If the United States was in a Facebook relationship with Afghanistan, it’s status would undoubtedly be the now infamous tagline: ‘It’s Complicated.’ I personally love that term- it covers all manner of dirty little sins and it’s a neat summation of the excruciatingly difficult foreign policy challenge facing the Obama Administration. If, kids, you thought Iraq was a maddening mess to untangle, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet when it comes to Afghanistan. Happily, the widespread fraud in the August Presidential Elections has forced the government of President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff- which has bought the Obama Administration some time to ponder the options it faces in regards to cleaning up Afghanistan- none of which are palatable, none of which are good and none of which will solve the mess we currently find ourselves in.
I want to try and write about this because it's incredibly important- we're about to make the most important foreign policy decision of the new century and to be frank, not enough people are going to be paying attention- and too many people are going to be willing to believe whatever the media tells them. (More and more, I'm thinking that courses on media manipulation should be required at the elementary, high school and college levels. People have simply got to stop eating up the bullshit we get spoon-fed by the media.) The problem I'm finding is that the complexity of the situation doesn't make for very entertaining reading. So, please, gang- bear with me as I try to dissect this:
The infuriating difficulty of our foreign policy in the post 9-11 age is that the quality of regimes we support now matters more than the quantity. This is a fundamental change from the Cold War equation we had been working under- where containment of communism was an overriding national priority and the quantity of regimes in the world that would do our bidding mattered more to us than what policies they pursued. September the 11th proved conclusively that in the 21st Century, we cannot turn a blind eye to the potential shortcomings of any 'allies' we support out there. It is not just that we need allies in the Middle East- we need good ones, that won't oppress their people, who won't, in turn, resent us for bankrolling their oppressors.
The neo-conservative thesis of freedom, liberty, democracy and spreading the blessings of the United States of America is nauseating horse crap that belongs on a Hallmark Card instead of in serious foreign policy discussion. Whenever there's another war and some President, either Democrat or Republican spins us all some bullcrap about 'all the good we're doing' and 'liberating the oppressed people of Whachamacallitstan' don't believe it. Realism, although I can't stand it, holds true. Nations act in their long-term interests and nothing else-- and guess what, our long-term interests in the region have nothing to do with terrorism. No, gang, it's much, much more complicated than that: we have to discredit Islamism as a political force in the Middle East- and as a bonus, just because that won't be hard enough, we have to get the people of the Middle East to do it themselves- this change cannot be imposed from above or from the outside.
Kids, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan weren't aimed at those countries specifically. Instead our real targets were Iran and Pakistan. Iran, because if the Ayatollah and all his merry men are forced from power, it will be a political earthquake the region hasn't seen since 1979, when the Ayatollahs took over Iran and Islamism became a serious political force in the region. Pakistan because we need to fundamentally alter Pakistan's state identity so that it's state institutions can function free of the need to co-opt Islamic fundamentalists for support.
Now do you see why this stuff is so complicated? In the long-term, George W. Bush (brace yourselves, my liberal friends) might just be remembered as a genius. I know that's probably hard for many people to accept right now, but it's true. The tiresome debates over how we got into Iraq and Afghanistan should end. I could care less, personally- and if you're an informed citizen, you shouldn't care either. The wars are what they are and we now have to craft a policy that will disentangle us while furthering our national interests (because that's what countries act on- none of this blessings of liberty or 'let freedom reign' crap, neo-cons. Puh-leez.) and not leaving a bigger mess behind. The real consequences of both invasions and both wars will not become clear for another decade at minimum. (This is why I come across as Republican to a lot of my more liberal friends-- not because I think Bush was necessarily right, but because I'm deferring judgment on his actions until the verdict is in. And it isn't yet. Where I tend to line up with my liberal friends is on his infuriating incompetence in prosecuting the war in Iraq. For that, I devoutly hope that he will be (metaphorically speaking) hanged from the yardarm of history when the dust settles.)
The ripple effects of Iraq should be obvious- once a competent (it took awhile, but we got one) war policy was decided upon, stabilization and relative security followed. This being a remnant of Dubya's foreign policy, it's fair to say that it could all go tits up at any time (hence my deferred judgement), but for now at least, Iraq is moving in the right direction. And look what happened in both Lebanon (with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and a firm re-assertion of Lebanese sovereignty) and Iran (where the Ayatollah has alienated a whole generation of young people following the brutal crackdown in the wake of June's Presidential elections.) For the people of the region, seeing the messy birth of a functioning democratic state has got a lot of people thinking. And what that means is anyone's guess. (Hence, my deferred judgement!)
Afghanistan is even more messy, because none of the options under discussion are going to work. 45,000 more troops may indeed rollback the Taliban and give the Afghani government room to breathe, but until you can secure the border with Pakistan, it won't do a damn thing. The Taliban can (and probably will) run back across the border and keep right on fighting. The opposing school of thought (calling for a more surgical war directed primarily against Al-Qaeda) would be even more disastrous. Emboldening the Taliban is not the answer. If we run and scale down our war in Afghanistan, the government we've spent blood and money putting into place will fall. Pakistan (given the audacity of some of the recent attacks) will also be under threat (as they'll have no reason to stop co-opting and cooperating with Islamic Fundamentalists to act as a bulwark to the cohesiveness of their state itself.)
The real policy challenge confronting us then, is this: Pakistan is a completely artificial entity (there's never been a Pakistan before '47) and with the untimely death of Jinnah, it had no strong national leader to help formulate a coherent state identity about what exactly it means to be Pakistani, so one sort of had to be made up on the fly. An evil enemy to get people to rally around the flag (India), a Cold War superpower to give them a fancy military to defend the people from aforementioned ugly enemy (the United States) and what, kiddies, is the glue that holds it all together? That's right- Islam!
