, you know. Nothing scary. I've finished an exhausting Sunday (teaching, prep for teaching, prep for the fantasy draft tomorrow, prep for teaching tomorrow, then relief in blackjack for a dead assed Sunday, oh joy. Not enough coffee in the county) and I should be sawing logs something fierce.
Want to know what I can't do? STILL?
Sleep when it rains. Two years and three hundred sixty one days after the storm and I cannot sleep to the sound of rain.
Ever wonder when the drama ends?
Here I am, by all accounts should be dead to the world because tomorrow is even worse. Kids come over 7:30. Kids go to school 8:10. Megan has a dentist appointment 9:30. Football draft in Ocean Springs 12:00. Kids from school 3:30. Teaching CCD 4:15. Kids homework as soon as we get home. Dinner and bed. I should be sleeping right now damn it but it's raining and I'm as awake as awake can be.
You know? I never had to swim, I never had flood water in my house, I didn't watch anyone die, and we were all pretty pro-active when it came to recovery, so one would think I'd have purged all this "trauma."
Yet here I am typing away to the sound of rain coming down the apartment building gutters and rain hitting my windows, the wind howling at 15-25 knots outside and the occasional computer ding as WLOX Weather Center alerts me online to severe weather watches.
Damn.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
That ain't no Sasquatch!
Man, number 38! Happy birthday buddy!
Well as the nation comes to its senses on the presidential race (the new Zogby-Reuters Poll has Mac up by 5 points, in a bad GOP year no less) I find a bit of comfort in that I'm not the only one in any given room that has noticed Obama's infanticide advocating, terror negotiating, US missile disarming, Georgian challenged, foreign fundraising, America disliking, America should be more "humble" in its foreign policy, I'm not allowed to utter his middle name, TENDENCIES.
****
"The PRIORITY as a nation should be energy independence... national and individual... and all means to gain that goal should be considered and discussed."
I agree Titus ... and I think the GOP has found THE issue which can communicate to the American people something we all know to be true - of the two major US political parties it is only within the GOP that serious, adult discussions on energy are taking place. They've taken to a phrase that would apply even to our Bund - "all of the above." I like it, and they need to pound that phrase, followed by legislative action, home to the American populous. And my avocation is certainly not for partisan reasons. I just would like some, if not all, of the good ideas bandied about acted upon. The oil drilling/nuclear plants/natural gas/clean coal/wind mill/solar (and in that order preferably so as to both aid and adjust our economy into a new era of energy) described to the American voter as an "all of the above" plan is a political, not to mention energy efficient, winner. And God Bless em', the House is doing its best. There's a couple dozen congressmen that are forgoing THE cherished prize on Capitol Hill - the 5 week summer break - and staying in DC demanding Pelosi hold a vote.
****
And Jambo, let me further concur with my brethren in Bund Titus: we will make the stout flow as fast and furious as the Mississippi, IN Mississippi, as soon as is humanly possible. Make mine a Guinness though ... Killian's is gay (no wonder certain people on this site have requested it).
Well as the nation comes to its senses on the presidential race (the new Zogby-Reuters Poll has Mac up by 5 points, in a bad GOP year no less) I find a bit of comfort in that I'm not the only one in any given room that has noticed Obama's infanticide advocating, terror negotiating, US missile disarming, Georgian challenged, foreign fundraising, America disliking, America should be more "humble" in its foreign policy, I'm not allowed to utter his middle name, TENDENCIES.
****
"The PRIORITY as a nation should be energy independence... national and individual... and all means to gain that goal should be considered and discussed."
I agree Titus ... and I think the GOP has found THE issue which can communicate to the American people something we all know to be true - of the two major US political parties it is only within the GOP that serious, adult discussions on energy are taking place. They've taken to a phrase that would apply even to our Bund - "all of the above." I like it, and they need to pound that phrase, followed by legislative action, home to the American populous. And my avocation is certainly not for partisan reasons. I just would like some, if not all, of the good ideas bandied about acted upon. The oil drilling/nuclear plants/natural gas/clean coal/wind mill/solar (and in that order preferably so as to both aid and adjust our economy into a new era of energy) described to the American voter as an "all of the above" plan is a political, not to mention energy efficient, winner. And God Bless em', the House is doing its best. There's a couple dozen congressmen that are forgoing THE cherished prize on Capitol Hill - the 5 week summer break - and staying in DC demanding Pelosi hold a vote.
****
And Jambo, let me further concur with my brethren in Bund Titus: we will make the stout flow as fast and furious as the Mississippi, IN Mississippi, as soon as is humanly possible. Make mine a Guinness though ... Killian's is gay (no wonder certain people on this site have requested it).
I need to clarify, I think...
I re-read my previous, and it is a bit muddy.
The "ruralization" I was referring to is simple: communities built around a small-town/neighborhood infrastructure that provides as many of the "vitals" of daily life as possible. Water, power, gas, food, police/fire, and medical care (at least basic care).
In the hearts of most older, larger cities like New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, one finds a doctor's office, a grocer, a baker, a fire house/police precinct... all the necessities of daily life within a 12-square block area. The connection with a small town/village should be obvious. Places like "Little Italy", "China Town" and "Spanish Harlem" all qualify as great examples within the island of Manhattan.
In normal times, these facilities provide convenient and fast services to those living closest to them... but in times of crisis, they very well could be the ONLY facilities operating that those within walking distance could take advantage of.
This kind of "de-centralization" has security advantages, too. WHY did the terrorists TWICE target the WTC and the Wall Street District? To cripple the economy and NYC's municipal infrastructure... and it very nearly worked. WHY was it that after 9/11, the US suddenly decided it was worth $16 billion a year to protect places like the Hoover, Glen Canyon and Grand Coulee Dams? Because with ONE big bomb, terrorists could literally erase as much as 2500 square miles of US cities, towns and homes... AND remove as much as 10% of the DRINKING water and as much as 8% of the electricity this country uses EVERY DAY. That's more lost power than all the hurricanes in the last 50 years have cost us... and there would be NO replcement generators or plants to "turn things on" afterwards, either.
Anyway... just wanted to clear up my "cloudy" post.
The "ruralization" I was referring to is simple: communities built around a small-town/neighborhood infrastructure that provides as many of the "vitals" of daily life as possible. Water, power, gas, food, police/fire, and medical care (at least basic care).
In the hearts of most older, larger cities like New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, one finds a doctor's office, a grocer, a baker, a fire house/police precinct... all the necessities of daily life within a 12-square block area. The connection with a small town/village should be obvious. Places like "Little Italy", "China Town" and "Spanish Harlem" all qualify as great examples within the island of Manhattan.
In normal times, these facilities provide convenient and fast services to those living closest to them... but in times of crisis, they very well could be the ONLY facilities operating that those within walking distance could take advantage of.
This kind of "de-centralization" has security advantages, too. WHY did the terrorists TWICE target the WTC and the Wall Street District? To cripple the economy and NYC's municipal infrastructure... and it very nearly worked. WHY was it that after 9/11, the US suddenly decided it was worth $16 billion a year to protect places like the Hoover, Glen Canyon and Grand Coulee Dams? Because with ONE big bomb, terrorists could literally erase as much as 2500 square miles of US cities, towns and homes... AND remove as much as 10% of the DRINKING water and as much as 8% of the electricity this country uses EVERY DAY. That's more lost power than all the hurricanes in the last 50 years have cost us... and there would be NO replcement generators or plants to "turn things on" afterwards, either.
Anyway... just wanted to clear up my "cloudy" post.
"Ruralization" as domestic policy...
Jambo's last made me think...
Look at what we've learned (and not just here at the Bund, but in general) since 2005... hell, you could take it as far back as you want! All the way back to the fall of Rome, if you choose... but we'll stick to 2005.
With the double-whammy of Katrina-Rita in '05 showing us just how painful it can be for large urban areas to adjust to zero infrastructure (New Orleans, Gulfort/Biloxi, and all areas in between) AND the 300% increase in crude oil prices just 3 years later, we have seen the value of "rural" infrastructure again in this nation.
