Shots Across The Bow

3 days until the retraction...

Yesterday, we had reports of the capture of a major terrorist base in northern Iraq.

The United States said on Sunday that U.S.-led forces had destroyed "a massive terrorist facility" in northern Iraq which could have been used by al Qaeda to make chemical weapons. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, told CNN the site in northeast Iraq could have been a training ground and may have produced the lethal poison ricin that was found in a London flat in January.

Based on past pronouncements, I'm guessing by Wed., we'll find out that it wasn't really a terrorist chemical weapons facility, but that they did find 3 cans of Raid and an Easy Bake oven.

NBC sacks Arnett

Once again, Arnett's propensity for injecting his own personal views into his journalism has cost him his job, and rightly so. His mistakes were many, this latest being a prime example of how not to be a journalist. Rather than reporting a story, he made himself part of the story by allowing himself to be interviewed on Iraqi TV a step which completed his transformation from reporter to PR flack. His objectivity has been questionable ever since he reported that US troops had gassed US defectors in Laos during the Vietam War. He lost his job at CNN over that little dustup, and CNN retracted the story.

You know, this is probably the only time in history that Ted Turner fired someone for being too liberal.

I still remember his reports from the first Gulf War, telling everyone that the US had bombed a baby milk factory. He showed video of the workers to back up his claims, workers wearing uniforms with "Baby Milk Factory" printed on the back of them.

In English.

Slick reporting there, Ace. No chance that it may have been staged, right?

Peter Arnett himself acknowledges his bias when he said:

He said the Iraqis allowed him to stay in Baghdad because they respect him and "see me as a fellow warrior."

It's bad enough that Arnett compromised his 'journalistic detatchment' by being the subject of an interview; he compounded his error by stating his opinions as fact, another breach of sound journalism. It made it even worse that his opinions were so wildly wrong. He said that the US battle plan had failed, due to Iraqi resistance being stronger than expected, and that the US was "rewriting the war plan."

Let's take a brief look at how Arnett defines failure:

• The single most rapid advance of troops in the history of military conflict, transporting 90,000 men and all their equipment 300 miles over hostile terrain in a matter of days.
  
• The capture of the southern oil fields before they could be destroyed, preventing a huge ecological disaster.
  
• The capture of the port city of Umm Qasr
• The elimination of mines in the harbor, allowing the flow of humanitarian aid to starving Iraqis.
  
• The surrender of thousands of Iraqi troops (3 divisions), the defeat and capture of thousands more, with only minor Coalition losses.
  
• The ongoing destruction of Iraqi armor and equipment, again without Coalition casualties.
  
• The encirclement of Baghdad, pinning down a significant portion of the Republican Guard.
  
• The capture of the western airfields, H1-H2-H3, preventing attacks by Iraq to Israel or other Coalition allies.
  
• The near eradication of Ansar al-Islam, a fundamentalist terrorist group with ties to Osama bin Laden, in Northern Iraq.
  
• The elimination of Iraqi military and government targets in and around Baghdad with minimal collateral damage and non-combatant casualties. With thousands of bombs and missiles dropped, so far the Iraqis have only claimed that 4 were off target, giving an accuracy of 99.99%
  
• The air drop of 1000 troops into Northern Iraq, and their work with the Kurds pushing Hussein loyalists into Mosul, opening yet another front on Baghdad.

All of the above has taken place in less than 2 full weeks of fighting, and Arnett calls it failure.

He wasn't fired for being disloyal or unAmerican. He was fired for being stupid.

This one's for Bubba

A look on the lighter side; God knows we all need it.

As the Democrat filibuster on the supplemental budget bill to fund the war in Iraq entered it's second month, the President was forced to find a new method of generating revenue.

Meanwhile, the US military has been forced to improvise, adapt, and overcome.

US generals, along with the SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld, decided to push back the attack on Baghdad for a few days to allow the soldiers some R and R. This enterprising marine took full advantage of it.

The war took a turn for the worse, as Iraqi terrorists unveiled a new weather control weapon in East Tennessee. First week of spring my butt!

The crew of the USS Enterprise gathered today to say farewell
to the French Ambassador, who had been making a tour of ships in the gulf.

In order to counter their false image as "cheese eating surrender monkeys", the French army announced today the formation of a new Special Forces group, the Raspberry Berets. A representative of the new unit is seen here, walking next to two NATO troopers.

Members of this unit can be found practicing their most devastating tactic, fierce taunting, at any opportunity.

In a further effort to "shock and awe" the Iraqi army into submission, the Pentagon today unveiled it's newest generation Stealth fighter, code named Diana.