So how do you a convince a country whose state identity for the past fifty years has involved a closer and closer embrace of increasingly fundamentalist Islamic political forces to well, stop hugging so you can secure and stabilize the country next door and bring your troops home without an early (precipitous) and potentially disastrous withdrawal leaving chaos in your wake? (And oh, as a super-cool bonus, ending this 'embrace' will also keep a nuclear arsenal out of the hands of Islamic fundamentalists- something I think we can all agree would be a super-good thing.)
And kids, if you have an answer to the above problem, please let the President know as soon as possible. As for me, well, I've come to the following conclusion:
Eh, it's complicated.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What To Do About Afghanistan?
A decision on Afghanistan is coming. I'm assembling thoughts on that myself- and when I get them in order, I'll share 'em with you. But first of all:
The NY Times has a piece worth reading, here.
And Frontline ran a documentary called "Obama's War" this past Tuesday that should required viewing for everyone. And I do mean everyone.
Thoughts, comments, concerns?
The NY Times has a piece worth reading, here.
And Frontline ran a documentary called "Obama's War" this past Tuesday that should required viewing for everyone. And I do mean everyone.
Thoughts, comments, concerns?
Runaway Balloon
An experimental balloon got away in Colorado today, apparently with a 6 year old passenger aboard. They've got the balloon down, but there's no sign of the boy.
**UPDATE: OH SNAP, turns out Balloon Boy was in the garage the whole damn time!
**UPDATE: OH SNAP, turns out Balloon Boy was in the garage the whole damn time!
Become A Fan of Auschwitz on Facebook!
So, Auschwitz (yes, that Auschwitz) has a Facebook page- the perils of which should be aptly illustrated by the title of this post. I get the idea- reaching out and educating people is important, but social networking is a tool primarily for communication, not education. An Auschwitz Facebook page? (There are 3 I've found, crazily enough) it just seems tacky to me.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Christie Vilsack for Senate?
Former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack is being floated/considering a run for Senate against Chuck Grassley next year.
Honestly not sure what to think of this. I suppose it's better than someone that no one has every heard of.
Thoughts, anyone?
Honestly not sure what to think of this. I suppose it's better than someone that no one has every heard of.
Thoughts, anyone?
Branstad Is (Almost) Officially In
Well, it's fast becoming a foregone conclusion- Terry Branstad is seeking a political comeback. He's officially formed a gubernatorial campaign committee.
I still maintain that if he gets the nod, he's the best shot the Republicans have. So if I was Governor Culver-- I'd be getting a little nervous. (But only a little.)
I still maintain that if he gets the nod, he's the best shot the Republicans have. So if I was Governor Culver-- I'd be getting a little nervous. (But only a little.)
No Snowementum
Despite the fact that Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (one of the GOP's so-called Ladies of Maine) voted in favor of the Baucus Bill in the Senate Finance Committee today- Politico.com is reporting that Centrists Democrats still have their doubts on healthcare reform.
I struggle with Health Care reform. I have issues with the idea of the government being involved with Health insurance in any way, shape or form. This is after all, the United States Government we're talking about here. But at the same time, I have bigger issues with the thought that people in America- the United States of America today, right here, right now may actually die because of lack of money or inability to get themselves covered.
People should die from heart attacks. They should die from diseases or natural causes. They shouldn't die from lack of money or inability to get insurance. To me, the fact that this is the situation we face every day in America is the greatest indictment of modern capitalism that I can think of. The problem that I come back to again and again is that 20 years after the Revolutions of 1989, the American left still can't seem to figure out that socialism doesn't work. Command economies are dead dessicated corpses of the failed Soviet experiment and the European welfare state will implode over lack of money and no birthrates to help them through the demographic crunch that's coming.
The fact that money is tied so tightly to medical care is just symptomatic again of the problems of the American system: we are the opposite of China. Our political and economic systems are fast becoming one in the same. And so we find ourselves staring at Health Care costs that are out of control and a political system saddled with an inability to take on the vested economic interests that are stacked against meaningful reform. And if we don't get meaningful reform, what then?
I view socialism as dead. Capitalism as decaying. Libertarianism too cold. Anarchism too out of reach. There's nothing left, but the conclusion that if we do not reform- and not just health care, everything-- our national priority should be to disentangle our politics and economics once and for all- then the rich will continue to get richer and the middle-class and the lower classes will continue to bankroll their largess.
At the end of the day, I have an inherent distrust of any government to do anything efficiently. Governments and bureaucracies are by their very nature paragons of inefficiency. But I think we can get meaningful health care reform. We can get a foundation for future reforms and consumer protections that are badly needed. When I think of living in an America where you need money to save your health or even your life I get mad, I get said and I honestly think about emigrating. No one should have to pay to live.
But as I said: I struggle with Health Care reform.
I struggle with Health Care reform. I have issues with the idea of the government being involved with Health insurance in any way, shape or form. This is after all, the United States Government we're talking about here. But at the same time, I have bigger issues with the thought that people in America- the United States of America today, right here, right now may actually die because of lack of money or inability to get themselves covered.
People should die from heart attacks. They should die from diseases or natural causes. They shouldn't die from lack of money or inability to get insurance. To me, the fact that this is the situation we face every day in America is the greatest indictment of modern capitalism that I can think of. The problem that I come back to again and again is that 20 years after the Revolutions of 1989, the American left still can't seem to figure out that socialism doesn't work. Command economies are dead dessicated corpses of the failed Soviet experiment and the European welfare state will implode over lack of money and no birthrates to help them through the demographic crunch that's coming.