Whether the infrastructure is simply slowed down by the market, or is removed entirely by a natural disaster, people can only walk so far to obtain the necessities of modern existence. Personally, I can state without hesitation that walking 8 blocks one-way to get my allotted 2-gallons of water per person is the absolute LIMIT of my capacity... even if the temperature isn't 96 degrees! Items like ice, water, bread, fresh produce, medicine, diapers, formula, etc. all may be something we need on a daily basis, and no functional public transportation or available fuel for personal vehicles could require us to have to walk to get it.
Far too much of America has become "automobile dependant" in this regard. Where I live now, we would have to travel no less than 6 miles one-way to gain even the most basic necessities, and as many as 11 miles for the less "basic" stuff. I am far enough out in the country to NEED to be self-sufficient for as much as 3 to 4 days between trips. How true is that for the MILLIONS of Americans that live amidst the urban sprawl of places like LA, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Miami? If there was no gasoline available for the average Joe, how far would they have to walk for water, ice and milk?
Without some means to produce electricity at home, my house is without water of any kind. that is the reason why I have considered many times paying the $600 to $1000 it would cost me to sink a second well on my property and have it hooked up to either an old-fashioned windmill or a hand-pump, so that in the event of power interruption, I could continue to draw water for the family and household.
Now, back to Jambo's point...
Do I think that the Federal Government should PAY to have this installed for me? No, I don't. First off, it would never happen... that kind of government spending program is beyond even the Democrat's ability to pass into law and still remain a functional program. Second of all... having the Fed's do it for me means that personal preferences that I may have are no longer applicable, and I want my preferences to remain foremost in the equation.
I DO think that this kind of "independence" should be promoted through the judicious application of tax relief and incentives, though. Let me deduct every dollar I spend on energy independence (on a personal level) from my taxes, and lower my State and county costs accordingly, and suddenly the prospect of spending $1000 of my hard-earned cash isn't so painful.
If a single 16'/sq solar panel can generate enough electricity to keep a fridge/freezer running all day and all night, and a "traditional" windmill can bring enough water out of a well to keep a house supplied with what it needs for the same period of time... that money should be 100% deductible because it keeps that house FUNCTIONAL in a time of crisis or emergency. As it stands now... my home is NON-FUNCTIONAL in the above stated emergency.
The PRIORITY as a nation should be energy independence... national and individual... and all means to gain that goal should be considered and discussed.
Look at what we've learned (and not just here at the Bund, but in general) since 2005... hell, you could take it as far back as you want! All the way back to the fall of Rome, if you choose... but we'll stick to 2005.
With the double-whammy of Katrina-Rita in '05 showing us just how painful it can be for large urban areas to adjust to zero infrastructure (New Orleans, Gulfort/Biloxi, and all areas in between) AND the 300% increase in crude oil prices just 3 years later, we have seen the value of "rural" infrastructure again in this nation.
Whether the infrastructure is simply slowed down by the market, or is removed entirely by a natural disaster, people can only walk so far to obtain the necessities of modern existence. Personally, I can state without hesitation that walking 8 blocks one-way to get my allotted 2-gallons of water per person is the absolute LIMIT of my capacity... even if the temperature isn't 96 degrees! Items like ice, water, bread, fresh produce, medicine, diapers, formula, etc. all may be something we need on a daily basis, and no functional public transportation or available fuel for personal vehicles could require us to have to walk to get it.
Far too much of America has become "automobile dependant" in this regard. Where I live now, we would have to travel no less than 6 miles one-way to gain even the most basic necessities, and as many as 11 miles for the less "basic" stuff. I am far enough out in the country to NEED to be self-sufficient for as much as 3 to 4 days between trips. How true is that for the MILLIONS of Americans that live amidst the urban sprawl of places like LA, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Miami? If there was no gasoline available for the average Joe, how far would they have to walk for water, ice and milk?
Without some means to produce electricity at home, my house is without water of any kind. that is the reason why I have considered many times paying the $600 to $1000 it would cost me to sink a second well on my property and have it hooked up to either an old-fashioned windmill or a hand-pump, so that in the event of power interruption, I could continue to draw water for the family and household.
Now, back to Jambo's point...
Do I think that the Federal Government should PAY to have this installed for me? No, I don't. First off, it would never happen... that kind of government spending program is beyond even the Democrat's ability to pass into law and still remain a functional program. Second of all... having the Fed's do it for me means that personal preferences that I may have are no longer applicable, and I want my preferences to remain foremost in the equation.
I DO think that this kind of "independence" should be promoted through the judicious application of tax relief and incentives, though. Let me deduct every dollar I spend on energy independence (on a personal level) from my taxes, and lower my State and county costs accordingly, and suddenly the prospect of spending $1000 of my hard-earned cash isn't so painful.
If a single 16'/sq solar panel can generate enough electricity to keep a fridge/freezer running all day and all night, and a "traditional" windmill can bring enough water out of a well to keep a house supplied with what it needs for the same period of time... that money should be 100% deductible because it keeps that house FUNCTIONAL in a time of crisis or emergency. As it stands now... my home is NON-FUNCTIONAL in the above stated emergency.
The PRIORITY as a nation should be energy independence... national and individual... and all means to gain that goal should be considered and discussed.
More energy thoughts...
I know we've been over this for a while, but I was reading about McCain's energy thing he put out almost two weeks ago and it made me think.
He wants 45 nuclear power plants online by 2035. I mean 45 NEW nuclear power plants. So basically he's brining 1.7 plants online every year for the next 26 years. That doesn't sound so bad...
But it still comes to a little over $6.5 billion a year.
Now, I have no problem spending this on brand new domestic energy production. I am not a Hoover conservative. The feds spending almost two trillion a year doesn't phaze me in the least. So if McCain is going to throw, or at least get the ball rolling, best case scenario says he's got eight years, $55 billion in nuclear power production over the lifetime of his two term (again, we're all positive, right?)presidency...
$55 billion? Does that strike anyone else as...
Anemic? Light? Pale? Not enough?
Our annual budget by 2016 will well exceed 2 trillion. So just to be safe I'll use a safe number, 1.5 trillion. Per year it comes to less than 5% of our budget.
Now, granted, I'll be the first to say it's alternative, non petroleum, domestic power production. But is now the time to be putting ONLY 5% of our budget into this?
Remember the plan I was talking about a couple of weeks back? Same numbers, not even REPLACING the money spent on nuclear, and think of how many homes we have converted by just the end of McCain's second term? Instead of 2035 it's 2016 and how many millions of homes are wind/solar, very nearly stand alone power generators across the country?
Nothing like an approaching tropical system to make a person wonder about power.
He wants 45 nuclear power plants online by 2035. I mean 45 NEW nuclear power plants. So basically he's brining 1.7 plants online every year for the next 26 years. That doesn't sound so bad...
But it still comes to a little over $6.5 billion a year.
Now, I have no problem spending this on brand new domestic energy production. I am not a Hoover conservative. The feds spending almost two trillion a year doesn't phaze me in the least. So if McCain is going to throw, or at least get the ball rolling, best case scenario says he's got eight years, $55 billion in nuclear power production over the lifetime of his two term (again, we're all positive, right?)presidency...
$55 billion? Does that strike anyone else as...
Anemic? Light? Pale? Not enough?
Our annual budget by 2016 will well exceed 2 trillion. So just to be safe I'll use a safe number, 1.5 trillion. Per year it comes to less than 5% of our budget.
Now, granted, I'll be the first to say it's alternative, non petroleum, domestic power production. But is now the time to be putting ONLY 5% of our budget into this?
Remember the plan I was talking about a couple of weeks back? Same numbers, not even REPLACING the money spent on nuclear, and think of how many homes we have converted by just the end of McCain's second term? Instead of 2035 it's 2016 and how many millions of homes are wind/solar, very nearly stand alone power generators across the country?
Nothing like an approaching tropical system to make a person wonder about power.
This magic bullet makes the Warren Commission's...
... magic bullet look lame.
Anyone else watching Fay?