Not to be outdone, the US Coast Guard also got into the act, showing off their latest mission-specific craft, designed to take out Iraqi suicide speedboats, or the occasional fisherman.

Technology is not always about killing. TheBBC today announced the invention of the first universal translator, suggesting that it will be helpful to US forces in the coming months.

These images, except for the snow are all from Attrition.org's military gallery.

Numbers

I have a question, and I need some expert help.

Before the war began, we heard that we had 250,000 troops around Iraq.

Today, we hear that we have 90,000 troops in Iraq. That leaves 160,000 personnel unaccounted for.

We also hear that 120,000 reinforcement troops are on their way. How many of those will actually hit the sand?

Over at SKB, he's questioning the designation of these troops as reinforcements, since they've been 'floating around' since Turkey refused to let them land. But the reinforcements are the 4th Infantry, just leaving the states yesterday and today.

Experiencing technical difficulties...

WE apologize for the interruption but we are experiencing technical difficulties. As a result of what is probably an inner ear infection, I've recently lost the ability to tell up from down, or sideways for that matter.

I'm feeling better today, but still not 100%. I hope to resume regular bloggage tomorrow, or Monday at the latest.

Irony can be a beautiful thing

Remember those GPS jammers the Russians sold the Iraqis? Well that's all they are now, a memory:

Air Force Major Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr. said Tuesday in a press briefing at U.S. Central Command in Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar, that six GPS jammers "provided by another nation" were taken out of commission by U.S. forces.

And the irony?

"We destroyed one of the GPS jammers with a GPS weapon," Renuart said.

So much for Russian high technology...

Roll of Honor.

The names below are those of heroes who have fallen in battle or been captured. I honor them here as they are making the ultimate sacrifice.

KILLED

• Nine Marines, fighting near An Nasiriyah, encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender, March 23. Names not released.
• Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, 27
• Army Reserve Spc. Brandon S. Tobler, 19
• Navy Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, of La Mesa CA
• Marine Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, of Bloomington, Ill
• Marine Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, of Houston
• Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, of Baltimore
• Marine Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, of Waterville, Maine
• Marine 2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers, 30, of Harrison County, Miss
• Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 22, of Los Angeles
• Marine Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski, 26, of Buffalo, N.Y
• Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson, 22, of Smithville, Mo.

CAPTURED:

• Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ronald D. Young Jr., 26, from Lithia Springs, Ga.
  
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 David S. Williams, 30, from Orlando, Fla.

Both shown in Iraqi state television March 24, apparently uninjured.

• Army Spc. Joseph Hudson, 23, of Almagordo, N.M.
  
• Army Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, of Park City, Kan.
  
• Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, 30, of Fort Bliss, Texas
  
• Edgar Hernandez, 21, supply truck driver, of Mission, Texas, rank unknown;
• Army Sgt. James Riley, 31, of Pennsauken; N.J.

All shown on Iraqi television after pre-dawn ambush of convoy near An Nasiriyah, southwestern Iraq, March 23.

• Army Pvt. Brandon Sloan, 19, of Bedford Heights, Ohio
  
• Pfc. Lori Piestewa, 22, of Tuba City, Ariz
  
• Pfc. Jessica Lynch, 19, supply clerk, of Palestine, W.Va.,
  
• Four more soldiers who's names are not available.

  
  

  Posted by Rich at 11:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Equality has a price

And this young woman is paying that price

Far be it from me to criticize her choice. I'm an old fashioned kind of guy, and I disagree with placing women in harm's way. But Jessica Lynch enlisted, took the oath, and went with her unit when duty called. Even though I disagree with the decisions that gave her that choice, I respect her for making it, and living up to it. As of today, we know of three women who are either POWs or MIAs. They include Jessica, Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, and Pfc. Lori Piestewa

I just pray that the price they pay is not too high.

Missile in a chemical factory...

What could they be there for?

EXPERTS are examining suspected Scud missiles discovered by British soldiers searching a chemical plant outside Basra.

A number of the grey-painted rockets, about 23ft long, were found in the Dirhamiyah petro-chemical plant close to Iraq’s second city.

We've had too many dissapointments lately on the chemical weapons front. I'm not going to get excited until we have something concrete. It might turn out that these missile, whwhich may not even be SCUDS, were there for fueling.

We've heard this before

Once again, the word is being passed down that the Iraqis are preparing to use chemical weapons against Coalition troops.

(CBS) U.S officials tell CBS News Correspondent David Martin that the Iraqis have drawn a red line on the map around Baghdad, and once American troops cross it, the Republican Guards are authorized to use chemical weapons.