The fact that money is tied so tightly to medical care is just symptomatic again of the problems of the American system: we are the opposite of China. Our political and economic systems are fast becoming one in the same. And so we find ourselves staring at Health Care costs that are out of control and a political system saddled with an inability to take on the vested economic interests that are stacked against meaningful reform. And if we don't get meaningful reform, what then?
I view socialism as dead. Capitalism as decaying. Libertarianism too cold. Anarchism too out of reach. There's nothing left, but the conclusion that if we do not reform- and not just health care, everything-- our national priority should be to disentangle our politics and economics once and for all- then the rich will continue to get richer and the middle-class and the lower classes will continue to bankroll their largess.
At the end of the day, I have an inherent distrust of any government to do anything efficiently. Governments and bureaucracies are by their very nature paragons of inefficiency. But I think we can get meaningful health care reform. We can get a foundation for future reforms and consumer protections that are badly needed. When I think of living in an America where you need money to save your health or even your life I get mad, I get said and I honestly think about emigrating. No one should have to pay to live.
But as I said: I struggle with Health Care reform.
A Breakthrough in Honduras?
Everyone's favorite telenovela may be coming to an end... there's been some kind of an agreement reached to settle (or 'get an exit') to the Honduran Crisis, but it's not quite clear what exactly it entails just yet...
To Tweet or Not To Tweet?
I'm considering taking the plunge and getting the Cigar a Twitter Account. To be honest though, it's more of a balancing act for me: do I want to immerse myself in Twitter and learn its secrets and ways? Or is it just going to turn into something massively lame that I never bother checking or using anyway?
This is the debate I'm currently having with myself. When I first heard of Twitter some months ago, I didn't understand the appeal. To be frank, it seemed like a program devoted to posting what amounted to Facebook status updates for all the world to see. Few, if any people care about my Facebook status updates, so I thought why bother with Twitter?
Then came the Iranian Presidential Elections in June- and the protests that followed transformed Twitter into a lame platform for weird-ass notifications into what had the potential to be a micro-news organization. You could log on to the Iran Election stream and watch hundreds of instantaneously updated Tweets from around the region and around the world. It was a fascinating demonstration of the true potential of Twitter and made me sit back and ponder it some more.
But I still don't know... is it worth it? Would people care? Do people even really read the Cigar that much? (I know there must be a few of you and for that, dear readers I thank you...)
I'll open it up to whomever's out there: is Twitter lame and should I not bother? Or is Twitter super-cool and I should hook into it to push the blog out there a bit?
This is the debate I'm currently having with myself. When I first heard of Twitter some months ago, I didn't understand the appeal. To be frank, it seemed like a program devoted to posting what amounted to Facebook status updates for all the world to see. Few, if any people care about my Facebook status updates, so I thought why bother with Twitter?
Then came the Iranian Presidential Elections in June- and the protests that followed transformed Twitter into a lame platform for weird-ass notifications into what had the potential to be a micro-news organization. You could log on to the Iran Election stream and watch hundreds of instantaneously updated Tweets from around the region and around the world. It was a fascinating demonstration of the true potential of Twitter and made me sit back and ponder it some more.
But I still don't know... is it worth it? Would people care? Do people even really read the Cigar that much? (I know there must be a few of you and for that, dear readers I thank you...)
I'll open it up to whomever's out there: is Twitter lame and should I not bother? Or is Twitter super-cool and I should hook into it to push the blog out there a bit?
Dow@10,000
The Dow has closed above 10,000 for the first time in a year. This is being trumpeted as a good thing and a sign that we're moving 'in the right direction.' Yet unemployment is about to hit 10% and more and more of the costs of these idiotic bailouts and bloated stiumulus packages are being passed on to the states. Iowa is under the gun-- California's much vaunted new budget is already in the red...
So, put the champagne down. This is no reason to celebrate, just another signal that the rich have gotten richer by getting together with the politicians and screwing the rest of us over.
Put. The. Champagne. Down.
So, put the champagne down. This is no reason to celebrate, just another signal that the rich have gotten richer by getting together with the politicians and screwing the rest of us over.
Put. The. Champagne. Down.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Late Night Chronicles 31: WTF, Man?
The Late Night Chronicles is pleased to announce that we believe that we should reduce and completely rid the world of all nuclear arms and moreover, we also think that we should all just be groovy to one another and get along.
Hopefully, the Nobel Prize Committee is going to read this, because I'll be waiting for my kroner and my big, fancy, medallion. Put in the mail, first class please- because I don't want it to get broken or anything. And if you could send the kroner in dollars instead? That'd be totally awesome...
I started my last break in front of a television in Stanley this morning mildly pleased with myself. Thursday night had been fairly quiet, for a change- Burge failed to be the pit of chaos and mayhem that it often is. I finished up my paperwork, sat down and flipped on MSNBC to discover that we were bombing the moon. (NASA carried the one and used the right units this time, so they managed to hit the moon on target!) Oh, and our Glorious President has won the Nobel Peace Prize for reasons passing understanding.
That annoyed me. It really chaps your ass when a bunch of old Scandanavians manage to ruin your morning before it's even really started. I was mildly irritated I got stuck with unlocking a shit-ass ton of buildings, but only mildly. The Nobel Committee managed to reduce me to incoherent rage in the space of about five minutes. Let's be clear: I voted for Obama and I'm really trying very, very, very hard to like him and to find reasons to keep liking him, but WTF, MAN? REALLY? Seriously?