It's projected to bend back and come our way, probably by the weekend.
You've GOT to be kidding, right?
I'm watching Weather Underground and three out of six computers surveyed say the storm will come out over water. So half the Dells say this thing has a good (even, at least) chance of strengthening.
Lovely.
Baddboy, how are you on gas? I'm going to stock up while it's still under 3.40 a gallon. Damn it.
Thanks for the birthday wishes. I did absolutely nothing but played with the kids and eat an entire nine inch cheese cake. Life is so good!
Anyone else watching Fay?
It's projected to bend back and come our way, probably by the weekend.
You've GOT to be kidding, right?
I'm watching Weather Underground and three out of six computers surveyed say the storm will come out over water. So half the Dells say this thing has a good (even, at least) chance of strengthening.
Lovely.
Baddboy, how are you on gas? I'm going to stock up while it's still under 3.40 a gallon. Damn it.
Thanks for the birthday wishes. I did absolutely nothing but played with the kids and eat an entire nine inch cheese cake. Life is so good!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Jambo turns 38!!!
That's right, sports fans!
Jambo is 38 today. Now, while on my actual birthday, I was celebrating with only Liz and the kids, I did get the opportunity to pull a few pints with the "fellas" at the Pub pictured to the right a very few days later.
Jambo will have to wait a bit before Ryan, Baddboy and myself can all be together and buy him his fill (a staggering amount of Killian's, believe me!), but the day will come.
I promise!
Happy Birthday, brother!
Jambo is 38 today. Now, while on my actual birthday, I was celebrating with only Liz and the kids, I did get the opportunity to pull a few pints with the "fellas" at the Pub pictured to the right a very few days later.
Jambo will have to wait a bit before Ryan, Baddboy and myself can all be together and buy him his fill (a staggering amount of Killian's, believe me!), but the day will come.
I promise!
Happy Birthday, brother!
Monday, August 18, 2008
Touchy Subject
I have spent since January on active duty, with only active duty on 2 bases and 3 different commands and all I can tell you is that noone talks about the election openly. Those that do talk about it all support Mccain minus 2 that I know of.
The military has made a huge deal of the military being openly involved in political dealings, (while in uniform) and I haven't read the whole reg in detail but it is a doozy. While in uniform is a very broad statement to include representing yourself as a military member while involved in political issues even if you are not wearing the uniform when you are involved. This is as I understand it anyways. Usually they make a huge deal out of absentee voting and getting you registered for absentee and such and this year...NODDA. They don't want the military voting this year in my opinion.
Here is what I think and take it for what it is worth, the DOD doesn't want this to become a race issue within the ranks. That is as simple as I can put it. It is only my opinion and it's only based on personal observation and experience with the new politically correct military.
Just my 2 cents
The military has made a huge deal of the military being openly involved in political dealings, (while in uniform) and I haven't read the whole reg in detail but it is a doozy. While in uniform is a very broad statement to include representing yourself as a military member while involved in political issues even if you are not wearing the uniform when you are involved. This is as I understand it anyways. Usually they make a huge deal out of absentee voting and getting you registered for absentee and such and this year...NODDA. They don't want the military voting this year in my opinion.
Here is what I think and take it for what it is worth, the DOD doesn't want this to become a race issue within the ranks. That is as simple as I can put it. It is only my opinion and it's only based on personal observation and experience with the new politically correct military.
Just my 2 cents
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Disturbing trends...
The number of active-duty servicemen that have donated money to Presidential campaigns has been polled by a non-partisan think-tank that determined that 6 times the number of donations for McCain have gone to Obama.
6 times!
When is the last time that the US military (especially active duty military) have supported a Dem over a GOP candidate? 1976? Even longer? Even during the Clinton years, it was within 5% either way... nothing like 6 times!
THAT is scary, righ tthere...
6 times!
When is the last time that the US military (especially active duty military) have supported a Dem over a GOP candidate? 1976? Even longer? Even during the Clinton years, it was within 5% either way... nothing like 6 times!
THAT is scary, righ tthere...
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Just another uneducated guess
I would be willing to bet that Powells endorsement will get him SecDef If Obama god forbid gets elected.
Friday, August 15, 2008
On your last...
I am utterly convinced that Powell DID, in fact, believe Saddam to pose the threat that the Administration claimed. I am ALSO convinced that he was 100% against the manner in which the Administration was conducting the preperation and prosecution of the conflict, from Jan. '02 to the end of his term as SoS... he saw, understood and could do NOTHING about the mistakes that Cheney, Rummy, Tennent and (by extension) Bush were making.
Lest we forget, the man was "on the ground" for nearly a month in Iraq in '91 (total, that is). He knew, first hand, the level of tyrany that Saddam maintained in the country before, during and after the conflict... and I am sure (without doubt, actually) that is SoS he saw that nothing had changed in Iraq for the better SINCE 1991. No, he KNEW that Saddam HAD owned, maintained and USED chemical means to kill as many as 100,000 Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis from 1984 to 1991. For him, believing in the fudged numbers and intel was a small step.
If he has "sour grapes" its over the preperation and prosecution of the War in Iraq, and with the manner in which his concerns (as valid and pertinent as anyones in the Administration at the time... he WAS a "four-star" AND the SecState for Christ's sake!) were disregarded at nearly every turn.
This doesn't negate Ryan's initial observation though... that Powell's endorsement isn't simply to the "other side of the aisle" and plain opposition to Bush's policies and practices. It is an endorsement of American appeasement politics in the face of national crisis.
A "four-star" and former SoS should know better than that.
Lest we forget, the man was "on the ground" for nearly a month in Iraq in '91 (total, that is). He knew, first hand, the level of tyrany that Saddam maintained in the country before, during and after the conflict... and I am sure (without doubt, actually) that is SoS he saw that nothing had changed in Iraq for the better SINCE 1991. No, he KNEW that Saddam HAD owned, maintained and USED chemical means to kill as many as 100,000 Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis from 1984 to 1991. For him, believing in the fudged numbers and intel was a small step.
If he has "sour grapes" its over the preperation and prosecution of the War in Iraq, and with the manner in which his concerns (as valid and pertinent as anyones in the Administration at the time... he WAS a "four-star" AND the SecState for Christ's sake!) were disregarded at nearly every turn.
This doesn't negate Ryan's initial observation though... that Powell's endorsement isn't simply to the "other side of the aisle" and plain opposition to Bush's policies and practices. It is an endorsement of American appeasement politics in the face of national crisis.
A "four-star" and former SoS should know better than that.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
I had a thought on my last ...
I always briefly read over my posts after they publish (after the technical difficulties I had at one point I just want to be sure its all there). And something occurred to me when I read that bit about Powell in the UN. I haven't listened to a shred of talk radio since the endorsement or even turned on the TV news, so if someone else picks up on this, I hope they will at least credit our site.
Remember the Bush's War special we all viewed? I eventually conceded that after you "wash off the biased BS" (as Jambo phrased it) that it was a very useful, even compelling look into an otherwise rarely broached circle. While watching it occurred to me that Powell's greatest career regret was making the Iraqi case at the UN. Remember his frantic last minute attempts at Intel verification, papers strewn all over the hotel room, his repeated calls to Tenet? He went in there to convince the world of the necessity of an Iraq invasion (namely based on wmd's) when he wasn't fully convinced himself. I remember looking in his eyes and at his face as he spoke of it and it was clear that the man felt a deep sense of not only regret, but as if he had let the country down - which is something I believe Powell takes seriously.
That being the case, could this endorsement have nothing to do with sour grapes? Nothing to do with a policy shift? Nothing to do with the first black president? But rather could his endorsement of the "get out now crowd" be his apology to history? In his eyes anyway, I personally think he has nothing to apologize for. But for him it could be his attempt to rectify enabling our invasion by endorsing a man whom would get us out the quickest. Or even setting aside withdrawal time tables, Obama is not only in the top 2 or 3 as of today, but as the nominee he is THE premier critic of the Iraq War - thus Powell's alignment, in his eyes, may somewhat "make-up" for his testimony at the UN. It helps to not only wipe his conscience clean so to speak, but he may think this endorsement leaves a better taste in the mouth's of historians. I think (due to his obvious regret over the WMD's controversy) he feels that supporting Obama moves the historical perspective on him from "invasion advocate", 180 degrees to "war critic", thus wiping the "mistake" (as he sees it) of his UN testimony clean.
