"I don't think the report is true, but these crises work for those who want to make fights between people." Kulam Dastagir, 28, a bird seller in Afghanistan
Homegrown art | The Japan Times Online
Topic: Miscellaneous
10:03 am EDT, Aug 27, 2007
When is a paddy not a paddy? When it's a canvas, of course.
Before getting to the details, let's consider the overarching premiss: that the choice we now face is whether to keep fighting and ultimately prevail, or to withdraw and abandon the Iraqis to their fate. As I see it, this premiss is completely false. If we keep fighting, there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will "prevail", and every reason to think that we will simply sacrifice a lot of American and Iraqi lives for nothing.
I agree that Bush's speech sucked and he would be more persuasive if he addressed the core issue as stated above. The core question is whether or not there is a reason to think that we will "prevail." The correct answer is that it is simply not possible to know right now, because we've changed tactics, and the new tactical approach won't pan out enough to tell if its working until the middle of next month. Both sides seem to be intensely interested in positioning a conclusion about whether or not that tactical approach works in advance of having any evidence. This is corrupt.
For example, Hillary Clinton is positioning that we're going to withdraw even if the evidence demonstrates that if we keep fighting we'll succeed.
We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics.
Media Matters, who position themselves as an antidote to political spin, actually engage in political spin on this very topic!
Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that the surge is working." In fact, members of Congress, administration officials, and experts have all stated that political reconciliation, which the Bush administration identified as a key to the success of its escalation strategy, has not occurred.
There is no relationship whatsoever between an observation about the political reconciliation and an observation about the success or failure of a military tactic. It is dishonest to conflate them. Its like saying: Zuckerman did not offer any evidence to support his claim that "the consensus is that humans evolved from lower organisms." In fact, members of Congress, administrations officials, and experts have all stated that there is no proof of global warming, another scientific "theory."
We should have changed tactics two to three years ago, and we would have if the presidential election had been carried differently. There was, in fact, every reason to change horses in the middle of that particular stream. The horses did not change, and so the strategy did not change, until after the 2006 election. You cannot undo the fact that we went to war in Iraq by pulling out. You have a potentially viable change in tactics that was the fruit of the fact that people finally got around to firing some Republicans. Now you might have an opportunity to do things right going forward, and you're not interested. You're not going to take it. You are doing everything you can to shoot it down before you know whether or not its viable. Why? Because you are too trapped by the extremism of your own political rhetoric to make the right decision?
If the surge report is positive and yet the US pulls out of Iraq anyway it will be, frankly, just as irrational and tragic as the decision to go in in the first place. Perhaps thats the history we deserve, but it just goes to show you that it really, deeply, doesn't matter which political party is in charge.
There is a contradiction in the very phrase "software company." The two words are pulling in opposite directions. Any good programmer in a large organization is going to be at odds with it, because organizations are designed to prevent what programmers strive for.
Very true, particularly the last part of the essay.
Quebec police blatently lie about Montebello protest
Topic: Miscellaneous
7:40 pm EDT, Aug 23, 2007
This really, really makes me angry.
Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday
...after denying it for 24 hours...
that their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protests at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.
"In no time did the police of the Surete du Quebec act as instigators or commit criminal acts," the news release states in French.
Well, actually, the press release says a bit more than that. What it says is:
Les policiers ont été repérés par les manifestants au moment où ils ont refusé de lancer des projectiles.
In english thats: "The police officers were located by the demonstrators when they refused to launch projectiles." The word "lancer" means to throw aggressively or launch. Now, in the video, it is extremely clear that the protesters are not telling the cop to launch the rock. They are telling the cop to put the rock down, and they are identified as cops because they refused to put the rock down. The cop even violently shoves the person who is telling him to put the rock down. There really is absolutely no question about that. Which, in turn, leaves little doubt that the Quebec police are complicit.
This article provides an entertaining overview of the subject matter at the conference in Quebec where police were caught trying to incite a riot. The purpose of the conference being protested is to discuss the least burdensome means of enabling shipping of goods between Canada, the US, and Mexico while meeting American post 9/11 national security requirements:
Almost six years later, the business leaders at Montebello--under the banner of the North American Competitiveness Council, an official wing of the SPP--were still holding up "thickening borders" as the bogeyman. The fix? According to the SPP website, "technological solutions, improved information-sharing, and, potentially, the use of biometric identifiers."
Basically, the idea is that the more we know about you in general the less we need to search your truck. Call it moving the surveillance around. Its not unreasonable per say, but the event that occurred out on the street is far more ironic given the backdrop of the post 9/11 national security complex and the whole "just trust us, checks and balances kill people" platform that so much of it is rooted in.
For a minute or so, it's just Coles being a good samaritan, trying to stop a potentially violent confrontation and demanding that one of the men who picks up a rock put it down. It's already extremely tense by the time that someone starts pointing at the masked protestors and chanting "policier!" Coles demands that the men take off their masks, and the majority of the crowd join him––some even reach for the bandannas themselves––and accuse the masked men of being cops, police provocateurs hired to start a riot. When Coles actually looks at one of the men dead-on and says, "you're a police officer," the masked men all freeze, seemingly dumb-struck. And then they kind of start being aggressive again, until a little over two minutes in, when there's the weirdest police takedown you'll probably ever see.
Interesting video... I nearly posted it yesterday. If you were a protestor holding a rock, which is clearly a violent jesture, would you walk toward the police line for protection when the crowd starts chanting at you, still holding the rock? Don't miss the picture where the "protestors" and police are all wearing the same boots. These kinds of accusations are made often but I've never seen such clear evidence. Fortunately the mainstream press in Canada appears to be picking up on it.
Just remember that authorities never abuse power, which is why we don't need checks and balances. Checks and balances kill Americans.
El Paso Times - Transcript: Debate on the foreign intelligence surveillance act
Topic: Technology
9:21 pm EDT, Aug 22, 2007
The following is the transcript of a question and answer session with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.
This is one of the most significant public discussions of the actual surveillance program that has yet occurred, likely done in the context of the debate over the recent FISA authorization. See also this. Some good discussion here.