I would be thrilled beyond belief if President Obama had actually done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but not to put too fine a point on it, he really hasn't. Not being George W. Bush isn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Saying you want a nuclear free world and everyone to get along is a splendid sentiment, but it's not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Changing the international climate is an awesome thing- being more multilateral and respectful of everyone else's feelings in the world- also a good thing. But not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perusing the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, we see that the majority of Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded for past achievement, not some made up bullshit about the stuff our Glorious President has supposedly done in the past nine months and the hope that he'll do something totally kick-ass in the future. I mean, obviously, it'd be great if he does do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in the future-- but he should, therefore get it in the future. You know, when he's actually done something!
And I know, I'm being a really cynical bastard- and I'm probably coming across as a right-wing firebrand of the worst kind, but I'm really not. I'm a solid independent who can't stand the Republican Party and has seen invertebrate creatures in petri dishes that have more spine than your average Democratic Politician-- but the justification I've seen thus far is that Obama's made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because 'America is back.' 'Bush is gone.' The justification seems to be that because he's not George W. Bush we should give him a Nobel Peace Prize, which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard, because let's be totally honest with each other, kids- we could have elected 'Dave The Methhead from the Trailer Court Down the Street' President and the World would have gotten a serious case of the warm and fuzzies. We could have elected Paris Hilton and achieved the same affect.
Not being George W. Bush is one of the chief reasons I voted for Obama in the first place. But does that qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize? Not in the slightest... look at the list of laureates- and hell, let's start with the US Presidents- the sitting ones who got it: they both got it for doing something! Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson- Woodrow Effing Wilson got it for forming a useless international organization (The League of Nations) and crafting what ultimately proved to be a terrible peace treaty (the Treaty of Versailles, that we didn't even sign!)
The official justification: "In its surprise choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency." (That's straight from the AP article, by the by...) Ah, so the official justification is that he's not George W. Bush and his supposed work on nuclear disarmament. Can anyone tell me how many nukes we've gotten rid of since he's taken office? Have the Russians signed on? Because if they have and it's been kept a secret- please share, so I can be mildly pleased by this.
The most similar Nobel Peace Prize Laureate I've been able to find who matches the vagueness and incoherence of President Obama's win is Philip Noel-Baker of the UK who won in 1959 for being a 'lifelong ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.' If you've never heard of Mr. Noel-Baker, don't worry, neither have I. A cursory glance at his wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) page reveals that he was awarded the Prize at the age of 70, with a lifetime of work behind him. So it seems that the standard has been for past achievement not just waving and looking pretty and talking a lot, like our Glorious President has done thus far.
Personally, I think he should decline it. That'd be smart politics to me- say thanks, but no thanks- there are more deserving people out there this year and I'd like the chance to actually do something wonderfully kick-ass that's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Then our President looks very Presidential and very humble, because he had the nuts to turn down a Nobel Peace Prize- which is like the equivalent to an Oscar for a head of state. (Would you really say no to an Oscar? Really? If you weren't terribly bad-ass like Peter O'Toole, who initially turned down an honorary one.) I'd have more respect for the man if he did turn it down and then proceeded to knock heads together in the Middle East and get a peace treaty or something. The fact that he's going to apparently accept it means that he's now got to actually justify getting the damn thing, which is something that could seriously come back to bite him in the ass.
"So soon," said former Polish President Lech Walesa (who won in 1983) "Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage."
Kids, Lech don't sound to happy about this- and neither am I.
Hopefully, the Nobel Prize Committee is going to read this, because I'll be waiting for my kroner and my big, fancy, medallion. Put in the mail, first class please- because I don't want it to get broken or anything. And if you could send the kroner in dollars instead? That'd be totally awesome...
I started my last break in front of a television in Stanley this morning mildly pleased with myself. Thursday night had been fairly quiet, for a change- Burge failed to be the pit of chaos and mayhem that it often is. I finished up my paperwork, sat down and flipped on MSNBC to discover that we were bombing the moon. (NASA carried the one and used the right units this time, so they managed to hit the moon on target!) Oh, and our Glorious President has won the Nobel Peace Prize for reasons passing understanding.
That annoyed me. It really chaps your ass when a bunch of old Scandanavians manage to ruin your morning before it's even really started. I was mildly irritated I got stuck with unlocking a shit-ass ton of buildings, but only mildly. The Nobel Committee managed to reduce me to incoherent rage in the space of about five minutes. Let's be clear: I voted for Obama and I'm really trying very, very, very hard to like him and to find reasons to keep liking him, but WTF, MAN? REALLY? Seriously?
I would be thrilled beyond belief if President Obama had actually done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but not to put too fine a point on it, he really hasn't. Not being George W. Bush isn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Saying you want a nuclear free world and everyone to get along is a splendid sentiment, but it's not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Changing the international climate is an awesome thing- being more multilateral and respectful of everyone else's feelings in the world- also a good thing. But not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perusing the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, we see that the majority of Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded for past achievement, not some made up bullshit about the stuff our Glorious President has supposedly done in the past nine months and the hope that he'll do something totally kick-ass in the future. I mean, obviously, it'd be great if he does do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in the future-- but he should, therefore get it in the future. You know, when he's actually done something!
And I know, I'm being a really cynical bastard- and I'm probably coming across as a right-wing firebrand of the worst kind, but I'm really not. I'm a solid independent who can't stand the Republican Party and has seen invertebrate creatures in petri dishes that have more spine than your average Democratic Politician-- but the justification I've seen thus far is that Obama's made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because 'America is back.' 'Bush is gone.' The justification seems to be that because he's not George W. Bush we should give him a Nobel Peace Prize, which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard, because let's be totally honest with each other, kids- we could have elected 'Dave The Methhead from the Trailer Court Down the Street' President and the World would have gotten a serious case of the warm and fuzzies. We could have elected Paris Hilton and achieved the same affect.