Just a thought .... but I think my mark is accurate.
Remember the Bush's War special we all viewed? I eventually conceded that after you "wash off the biased BS" (as Jambo phrased it) that it was a very useful, even compelling look into an otherwise rarely broached circle. While watching it occurred to me that Powell's greatest career regret was making the Iraqi case at the UN. Remember his frantic last minute attempts at Intel verification, papers strewn all over the hotel room, his repeated calls to Tenet? He went in there to convince the world of the necessity of an Iraq invasion (namely based on wmd's) when he wasn't fully convinced himself. I remember looking in his eyes and at his face as he spoke of it and it was clear that the man felt a deep sense of not only regret, but as if he had let the country down - which is something I believe Powell takes seriously.
That being the case, could this endorsement have nothing to do with sour grapes? Nothing to do with a policy shift? Nothing to do with the first black president? But rather could his endorsement of the "get out now crowd" be his apology to history? In his eyes anyway, I personally think he has nothing to apologize for. But for him it could be his attempt to rectify enabling our invasion by endorsing a man whom would get us out the quickest. Or even setting aside withdrawal time tables, Obama is not only in the top 2 or 3 as of today, but as the nominee he is THE premier critic of the Iraq War - thus Powell's alignment, in his eyes, may somewhat "make-up" for his testimony at the UN. It helps to not only wipe his conscience clean so to speak, but he may think this endorsement leaves a better taste in the mouth's of historians. I think (due to his obvious regret over the WMD's controversy) he feels that supporting Obama moves the historical perspective on him from "invasion advocate", 180 degrees to "war critic", thus wiping the "mistake" (as he sees it) of his UN testimony clean.
Just a thought .... but I think my mark is accurate.
180 degrees ...
I find this in astonishingly bad taste.
Powell is not just "a" soldier, he is one of "the" soldiers of the last quarter century, along with Schwarzkopf and Patraus. Powell sat at the table inside the UN and made the US case for Iraq, and then takes up ideological arms with the likes of an Obama, Hillary, Wesley Clark, and by extension the "move-on" crowd which referred to his brother-in-arms General Patraus as "general betrayus." Its one thing to have legitimate operational disagreements with a Rummy, or a Tenet, or even the PoTUS, but this is the polar opposite (the Democrat Party) in terms of national defense policy from where he has been his entire life. He's better then that. I can't imagine even a "Rockefeller Republican" (as Powell once described himself) as having the slightest bit of policy agreement with an avowed socialist like Obama; so I can only assume it is either "sour grapes" (which would be a blemish on an otherwise impeccable record of public character) or he simply can not resist the urge to enable (as much as his endorsement can) the ascension of the first black US president.
I hope its the latter - at least then, he being black himself, I can find a sliver of legitimate emotionally based defense. Otherwise, its surely sour grapes for Powell, for he can not have a shred of policy agreement with the likes of the modern Democrat Party ... unfortunate.
Powell is not just "a" soldier, he is one of "the" soldiers of the last quarter century, along with Schwarzkopf and Patraus. Powell sat at the table inside the UN and made the US case for Iraq, and then takes up ideological arms with the likes of an Obama, Hillary, Wesley Clark, and by extension the "move-on" crowd which referred to his brother-in-arms General Patraus as "general betrayus." Its one thing to have legitimate operational disagreements with a Rummy, or a Tenet, or even the PoTUS, but this is the polar opposite (the Democrat Party) in terms of national defense policy from where he has been his entire life. He's better then that. I can't imagine even a "Rockefeller Republican" (as Powell once described himself) as having the slightest bit of policy agreement with an avowed socialist like Obama; so I can only assume it is either "sour grapes" (which would be a blemish on an otherwise impeccable record of public character) or he simply can not resist the urge to enable (as much as his endorsement can) the ascension of the first black US president.
I hope its the latter - at least then, he being black himself, I can find a sliver of legitimate emotionally based defense. Otherwise, its surely sour grapes for Powell, for he can not have a shred of policy agreement with the likes of the modern Democrat Party ... unfortunate.
Sour grapes?
How sour do the grapes have to be for Colin Powell to endorse Obama?
How is that going to look? One of the two or three most critical opponents to the Iraq war being endorsed by one of the KEY members of Bush's Cabinet? You don't have to be politically savy to know that Powell's endorsement will be a HUGE blow to the GOP effort to date. Powell is a name associated with Bush from the first days of his administrations.
How is that going to look? One of the two or three most critical opponents to the Iraq war being endorsed by one of the KEY members of Bush's Cabinet? You don't have to be politically savy to know that Powell's endorsement will be a HUGE blow to the GOP effort to date. Powell is a name associated with Bush from the first days of his administrations.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Anniversaries
In 17 days it will be the 1 year anniversary of the activation of our blog - August 29th. You want to know something interesting? That same day and month is the anniversary of Katrina, AND the wedding day of Ang's and my first marriage. At least one out of three wasn't a disaster .... he,he,he,he.
Good ol' Ruskies .... sniff.
Ahhh ... so much more fun with the Ruskies back!
Strategic thinking of the kind we are all used to - borders, armies, real estate matters ... unlike this messy business of terrorism. At any rate, between Jambo's posts and mine, I got to thinking. I wondered if there's perhaps some online version of RISK we can all participate in? You know, like a virtual reality game of the board version in which each of us can take our time to decide our next move, as schedules allow. I know you guys used to play it ("dancing in the____ river" - I can't remember the name, forgive me).
That would be fun.
****
I wanted to add that this excerpt from below (& don't get me wrong, the entire thing is worth a read, at least twice) is the nuts and bolts of the entire initiative into Georgia:
"Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.
By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security."
If this is the reality, and the author below makes a powerful case that it is, then we are truly in a Neo Cold War. During the 2000 election, during a debate with Gore, Bush was asked if he agreed with the Clinton administration's description of China - "Strategic Partners." Bush said, "No. I see them as Strategic Competitors." What's sad is while I agree with then Governor Bush regarding China, he (and Clinton certainly) missed a golden opportunity to make the Clinton phrase of "strategic partners" a reality with Russia. I'll give Bush his kudos with China - Chinese/US relations have come along way since that spy plane sat on the run way in Mongolia (or wherever that was) during the first few months of his administration, especially economically. But the Russian bear was simply seen as "in transition" relative to their sphere's of influence and our concern with it .... they are back with a roar.
Strategic thinking of the kind we are all used to - borders, armies, real estate matters ... unlike this messy business of terrorism. At any rate, between Jambo's posts and mine, I got to thinking. I wondered if there's perhaps some online version of RISK we can all participate in? You know, like a virtual reality game of the board version in which each of us can take our time to decide our next move, as schedules allow. I know you guys used to play it ("dancing in the____ river" - I can't remember the name, forgive me).
That would be fun.
****
I wanted to add that this excerpt from below (& don't get me wrong, the entire thing is worth a read, at least twice) is the nuts and bolts of the entire initiative into Georgia:
"Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.
By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security."
If this is the reality, and the author below makes a powerful case that it is, then we are truly in a Neo Cold War. During the 2000 election, during a debate with Gore, Bush was asked if he agreed with the Clinton administration's description of China - "Strategic Partners." Bush said, "No. I see them as Strategic Competitors." What's sad is while I agree with then Governor Bush regarding China, he (and Clinton certainly) missed a golden opportunity to make the Clinton phrase of "strategic partners" a reality with Russia. I'll give Bush his kudos with China - Chinese/US relations have come along way since that spy plane sat on the run way in Mongolia (or wherever that was) during the first few months of his administration, especially economically. But the Russian bear was simply seen as "in transition" relative to their sphere's of influence and our concern with it .... they are back with a roar.
The best analysis yet:
By far this from http://www.stratfor.com/ (a strategic geoploitical online think tank from which I receive free email updates) is the best analysis of Russo-Western relations I have read to date. We aren't in the habit of posting entire outside articles, but given the monster I put up yesterday; badboy's Russian concerns as listed by Jambo; Jambo's thoughts on a sufficent (to combat the Russian bear) Europe; and Titus's thrill at having Russo relations as a topic, I dare not leave this article to the chances of simply listing a link. For your reading pleasure (it's almost as good as mine ... he,he):
By George Friedman
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
8/12/08
The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.
Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.
On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.
On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.
On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion
In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of Russia
To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.
That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.
The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.
From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.
Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Resurrecting the Russian Sphere
Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.
By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.
The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.
The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.
Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).
In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.
The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com
By George Friedman
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
8/12/08
The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.
Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.
On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.
On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.
On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion
In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of Russia
To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.
That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.
The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.
From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.
Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Resurrecting the Russian Sphere
Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.
By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.
The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.
The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.
Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).
In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.
The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com
Finally, a cause for European Union.
Talking with Baddboy this morning about the Georgian conflict with Mother Russia made me think about something.
At what point in recent (last 100 years) history have our allies in Europe been MORE capable of defending themselves than today, right now?
Baddboy was lamenting our (U.S. military) depleted European presence against a determined and belligerent Russia when it came to me. I mean seriously, I'm asking a historical question now. When from 1908 to 2008 was the last time Western Europe wasn't flat out naked?
My response was pre-Sudetenland annexation 1930's Europe. France, as one may recall, had a superb armor corps and a larger military than the Nazis. They also had an anchor called the Maginot Line and no concept of mobile warfare or how to break a meeting engagement. But horrible tactics and strategic thinking aside, they were capable. Far from naked.
Think about German, French and English armor versus even top of the line Russian armor and air. Not an American bullet, plane or tank to be seen and I STILL think it's better than 70% advantage Western Europe.
Thoughts?
At what point in recent (last 100 years) history have our allies in Europe been MORE capable of defending themselves than today, right now?
Baddboy was lamenting our (U.S. military) depleted European presence against a determined and belligerent Russia when it came to me. I mean seriously, I'm asking a historical question now. When from 1908 to 2008 was the last time Western Europe wasn't flat out naked?
My response was pre-Sudetenland annexation 1930's Europe. France, as one may recall, had a superb armor corps and a larger military than the Nazis. They also had an anchor called the Maginot Line and no concept of mobile warfare or how to break a meeting engagement. But horrible tactics and strategic thinking aside, they were capable. Far from naked.
Think about German, French and English armor versus even top of the line Russian armor and air. Not an American bullet, plane or tank to be seen and I STILL think it's better than 70% advantage Western Europe.
Thoughts?
Monday, August 11, 2008
The devil you don't know.
Having sent my various family members home, I am back, namely to referee what seems to be a brewing source of antagonism between Titus and badboy. To overly simplify in my summation of the situation: badboy hates all things Russian, including its "people"; whereas Titus adores all things Russian, excluding its government.
Now, as I have no real dog in this hunt - I respect the storied history of Russia (at least more then Napoleon did) while being very skeptical of their new"democracy" - I will put on my research cap as to the current government's actions and what has lead us this point.
First the external actions, namely in Ossettia and Georgia, are meaningless without understanding the internal politics (or lack thereof) which have been in motion since the fall of the Soviet Union. Few people realize what occurred soon after the reigns of power were passed to Boris Yeltsin. As he went about democratizing his nation a funny thing happened, he became somewhat unpopular. The transition to democracy, as all are, was messy. Unemployment, organized crime, prostitution, and less then "honest" capitalists took advantage of the chaos. And just prior to the first election of a head of state in Russia's history (and I mean literally the first, as Titus knows) the media - perhaps the most obvious beneficiary of a newly free state - had to make a choice. Elements of the communist Party, still legal and operating like any other at that time (store front offices and the sort) were making grounds in the polling. Not enough to retake the government mind you, but to win enough seats in Parliament so as to turn the chaos towards their advantage. You might wonder how any Russian might support the communist party, given a choice, but think about what I wrote a moment ago - prostitution, unemployment, organized crime, this "messy" business of democracy, "we can make it all go away while maintaining your new freedoms in this NEW communist Party" they promised. This might seem appealing to poor or victimized Russians, or those not sharing in the new ventures into capitalism. So, the media made its choice - collectively the major newspapers and television outlets undertook the mission of ensuring Yeltsin's victory in the upcoming elections. No more shots of him looking drunk. No more stumbles on the tarmac were to be aired. No more missteps in speak (namely less then sober mumbling) aired. Glorious ceremonies in which he looked "presidential" were broad casted -Yeltsin waiving to thousands of gathered supporters. Yeltsin in hospitals visiting sick children; at plant and industrial grand openings. They made him look as if he was making zero mistakes and ushering Russia into a new age of prosperity. And this is certainly not a critical commentary on my part. They were merely doing their bit to ensure the survival of this weak democracy as it crawled out of its infancy. So, Yeltsin wins, and big. However, not long subsequent to his election (he wasn't reelected because his first post during the transition was self/Pulpit bureau appointed) his health began to fade and quite frankly he was getting old. Knowing that the new Russian democracy was still fragile he (and his inner circle) decided to hand over power - an endorsement from the newly popular Yeltsin, backed by the media, was tantamount to naming the next president - to a younger, bright, and strong Vladimir Putin. He had been loyal to Boris during the transition and as a former Colonel in the KGB he seemed like the perfect pick - a man whom had embraced democratization AND knew where all the bodies were buried (quite literally I would imagine). So the pro-Yeltsin media naturally became the pro-Putin media. Putin, having then won his own landslide, undertook a single mission - ensure the future prosperity of the Russian democracy ... even if that means behaving undemocratic at times, wink, wink. Putin's Kremlin then went about making pro-government media coverage a defacto policy. If you wanted high ranking government officials on your program; if you wanted to be granted (eventually lucrative) government operating permits for your broadcasts and towers; if you wanted to be "successful" as a news or general television station, radio or newspaper outlet, then the pro-Yeltsin, now pro-Putin coverage would continue. In other words he didn't pass a law demanding submission, he simply created the conditions so as to get the CEO's to voluntarily comply ... which they have. The most extreme example probably occurred about 6 months ago. I read this article in USA Today on my way back from NEPA, at O'Hare airport. It seems that the most popular news/debate program (their equivalent to an O'Reilly but with a panel) made the hasty choice to have on an anti-Putin political science professor. And as is practice, representatives of Putin were allowed to view the taped broadcast prior to its airing. And surprise, surprise, they objected to the poly-sci gent's criticisms. The problem is there wasn't sufficient time to re tape the broadcast before air time. What to do? The show's producer, in a hurry to comply with the "defacto policy", directed his engineers to digitally erase the anti-Putin panelist, and edit out his audio. And they did. However, they didn't do it well. During the entire broadcast a human hand sat on the arm of an otherwise empty chair, occasionally moving and gesturing about ... an oddity noticed by the audience to say the least. When questioned by foreign Western journalists as to just why they digitally erased the man at all, "I mean aren't you guys a democracy now?" was the thrust, the producer responded (and with a straight face), "He didn't have anything interesting to say anyway."