Not being George W. Bush is one of the chief reasons I voted for Obama in the first place. But does that qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize? Not in the slightest... look at the list of laureates- and hell, let's start with the US Presidents- the sitting ones who got it: they both got it for doing something! Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson- Woodrow Effing Wilson got it for forming a useless international organization (The League of Nations) and crafting what ultimately proved to be a terrible peace treaty (the Treaty of Versailles, that we didn't even sign!)
The official justification: "In its surprise choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency." (That's straight from the AP article, by the by...) Ah, so the official justification is that he's not George W. Bush and his supposed work on nuclear disarmament. Can anyone tell me how many nukes we've gotten rid of since he's taken office? Have the Russians signed on? Because if they have and it's been kept a secret- please share, so I can be mildly pleased by this.
The most similar Nobel Peace Prize Laureate I've been able to find who matches the vagueness and incoherence of President Obama's win is Philip Noel-Baker of the UK who won in 1959 for being a 'lifelong ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.' If you've never heard of Mr. Noel-Baker, don't worry, neither have I. A cursory glance at his wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) page reveals that he was awarded the Prize at the age of 70, with a lifetime of work behind him. So it seems that the standard has been for past achievement not just waving and looking pretty and talking a lot, like our Glorious President has done thus far.
Personally, I think he should decline it. That'd be smart politics to me- say thanks, but no thanks- there are more deserving people out there this year and I'd like the chance to actually do something wonderfully kick-ass that's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Then our President looks very Presidential and very humble, because he had the nuts to turn down a Nobel Peace Prize- which is like the equivalent to an Oscar for a head of state. (Would you really say no to an Oscar? Really? If you weren't terribly bad-ass like Peter O'Toole, who initially turned down an honorary one.) I'd have more respect for the man if he did turn it down and then proceeded to knock heads together in the Middle East and get a peace treaty or something. The fact that he's going to apparently accept it means that he's now got to actually justify getting the damn thing, which is something that could seriously come back to bite him in the ass.
"So soon," said former Polish President Lech Walesa (who won in 1983) "Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage."
Kids, Lech don't sound to happy about this- and neither am I.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
10% Cut
Governor Culver has ordered an immediate across the board 10 percent budget cut. Layoffs, freak-outs and program freezes and shutdowns to follow.
If you work for the state of Iowa, update your resumes, kids.
If you work for the state of Iowa, update your resumes, kids.
Legalize It!
Efforts to legalize pot are gathering pace in California, where as many as 3 ballot initiatives could be set for voters in 2010...
...and here in Iowa, the push for medical marijuana is getting more play, with public hearings held in front of the Iowa board of Pharmacy...
...I am in favor of this. Not because I think it'd be nice to someday go out with the Missus and get baked to the gills in a perfectly legal manner, but also because I think we can make a shit-ass ton of money off of weed. The Fed can tax the shit out of it, the states can tax the shit out of it, local governments can tax the shit out of it. Weed = $ to me and given our rapidly growing national debt, it may be our ticket out of the doghouse- at least partially.
I'm not immune to the concerns of law enforcement and parents for that matter, but having worked security in a high school I can safely say this: alcohol (which is behind a counter in a grocery store) is harder for kids today to get than weed. It's not impossible for them to get both if they really want too, but booze is harder to get ahold of. Weed, if legalized and tightly controlled could be harder for kids to get ahold of as well, which I think we can all agree would be a good thing.
P.S. Enjoy the Peter Tosh. Play it for your friends...
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Party Like Its 1991...
He's apparently taking the first step towards 'being back.' Former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad that, is... he's filed paperwork today creating a campaign committee which most people view as the first step towards capturing the Republican nomination for Governor.
What do I think about this?
1. There are worse Republicans to be saddled with.
2. If I were Governor Culver, I'd be starting to sweat a little.
3. Of all the Republicans in a crowded field, I think he could win.
If the Republicans want to win the Governor's mansion back though, they've got to be careful. I'm increasingly convinced that if they make it about the economy and spending, they've got a good shot. If they get bogged down over gay marriage (I really gots to wonder just how many people in this state care about it, but it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting here in I.C. If anyone out there has a clearer picture, please leave a comment) it'll get messy and they could lose.
What do I think about this?
1. There are worse Republicans to be saddled with.
2. If I were Governor Culver, I'd be starting to sweat a little.
3. Of all the Republicans in a crowded field, I think he could win.
If the Republicans want to win the Governor's mansion back though, they've got to be careful. I'm increasingly convinced that if they make it about the economy and spending, they've got a good shot. If they get bogged down over gay marriage (I really gots to wonder just how many people in this state care about it, but it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting here in I.C. If anyone out there has a clearer picture, please leave a comment) it'll get messy and they could lose.
Guilty Pleasure Wednesdays #2: Goober
Behold! Some more evidence of the existence of a higher power... Goober. This is why I don't really understand atheism, because atheists will probably say something dry and boring about how the mind is perfectly capable of making intuitive leaps such as this one and there's really nothing that special about designing and more to the point, manufacturing something so wildly crazy- and yet oddly logical all at the same time.