So, in warding off the resurgence of elements within the Communist Party - the devil they did know - they have unwittingly fallen under the direction of the devil they didn't, Putin. So what does that mean politically for Vladimir? Well, if there is zero opposition press, then how you operate domestically is lets say, "less hindered." When a recent oil magnate - whom surfaced with the capital to purchase lucrative oil contracts as natural resources were "de-nationalized" during the transition to democracy - got a little big for his britches (read: he got very wealthy and decided he might want to run for president, and financially backed candidates of opposing parties) he was suddenly under investigation by the Russian version of the FBI for the ominous accusation of "corruption." His assets seized, he was imprisoned, and his oil contracts and pipe lines dispersed to his competitors. Message sent. With no opposition press and any opposition politicians of serious note successfully intimidated, Putin has been free to "more easily" plod along with his mission - ensuring a return to Russian preeminence in the world. And to keep up appearances that an actual democracy is underway, Putin both created and assumed the post of Prime Minister and "allowed" Medvedev to ascend to the presidency, making it look to the glancing eye as if a peaceful transition of power had occurred. One thing however - Putin never stopped running the government. In eerily similar Bismarkian/Hitler fashion (Bismark being the German President during first Von Papen then Hitler's Prime Ministries, until Bismark's death when Adolf combined the two posts) Putin has created a scenario in which the traditionally ceremonial position of "Head of Sate" was retained by his lackey, while his new Prime Ministry is tasked as "the head of government." Putin hasn't gone anywhere my friends.
That leads us to Georgia. Now think about this if you're Putin - the only real opponent you have in the world is the US, and they are fighting a war on two fronts already. You have no domestic media opposition. No real political opponents. And to certify the reach of your own power you have, without batting an eye, created a post out of whole cloth which ensures your continued presence indefinitely as the head of government all while personally naming your "mini me" (good one Titus) to succeed you in the now largely ceremonial role as president. Under those circumstances do you give any hesitation to now reintroducing the world to Russian military might? I find it ironic that as dozens of nations are gathered in Beijing to show the world what they do best, Russia is in Georgia showing the world what they do best - namely intimidate their neighbors into submission. We could discuss the various geopolitical assumptions being made as to why this conflict arose, there are varying theories: Ossetia (southern Georgia) is 90% Russian, has always been pro-Russian (as opposed to pro-Georgian) and has long had separatists leanings. Russia can claim it's simply "liberating" her brothers and sisters. Also Georgia has rich fossil fuel deposits and they share the coast of the Black Sea, which gives Western Europe access to those deposits. Some say that Russia wants to further control just how much energy the West receives. Another theory involves Iran. Georgia enjoys a border with Turkey. And in any conflict with Iran the US would almost certainly need to utilize Turkish air bases. If Russia controls the Georgian border with Turkey it would serve to only extend its influence with that nation - namely pressuring them to slam the door shut on us prior to any Iranian conflict. Another reason may be Chechnya. Chechen fighters are (and accurately so) considered terrorists to the Russian Federation. If you look at a map Russia controls about 3/4 of the square mileage around the Chechnyan enclave. Guess whose border sits on the remaining 1/4? Georgia. And it has infuriated Russia to no end that although Georgia does concur that elements of terrorism exists in Chechnya, they (Georgia) has been known to negotiate with Chechen political representatives. And add this - if you are a "Red-fella" (Russian mafia) gun runner, and you supply Chechen rebels, then your best bet is to smuggle down into Georgia, then hook back up into Cechnya - avoiding that 3/4 of Russian military patrolled territory. And this almost certainly occurs (especially if you ask a Russian). But each and every reason I've just listed is a micro issue subordinate to the macro - as the Russian economy leaps forward (due to very low taxes and rich natural resources) Putin has decided to let the other shoe drop in terms of resurfacing as a world superpower - demonstrating the Russian military can, and more importantly will, act if they feel it's in their national interests.
For the US the bottom line is this: regardless of what Clinton and Bush should or shouldn't have been doing in the interim, after over a decade's break, the West's geopolitical game of chess with the Russians is again engaged. And the American electorate should note, that's a game the Russians are very adept at. We will need our best man to sit down at that playing board across from them ... and to further torture the metaphor, I wouldn't trust Obama at a game of checkers. Putin has just announced "knight to rook's pawn."
It's our move ....
(sources: globalsecurity.org, stratfor.com, various USA Today archives, and the world map in my office)
Now, as I have no real dog in this hunt - I respect the storied history of Russia (at least more then Napoleon did) while being very skeptical of their new"democracy" - I will put on my research cap as to the current government's actions and what has lead us this point.
First the external actions, namely in Ossettia and Georgia, are meaningless without understanding the internal politics (or lack thereof) which have been in motion since the fall of the Soviet Union. Few people realize what occurred soon after the reigns of power were passed to Boris Yeltsin. As he went about democratizing his nation a funny thing happened, he became somewhat unpopular. The transition to democracy, as all are, was messy. Unemployment, organized crime, prostitution, and less then "honest" capitalists took advantage of the chaos. And just prior to the first election of a head of state in Russia's history (and I mean literally the first, as Titus knows) the media - perhaps the most obvious beneficiary of a newly free state - had to make a choice. Elements of the communist Party, still legal and operating like any other at that time (store front offices and the sort) were making grounds in the polling. Not enough to retake the government mind you, but to win enough seats in Parliament so as to turn the chaos towards their advantage. You might wonder how any Russian might support the communist party, given a choice, but think about what I wrote a moment ago - prostitution, unemployment, organized crime, this "messy" business of democracy, "we can make it all go away while maintaining your new freedoms in this NEW communist Party" they promised. This might seem appealing to poor or victimized Russians, or those not sharing in the new ventures into capitalism. So, the media made its choice - collectively the major newspapers and television outlets undertook the mission of ensuring Yeltsin's victory in the upcoming elections. No more shots of him looking drunk. No more stumbles on the tarmac were to be aired. No more missteps in speak (namely less then sober mumbling) aired. Glorious ceremonies in which he looked "presidential" were broad casted -Yeltsin waiving to thousands of gathered supporters. Yeltsin in hospitals visiting sick children; at plant and industrial grand openings. They made him look as if he was making zero mistakes and ushering Russia into a new age of prosperity. And this is certainly not a critical commentary on my part. They were merely doing their bit to ensure the survival of this weak democracy as it crawled out of its infancy. So, Yeltsin wins, and big. However, not long subsequent to his election (he wasn't reelected because his first post during the transition was self/Pulpit bureau appointed) his health began to fade and quite frankly he was getting old. Knowing that the new Russian democracy was still fragile he (and his inner circle) decided to hand over power - an endorsement from the newly popular Yeltsin, backed by the media, was tantamount to naming the next president - to a younger, bright, and strong Vladimir Putin. He had been loyal to Boris during the transition and as a former Colonel in the KGB he seemed like the perfect pick - a man whom had embraced democratization AND knew where all the bodies were buried (quite literally I would imagine). So the pro-Yeltsin media naturally became the pro-Putin media. Putin, having then won his own landslide, undertook a single mission - ensure the future prosperity of the Russian democracy ... even if that means behaving undemocratic at times, wink, wink. Putin's Kremlin then went about making pro-government media coverage a defacto policy. If you wanted high ranking government officials on your program; if you wanted to be granted (eventually lucrative) government operating permits for your broadcasts and towers; if you wanted to be "successful" as a news or general television station, radio or newspaper outlet, then the pro-Yeltsin, now pro-Putin coverage would continue. In other words he didn't pass a law demanding submission, he simply created the conditions so as to get the CEO's to voluntarily comply ... which they have. The most extreme example probably occurred about 6 months ago. I read this article in USA Today on my way back from NEPA, at O'Hare airport. It seems that the most popular news/debate program (their equivalent to an O'Reilly but with a panel) made the hasty choice to have on an anti-Putin political science professor. And as is practice, representatives of Putin were allowed to view the taped broadcast prior to its airing. And surprise, surprise, they objected to the poly-sci gent's criticisms. The problem is there wasn't sufficient time to re tape the broadcast before air time. What to do? The show's producer, in a hurry to comply with the "defacto policy", directed his engineers to digitally erase the anti-Putin panelist, and edit out his audio. And they did. However, they didn't do it well. During the entire broadcast a human hand sat on the arm of an otherwise empty chair, occasionally moving and gesturing about ... an oddity noticed by the audience to say the least. When questioned by foreign Western journalists as to just why they digitally erased the man at all, "I mean aren't you guys a democracy now?" was the thrust, the producer responded (and with a straight face), "He didn't have anything interesting to say anyway."
So, in warding off the resurgence of elements within the Communist Party - the devil they did know - they have unwittingly fallen under the direction of the devil they didn't, Putin. So what does that mean politically for Vladimir? Well, if there is zero opposition press, then how you operate domestically is lets say, "less hindered." When a recent oil magnate - whom surfaced with the capital to purchase lucrative oil contracts as natural resources were "de-nationalized" during the transition to democracy - got a little big for his britches (read: he got very wealthy and decided he might want to run for president, and financially backed candidates of opposing parties) he was suddenly under investigation by the Russian version of the FBI for the ominous accusation of "corruption." His assets seized, he was imprisoned, and his oil contracts and pipe lines dispersed to his competitors. Message sent. With no opposition press and any opposition politicians of serious note successfully intimidated, Putin has been free to "more easily" plod along with his mission - ensuring a return to Russian preeminence in the world. And to keep up appearances that an actual democracy is underway, Putin both created and assumed the post of Prime Minister and "allowed" Medvedev to ascend to the presidency, making it look to the glancing eye as if a peaceful transition of power had occurred. One thing however - Putin never stopped running the government. In eerily similar Bismarkian/Hitler fashion (Bismark being the German President during first Von Papen then Hitler's Prime Ministries, until Bismark's death when Adolf combined the two posts) Putin has created a scenario in which the traditionally ceremonial position of "Head of Sate" was retained by his lackey, while his new Prime Ministry is tasked as "the head of government." Putin hasn't gone anywhere my friends.
That leads us to Georgia. Now think about this if you're Putin - the only real opponent you have in the world is the US, and they are fighting a war on two fronts already. You have no domestic media opposition. No real political opponents. And to certify the reach of your own power you have, without batting an eye, created a post out of whole cloth which ensures your continued presence indefinitely as the head of government all while personally naming your "mini me" (good one Titus) to succeed you in the now largely ceremonial role as president. Under those circumstances do you give any hesitation to now reintroducing the world to Russian military might? I find it ironic that as dozens of nations are gathered in Beijing to show the world what they do best, Russia is in Georgia showing the world what they do best - namely intimidate their neighbors into submission. We could discuss the various geopolitical assumptions being made as to why this conflict arose, there are varying theories: Ossetia (southern Georgia) is 90% Russian, has always been pro-Russian (as opposed to pro-Georgian) and has long had separatists leanings. Russia can claim it's simply "liberating" her brothers and sisters. Also Georgia has rich fossil fuel deposits and they share the coast of the Black Sea, which gives Western Europe access to those deposits. Some say that Russia wants to further control just how much energy the West receives. Another theory involves Iran. Georgia enjoys a border with Turkey. And in any conflict with Iran the US would almost certainly need to utilize Turkish air bases. If Russia controls the Georgian border with Turkey it would serve to only extend its influence with that nation - namely pressuring them to slam the door shut on us prior to any Iranian conflict. Another reason may be Chechnya. Chechen fighters are (and accurately so) considered terrorists to the Russian Federation. If you look at a map Russia controls about 3/4 of the square mileage around the Chechnyan enclave. Guess whose border sits on the remaining 1/4? Georgia. And it has infuriated Russia to no end that although Georgia does concur that elements of terrorism exists in Chechnya, they (Georgia) has been known to negotiate with Chechen political representatives. And add this - if you are a "Red-fella" (Russian mafia) gun runner, and you supply Chechen rebels, then your best bet is to smuggle down into Georgia, then hook back up into Cechnya - avoiding that 3/4 of Russian military patrolled territory. And this almost certainly occurs (especially if you ask a Russian). But each and every reason I've just listed is a micro issue subordinate to the macro - as the Russian economy leaps forward (due to very low taxes and rich natural resources) Putin has decided to let the other shoe drop in terms of resurfacing as a world superpower - demonstrating the Russian military can, and more importantly will, act if they feel it's in their national interests.
For the US the bottom line is this: regardless of what Clinton and Bush should or shouldn't have been doing in the interim, after over a decade's break, the West's geopolitical game of chess with the Russians is again engaged. And the American electorate should note, that's a game the Russians are very adept at. We will need our best man to sit down at that playing board across from them ... and to further torture the metaphor, I wouldn't trust Obama at a game of checkers. Putin has just announced "knight to rook's pawn."
It's our move ....
(sources: globalsecurity.org, stratfor.com, various USA Today archives, and the world map in my office)
In addition...
I just wanted to add a few things:
1) Russia is currently the 7th largest economy on the face of the earth, but it is the 3rd FASTEST GROWING (behind China and India). To put that into perspective... the US is still the largest economy on the earth, but it is only projecting a 1.7% rate of economic growth right now (2008), compared to Russia's 8.7% rate of growth LAST YEAR! With crude, gas and diesel still at record highs, no one I have seen is projecting a slow-down on the Russian economy anytime soon.
2) Russia is currently ranked 8th in the total number of troops available for combat, right behind the US at 7th... but if one removes the ultra-reservist categories like the US Coast Guard Aux. and the Civil Air Patrol, the US and Russia are very closely matched, soldier-to-soldier, with the Russkies having about a 5% edge on us (they still maintain about a 30% conscription rate).
3) While much of Russia's military might relies on questionable technology (especially within their Strategic Rocket Forces and their submersible and surface Naval Forces), the bulk of their air force and infantry/armor capacity is just as functional now as it was in 1991. No one that I know of is questioning the capabilities of the AK-74, or the MiG-29, or the T-90 MBT as weapons that can do the job in most 2nd and 3rd World theaters of operation.
I bring up these points so that there is no question about my position in regards to Russia: They pose a real and measurable threat to US interests globally, as long as they are willing to use military means to gain their OWN interests and objectives. From the first Chechnyan conflict of 1994 to the current "dust-up" in Georgia, Russia has not stopped eyeing the possibility of expanding its influence, both internally, regionally (within the borders of the former USSR and Warsaw Pact states) and internationally. This is something NO US President can afford to forget... and Mac won't, but Obama already has.
Of course, I haven't mentioned the 1,900+ thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles that the nation still maintains as a "defensive deterrent" to outside aggression... but I assume this is taken for granted.
1) Russia is currently the 7th largest economy on the face of the earth, but it is the 3rd FASTEST GROWING (behind China and India). To put that into perspective... the US is still the largest economy on the earth, but it is only projecting a 1.7% rate of economic growth right now (2008), compared to Russia's 8.7% rate of growth LAST YEAR! With crude, gas and diesel still at record highs, no one I have seen is projecting a slow-down on the Russian economy anytime soon.
2) Russia is currently ranked 8th in the total number of troops available for combat, right behind the US at 7th... but if one removes the ultra-reservist categories like the US Coast Guard Aux. and the Civil Air Patrol, the US and Russia are very closely matched, soldier-to-soldier, with the Russkies having about a 5% edge on us (they still maintain about a 30% conscription rate).
3) While much of Russia's military might relies on questionable technology (especially within their Strategic Rocket Forces and their submersible and surface Naval Forces), the bulk of their air force and infantry/armor capacity is just as functional now as it was in 1991. No one that I know of is questioning the capabilities of the AK-74, or the MiG-29, or the T-90 MBT as weapons that can do the job in most 2nd and 3rd World theaters of operation.
I bring up these points so that there is no question about my position in regards to Russia: They pose a real and measurable threat to US interests globally, as long as they are willing to use military means to gain their OWN interests and objectives. From the first Chechnyan conflict of 1994 to the current "dust-up" in Georgia, Russia has not stopped eyeing the possibility of expanding its influence, both internally, regionally (within the borders of the former USSR and Warsaw Pact states) and internationally. This is something NO US President can afford to forget... and Mac won't, but Obama already has.
Of course, I haven't mentioned the 1,900+ thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles that the nation still maintains as a "defensive deterrent" to outside aggression... but I assume this is taken for granted.
I'm back...
...and what do I find?
Another complete misinterpretation of my stated position!
If those who question do not recall (ahem), I CALLED this kind of resurgent aggression back when the Russkies were "laying claim" to the North Pole. Putin and his "minnie me" Medvedev have one goal in mind for the former Soviet Union (and Russia in particular), and that is a second-chance at superpower status.