I disagree. I think with things such a Cheez-Whiz and Goober, one has to wonder just how the hell the person who came up with the idea made the intuitive leap to begin with. Dr. Whiz didn't just suddenly say 'Hey, let's put cheese in a can, man-- and make it spreadable!' The idea had to come from somewhere. And so it is with Goober. On the face of it, it seems totally crazy and more than a little disgusting, at least potentially. After all, peanut butter and jelly make good sandwiches- but who thinks of putting them both in one jar? Who does that? It's intuitive leaps like these that make me believe in the existence of a higher power- albeit one with a twisted sense of humor. (Or, conversely, it could just be that a lot of people who design foods like these smoke a shit-ass ton of reefer. Take your pick.)
But Goober... oh Goober. How dost I love thee? Let me count the ways: first of all, this shit is delicious. I myself don't bother with bread and just use a spoon (the best way of eating it, methinks...) and well, it's just delicious. I could literally eat a whole jar of this stuff, but then I looked at the calorie count on the food label and decided that might not be such a good idea. As with all delicious foods, this one is massively unhealthy for you in large quantities.
It comes in two flavors- strawberry and grape and I'm torn between which tastes better, but I'd have to say maybe strawberry by a nose hair. This, primarily because I've just never been that big into grape jelly. Really. I don't know why... I'm just not diggin' the grape flavor that much. But there's something about the combination of jelly and peanut butter all into one gooey mess that just goes down perfectly, even without the benefit of bread.
And Goober is the perfect 'recession-proof' spread! Think about it: you could get PB and jelly at separate prices for different costs or you could just get both- in one jar. For one, fairly low price... it's the perfect money saver, especially if you have kids that like PB&J or are just a weird freak that eats Goober straight out of the jar with a spoon.
Either way, it's one helluva delicious guilty pleasure.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Twins 6, Tigers 5 (12th Inning)
So, the Twins won the tiebreaker, take the AL Central and step forward to meet the waiting NY Yankees. Go Twins!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Twins 13, Royals 4
The Twins have forced a tiebreaker with Detroit in the AL Central to decide the division on Tuesday!
Today's game was the last regular season game in the Metrodome and the Missus and I were tentatively planning to go- but she's going to get her CNA so she can hopefully get a better job and be on her way to doing something she wants to do and her first class starts tomorrow. And what with me coming off shift at 0700 this morning-- that would have been a shit-ass load of driving we'd have to do. All in one day. And we just decided that it wasn't worth it. (The tickets were for the cheap seats in the 'Dome so we didn't have to eat a lotta cash.)
And wouldn't you know it? The one game we were gonna go to this year is the game that forces a tiebreaker in the whole damn division!
Ah well. Next year at the new ballpark! (Though given the track record of the Timberwolves, I think calling it 'Target Field' is asking for trouble.)
Oh- and of course, Go Twins!
Fareed Zakaria Rocks My Face Off
...he's got a new column on the Iranian Nuclear Situation that's worth reading- and for what it's worth, I think he's got a fairly solid take on things. Military action would only strengthen the regime and there's no guarantee we could hit everything we need to. Engagement has been rebuffed by the Iranians several times, so that only leaves-- as Zakaria points out, tough containment.
This has actually come up in my American Foreign Policy class quite a bit. After all, who are we to say who has nuclear weapons and who can't? And why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't? Are we the ones who judge who's responsible enough to handle nukes?
All good questions- the problem, I think, is that in the post-Cold War era, the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds true- because in the two potential nuclear hot spots on the globe, there's no parity between the conflicting parties. Consider India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel. Both India and Iran are bigger than Pakistan and Israel respectively. If you try and apply MAD to these potential conflicts, Pakistan and Israel get wiped off the map.
Back in the day, MAD worked because there was a rough sort of parity between the USA and the USSR. We could launch nukes at each, take out some launch sites and there was a good chance that something would be left standing (although not much) after all was said and done. India and Pakistan could launch all their nukes at each other and India would still have something left. Pakistan would be ash.
Same thing with Israel and Iran. Given the fact that Israeli foreign policy has been rooted in the one core principle of preserving the Jewish state no matter the costs, its easy to see why a nuclear Iran makes Tel Aviv very, very nervous. They could launch everything they had at Iran and still not wipe 'em out. Iran could do the same back to them and that'd be it. No more Israel.
The power imbalance between today's nuclear rivals necessitates a new security doctrine of some kind, but damned if I know what it could be. Every country has a right to self-defense and a right to exist- but how do you ensure sane and sensible behavior of your enemies if they can wipe you out and you can't do the same in return? Truly, it's the death of MAD.
Plus- if someone accidentally pressed a button during the Cold War, there was a decent chance someone could make a phone call and try and convince the other guy that it really was an accident. If someone in Islamabad or Tel Aviv presses the wrong button, no one's will know until after the dust is settling. (Plus, why are we freaking out about Iran maybe getting weapons. Pakistan is a totally basket case of a country and already has them. Little bit of a policy disconnect there, I think.)
However you slice and dice it, it's a tricky situation for the Obama Administration- and one that could turn into a truly EPIC FAIL if they're not careful.
This has actually come up in my American Foreign Policy class quite a bit. After all, who are we to say who has nuclear weapons and who can't? And why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't? Are we the ones who judge who's responsible enough to handle nukes?
All good questions- the problem, I think, is that in the post-Cold War era, the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds true- because in the two potential nuclear hot spots on the globe, there's no parity between the conflicting parties. Consider India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel. Both India and Iran are bigger than Pakistan and Israel respectively. If you try and apply MAD to these potential conflicts, Pakistan and Israel get wiped off the map.
Back in the day, MAD worked because there was a rough sort of parity between the USA and the USSR. We could launch nukes at each, take out some launch sites and there was a good chance that something would be left standing (although not much) after all was said and done. India and Pakistan could launch all their nukes at each other and India would still have something left. Pakistan would be ash.