Since 1994, the Russian Army (a tattered remnant of the former Red Army) had its ass handed to it on a nightly basis by as few as 3,500 organized and armed Chechen rebels. Terror was rampant in a society that had not known "terror" (at least of the new breed) before the fall of the USSR. No substantial innovations or developments have been made in Russian military technology since '91 (and we know now that much of THAT technology was over-rated).
So, what has changed since 1999?
Russia has developed into the 2nd largest exporter of crude oil and the largest exporter of natural gas and diesel fuel on the face of the planet... right at a time when the gross cost of these commodities rose at a very conservative rate of about 100% every quarter for nearly two years. Russia accounts for the LARGEST national mineral and metal deposits on Earth... nearly HALF of all the coal on earth is in Russia, and 45% of all untapped natural gas is here, as well. There is more copper in Russia RIGHT NOW than has ever been mined in all of North America since 1795 (the oldest records kept).
Moscow has "stood up" to the US in regards to anti-missile system deployments, NATO expansion, and near-Asian alliances rather successfully. Cities like St Petersburg, Moscow, Suzdal, Novosibirsk, Volgograd and Yekaterinberg are drawing thousands of new commercial and industrial ventures each year due largely to generaous infrastructure allocations that more established economies can't deliver.
In the last four years, Russia has put two new fighters, two new tanks, and a dozen new (if small) naval vessels into service that have "shored up" their weakened ability to project force globally, while still maintaining the massive stockpiles of traditional (and effective) infantry, armor and artillery materials left from the USSR.
THIS is the NEW Russia... working to extend it's sphere of influence as far and as wide as it can, especially since the US is slow (and God forbid) reducing it's sphere. The opportunity to partner with this "potential" superpower is fast fading... but the threat remains, regardless of where we see ourselves in relation to Russia (or, more specifically... the Kremlin).
I "admire" the Russian PEOPLE. They are a culture that recognizes the gains they have made throughout history, and refuse to forget them. I do NOT admire or condone the actions of the current regime (nor of any others dating as far back as at least 1901) at the Kremlin. These are a people that WILL NOT be defeated... and REFUSE to forget the price they have been forced to pay for their nation and their liberties. There is no more patriotic, nationalistic society on earth than the Russian People... and they have a lot to teach us about "national will" and its impact on government.
Another complete misinterpretation of my stated position!
If those who question do not recall (ahem), I CALLED this kind of resurgent aggression back when the Russkies were "laying claim" to the North Pole. Putin and his "minnie me" Medvedev have one goal in mind for the former Soviet Union (and Russia in particular), and that is a second-chance at superpower status.
Since 1994, the Russian Army (a tattered remnant of the former Red Army) had its ass handed to it on a nightly basis by as few as 3,500 organized and armed Chechen rebels. Terror was rampant in a society that had not known "terror" (at least of the new breed) before the fall of the USSR. No substantial innovations or developments have been made in Russian military technology since '91 (and we know now that much of THAT technology was over-rated).
So, what has changed since 1999?
Russia has developed into the 2nd largest exporter of crude oil and the largest exporter of natural gas and diesel fuel on the face of the planet... right at a time when the gross cost of these commodities rose at a very conservative rate of about 100% every quarter for nearly two years. Russia accounts for the LARGEST national mineral and metal deposits on Earth... nearly HALF of all the coal on earth is in Russia, and 45% of all untapped natural gas is here, as well. There is more copper in Russia RIGHT NOW than has ever been mined in all of North America since 1795 (the oldest records kept).
Moscow has "stood up" to the US in regards to anti-missile system deployments, NATO expansion, and near-Asian alliances rather successfully. Cities like St Petersburg, Moscow, Suzdal, Novosibirsk, Volgograd and Yekaterinberg are drawing thousands of new commercial and industrial ventures each year due largely to generaous infrastructure allocations that more established economies can't deliver.
In the last four years, Russia has put two new fighters, two new tanks, and a dozen new (if small) naval vessels into service that have "shored up" their weakened ability to project force globally, while still maintaining the massive stockpiles of traditional (and effective) infantry, armor and artillery materials left from the USSR.
THIS is the NEW Russia... working to extend it's sphere of influence as far and as wide as it can, especially since the US is slow (and God forbid) reducing it's sphere. The opportunity to partner with this "potential" superpower is fast fading... but the threat remains, regardless of where we see ourselves in relation to Russia (or, more specifically... the Kremlin).
I "admire" the Russian PEOPLE. They are a culture that recognizes the gains they have made throughout history, and refuse to forget them. I do NOT admire or condone the actions of the current regime (nor of any others dating as far back as at least 1901) at the Kremlin. These are a people that WILL NOT be defeated... and REFUSE to forget the price they have been forced to pay for their nation and their liberties. There is no more patriotic, nationalistic society on earth than the Russian People... and they have a lot to teach us about "national will" and its impact on government.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Here we go again...man I hate the Russians
This is in Fox News today. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,400841,00.html Those good for nothing scum bags are intentionally hitting civilians to force a withdrawal of Georgian troops from a former unrecognized territory. The Georgians withdraw and they start hitting Georgia, well behind the lines of dispute. Then they have the balls to blame it on the US because we trained the Georgian troops and they want to be a member of NATO.
The part that really kills me is that Titus actually admires these freaks and sympathizes with them. The whole friggin place is corupt and immoral. Their leadership has delusions of grandeur and they need to get over themselves.
The part that really kills me is that Titus actually admires these freaks and sympathizes with them. The whole friggin place is corupt and immoral. Their leadership has delusions of grandeur and they need to get over themselves.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
THIS IS IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Ryan, your package goes out tomorrow AM. I'm sorry this has taken nearly three months. Mostly I'm sick of looking at these skinny clothes in my closet of fat apparel!
Friday, August 1, 2008
"It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood ..."
Just get ready for scores of this racial nonsense as the first black legitimate candidate for president goes into the final 90 days. Every MAC offensive will be responded to by calling him a racist. Its nauseating. This from FOX News:
The McCain campaign is accusing Sen. Obama of playing the “race card” for stating yesterday that the presumptive Republican nominee was engaging in fear tactics and xenophobia.
“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong,” said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis Thursday, citing multiple statements by Obama yesterday.
“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making,” Obama told supporters in Springfield, MO Wednesday in response to the tv spot McCain released yesterday.
In the new ad, McCain compares his Democratic rival to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attempt to paint him as an empty suit and a vapid celebrity who lacks the experience and skills for the White House.
By the way, I've seen the commercial comparing Obama to Hilton and Spears, race is not a component whatsoever. And the point is valid and clever - they're using his celebrity status and crowds, his strength, against him ... Sun Tzu would be proud. And FYI Barry ol' buddy, telling Americans to better inflate their tires and get tune-ups as part of your "energy plan" is as EMPTY as they come - you might as well borrow Jimmy Carter's Mr. Rogers sweater and tell us all to turn down the thermostat this winter. America has seen this act ... they aren't buying.
The McCain campaign is accusing Sen. Obama of playing the “race card” for stating yesterday that the presumptive Republican nominee was engaging in fear tactics and xenophobia.
“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong,” said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis Thursday, citing multiple statements by Obama yesterday.
“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making,” Obama told supporters in Springfield, MO Wednesday in response to the tv spot McCain released yesterday.
In the new ad, McCain compares his Democratic rival to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attempt to paint him as an empty suit and a vapid celebrity who lacks the experience and skills for the White House.
By the way, I've seen the commercial comparing Obama to Hilton and Spears, race is not a component whatsoever. And the point is valid and clever - they're using his celebrity status and crowds, his strength, against him ... Sun Tzu would be proud. And FYI Barry ol' buddy, telling Americans to better inflate their tires and get tune-ups as part of your "energy plan" is as EMPTY as they come - you might as well borrow Jimmy Carter's Mr. Rogers sweater and tell us all to turn down the thermostat this winter. America has seen this act ... they aren't buying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