Same thing with Israel and Iran. Given the fact that Israeli foreign policy has been rooted in the one core principle of preserving the Jewish state no matter the costs, its easy to see why a nuclear Iran makes Tel Aviv very, very nervous. They could launch everything they had at Iran and still not wipe 'em out. Iran could do the same back to them and that'd be it. No more Israel.
The power imbalance between today's nuclear rivals necessitates a new security doctrine of some kind, but damned if I know what it could be. Every country has a right to self-defense and a right to exist- but how do you ensure sane and sensible behavior of your enemies if they can wipe you out and you can't do the same in return? Truly, it's the death of MAD.
Plus- if someone accidentally pressed a button during the Cold War, there was a decent chance someone could make a phone call and try and convince the other guy that it really was an accident. If someone in Islamabad or Tel Aviv presses the wrong button, no one's will know until after the dust is settling. (Plus, why are we freaking out about Iran maybe getting weapons. Pakistan is a totally basket case of a country and already has them. Little bit of a policy disconnect there, I think.)
However you slice and dice it, it's a tricky situation for the Obama Administration- and one that could turn into a truly EPIC FAIL if they're not careful.
Late Night Chronicles 30: Pink (Is My New Obsession)
I love boobs. I'm a guy, so I'm a fan-- in fact, I've always been a fan- and now have (along with the perfect wife) a very nice set of boobs to enjoy forever (if I've been a good boy and the wife is feeling nice-)- so life, needless to say, is wonderful. So I can get behind the concept of supporting Breast Cancer Awareness Month without any hesitation whatsoever. I even have a t-shirt somewhere that proudly declares: 'Save The Ta-Ta's!' And yea, verily, I think they should be saved.
And you know what? I like my moobs too. They're there, they're not gross and droopy and they haven't gotten any bigger lately- so I'm a fan of my moobies. I'd like to preserve them as well, if it all possible. (Lest we forget, gentlemen- breast cancer isn't just for the ladies.) What I have to scratch my head and wonder about is just how much support can one give to the idea of breast cancer awareness- and more importantly, where is this money going?
The whole 'pink' for breast cancer awareness seems to have taken on a life of its own. Back in the day, when I was younger and more foolish, you saw people with ribbons, maybe an earlier precursor to a Livestrong bracelet and, of course, YoPlait and their pink lids. Today, however, pink has exploded. Not only can one get a pink upright vacuum (an Oreck no less.) to support breast cancer, but you can get Kitchen Aid brand kitchen ware and Target apparently has pink gloves and tool sets- and there are even pink upright brooms you can get. And it's been awhile, but I'd swear blind the last time I was in Hy-Vee, I saw something that could very well have been a pink accented case of Bud Light. All to support breast cancer awareness.
And then, there's today... if you're watching an NFL game today, surely you've noticed. Pink accented gloves, pink armbands, pink caps-- pink everywhere. Sure, they tried to 'man it up' a little bit by making it a 'darker, cooler' shade of pink- but nevertheless, it's still pink. And yes, kids, it too it to support breast cancer awareness.
Now, I may be a horrible person for asking this question- but I feel like somebody should: why? I mean, I think it's great the amount of work the NFL does for things like the United Way and the general concept for getting children off of their asses and running around- but breast cancer awareness? Really? Plus- how much pink shit do we really need? And how much of that money is going to actual, real-live breast cancer research? Is a buying a Pink Oreck going to save a life somehow? These are all pressing questions in my mind currently... because I think the issue of breast cancer awareness is a good thing. Breast cancer kills a lot of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters- and even husbands, fathers, sons and brothers every year. We should be raising money to find a cure for this thing. Absolutely.
But the over-consumerization (yea, that's right- I wrote that word, suckas!) of the issue risks, I think a couple of things: first of all, burnout. I'm sorry, but pink vacuum cleaners just piss me right off. Do these people think that I've forgotten about breast cancer? Really? There's a risk, if you assault the senses too much that people will just stop giving a shit, because they've now got Shermin-Williams Brand Pink paint in every single room of their house, pink Martha Stewart furnishings and draperies and a pink Tempur-Pedic Mattress to boot. And I'm willing to bet, if we let pink run amuck long enough we could actually get to that situation someday. (Oh and P.S.- I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do get to that point, all that money still won't have found a cure for breast cancer!)
Secondly, there's the itching, burning question: where does all this money go? A cursory google search reveals that there's a wonderful website out there call Think Before You Pink (http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org) that asks some hard questions about where your money goes! Everyone out there who wants to support this issue seriously should peruse this website-- the info on it may surprise you.
FInally, I got end with these two little nuggets of thought that are swirling around in my brain: first, although again, yay to the NFL for caring- I gotta ask: given the paucity of breasts in the NFL, would it not perhaps make a little more sense to give a shout-out to a cancer that does affect men- although not in anywhere near the same ways as breast cancer- give a shout out for testicular cancer! After all, one of the first rules of football is that if you've got the ball on offense, then you've got to protect the ball, er, balls... something like that.
Secondly, the thought wanders through my brain: if breast cancer killed more men than women, who wants to bet that we'd have a cure for it already?
And you know what? I like my moobs too. They're there, they're not gross and droopy and they haven't gotten any bigger lately- so I'm a fan of my moobies. I'd like to preserve them as well, if it all possible. (Lest we forget, gentlemen- breast cancer isn't just for the ladies.) What I have to scratch my head and wonder about is just how much support can one give to the idea of breast cancer awareness- and more importantly, where is this money going?
The whole 'pink' for breast cancer awareness seems to have taken on a life of its own. Back in the day, when I was younger and more foolish, you saw people with ribbons, maybe an earlier precursor to a Livestrong bracelet and, of course, YoPlait and their pink lids. Today, however, pink has exploded. Not only can one get a pink upright vacuum (an Oreck no less.) to support breast cancer, but you can get Kitchen Aid brand kitchen ware and Target apparently has pink gloves and tool sets- and there are even pink upright brooms you can get. And it's been awhile, but I'd swear blind the last time I was in Hy-Vee, I saw something that could very well have been a pink accented case of Bud Light. All to support breast cancer awareness.
And then, there's today... if you're watching an NFL game today, surely you've noticed. Pink accented gloves, pink armbands, pink caps-- pink everywhere. Sure, they tried to 'man it up' a little bit by making it a 'darker, cooler' shade of pink- but nevertheless, it's still pink. And yes, kids, it too it to support breast cancer awareness.
Now, I may be a horrible person for asking this question- but I feel like somebody should: why? I mean, I think it's great the amount of work the NFL does for things like the United Way and the general concept for getting children off of their asses and running around- but breast cancer awareness? Really? Plus- how much pink shit do we really need? And how much of that money is going to actual, real-live breast cancer research? Is a buying a Pink Oreck going to save a life somehow? These are all pressing questions in my mind currently... because I think the issue of breast cancer awareness is a good thing. Breast cancer kills a lot of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters- and even husbands, fathers, sons and brothers every year. We should be raising money to find a cure for this thing. Absolutely.
But the over-consumerization (yea, that's right- I wrote that word, suckas!) of the issue risks, I think a couple of things: first of all, burnout. I'm sorry, but pink vacuum cleaners just piss me right off. Do these people think that I've forgotten about breast cancer? Really? There's a risk, if you assault the senses too much that people will just stop giving a shit, because they've now got Shermin-Williams Brand Pink paint in every single room of their house, pink Martha Stewart furnishings and draperies and a pink Tempur-Pedic Mattress to boot. And I'm willing to bet, if we let pink run amuck long enough we could actually get to that situation someday. (Oh and P.S.- I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do get to that point, all that money still won't have found a cure for breast cancer!)
Secondly, there's the itching, burning question: where does all this money go? A cursory google search reveals that there's a wonderful website out there call Think Before You Pink (http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org) that asks some hard questions about where your money goes! Everyone out there who wants to support this issue seriously should peruse this website-- the info on it may surprise you.
FInally, I got end with these two little nuggets of thought that are swirling around in my brain: first, although again, yay to the NFL for caring- I gotta ask: given the paucity of breasts in the NFL, would it not perhaps make a little more sense to give a shout-out to a cancer that does affect men- although not in anywhere near the same ways as breast cancer- give a shout out for testicular cancer! After all, one of the first rules of football is that if you've got the ball on offense, then you've got to protect the ball, er, balls... something like that.
Secondly, the thought wanders through my brain: if breast cancer killed more men than women, who wants to bet that we'd have a cure for it already?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Felicitações!
Rio De Janeiro has been awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, beating out Tokyo, Madrid and Chicago to do so. This was despite last minute pitches from President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama (and former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch and King Juan Carlos for Madrid)-- in the end though, it was Pele and President Lula Da Silva that got the job done and got South America its first Olympic Games.
Although I'm a little disappointed that the games won't be coming to the Midwest, I do think Rio was the perfect choice. About time that South America got the games- and what better place to do it than beautiful Rio De Janeiro. Even as Beijing was China's 'coming out party' to the world- I think Rio could be Brazil's. There will be some problems to overcome (especially security ones) but I think Brazil is going to put on quite the party. We'll just have to see in what, seven years or so?
I also think Chicago's elimination in the first round was a serious bitch slap to the President, who is NOT having a good week- or, for that matter a good year. But I'll save my thunder for a 'LNC One Year Report Card' next month!
But Felicitações a Rio!
CHS Homecoming Parade 2009
This was held on Wednesday, but am just getting the photos up now. Sorry for the delay. I was very, very impressed by how much this event has grown since I was in high school. They had just re-started it when I was a senior and it was a piddling little sight to see- but now, this qualifies as a full on parade. Quite the sight and quite the event for the East Side!
The line up...
Parade watching fuel... plus, this thing went right in front of our house, so we (or I, at least- the Missus was still at work.) had the best seats in the house!
The Pep Band!
A shout-out for The Quiet Man's friend the Mervgatti-- his favorite teach and the rest of the World Languages Department. (Sorry it's blurry, Merv...)
Some more of the parade...
City High plays CR Kennedy for their homecoming game tonight and the Missus and I were toying with the idea of going, but the weather today is truly miserable. It's going to be a soupy mess at Bates Field and a chilly home stand for the Little Hawks. (Their QB AJ Derby has made a verbal commitment to Iowa-- and by all accounts he's pretty awesome to watch, so maybe later in the season.)
The line up...
Parade watching fuel... plus, this thing went right in front of our house, so we (or I, at least- the Missus was still at work.) had the best seats in the house!
The Pep Band!
A shout-out for The Quiet Man's friend the Mervgatti-- his favorite teach and the rest of the World Languages Department. (Sorry it's blurry, Merv...)
Some more of the parade...
City High plays CR Kennedy for their homecoming game tonight and the Missus and I were toying with the idea of going, but the weather today is truly miserable. It's going to be a soupy mess at Bates Field and a chilly home stand for the Little Hawks. (Their QB AJ Derby has made a verbal commitment to Iowa-- and by all accounts he's pretty awesome to watch, so maybe later in the season.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)