The Iraqi Republican Guard controls the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry, most of which can be fired from artillery guns or short-range rocket launchers, according to U.S. officials.

Word of the chemical threat came as U.S.-led forces clashed with the elite Guard fighters for the first time about 50 miles south of Baghdad. U.S. Apache helicopters fired on the guard to soften them up for ground forces heading north to Baghdad. The helicopters destroyed about 10 Iraqi tanks before ending their aerial attack.

We'll see, but I have my doubts...

I'll say it...

even though I don't think anybody else will.

Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, we are watching the opening moves of WWIII. Overly dramatic? Possibly, but let's consider the facts:

• France lead a coalition of the UN Security Council against the US sponsered intervention in Iraq. While saying that inspections were working and needed more time, her true motivations were quite different.
  • France was looking out for its financial interests in Iraq, ie oil contracts.
  • France was attempting to hide illegal trade with Iraq
  And most importantly
  • France was setting itself up as the leader of a coaltion dedicated to opposing US aims.
  Remeber at the last, France vowed to oppose anyresolution put forward by the USA to the Security Council.
• German was a willing accomplice to France, not only to hide their own involvement with the rebuilding of Iraq's military infrastructure, but also to oppose US interests.
• Russia continues to support the Iraqi military with weapons systems and technical support. They too wish to counter US influence in the world.
• China supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and helped rebuild and upgrade Iraq's Command and Control facilities, and has long opposed the US in global politics.

The divide goes far deeper than a disagreement over how to disarm Iraq. We are seeing nations focus their foreign policy around nothing more than opposition to the US. I can say without a shadow of doubt that France will oppose any US foreign policy initiative, unless their is something in it for them. They, along with their allies, will do everything in their power to reduce American power and influence in the world, regardless of the costs in human lifes and suffering. The debate over Iraq has demonstrated that quite clearly.

So, am I saying we will soon be in armed conflict with France?

Not necessarily, although it is a slight possibility. The Third World War will be fought by proxy, in places like Iraq, North Korea, or the African continent.Our interests will be opposed at every turn by those who wish to supplant us as the dominant power on the planet. As long as we maintain our advantage, they will not face us directly over a battlefield. Instead, they will fight us in the Hague, in the UN, and in the press. They will use our war against terror to arouse sentiment against us, portray us as imperialists and warmongers.

This coming global conflict is the sole reason why I've changed my mind about the UN. As long as it is a functioning world body, we need to remain in it. We must maintain our seat on the Security Council to protect our interests against those who wish us harm. Our veto will be needed repeatedly, until we are stripped of it, or the UN itself crumbles amid the stress of the two power blocs.

Can the US survive a whispering war? I have grave doubts. One of our founding principles is that power derives from the will of the people. Tyhat applies globally as well as nationally. If the majority of the world's poeples turn against the US, our power will wane, regardless of the strength of our military, our economic might, or political prestige. I'm reminded of the death of Julius Caesar, stabbed in the back by his allies, who grew to fear his power.

The real war is being fought not on the Iraqi battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of the world. We must convince them that the US is everything that we believe it to be; a bastion of liberty and freedom, a land of limitless opportunity. More importantly, we have to convince them that what makes America great is not something that only belongs to Americans, but is a state of mind open to all people in all nations. Freedom, the freedom to live, work, create, earn, think, believe, worship, and speak is the bedrock of American greatness.

Unfortunately, freedom doesn't come cheap. You have to be willing to work, to take risks, to try and fail and try again. You have to take responsibility for your life, to stop crying about what's not fair, and take care of what's there. We humans still have a strong herd instinct, and it's a lot easier to follow a guy who puts food in your belly than it is to get the food yourself. If you have to do what he says in order to eat, well, some consider that a small price to pay.

Can we win over the hearts and minds of these people? I don't know, but history is against us. But maybe America will be different. Maybe we won't succomb to the dry rot that seems to affect all democracies after a couple of centuries. But it will take a huge effort to overcome the inertia of 6 billion people.

I just don't know.

Rules of War

It seems paradoxical, but there are rules of war governing conduct on the battlefield. There are conventions that armies follow to keep the battle from getting out of hand, and causing more collateral damage. In modern warfare, battles are fought until one side is incapacitated and surrenders. This minimizes loss of life, collateral damage, and rebuilding effort and expense for the victor. The alternative is “war to the knife,” fighting until the last enemy is dead, no quarter given or asked for. This type of war is immeasurable more devastating, resulting in massive non-combatant casualties, and the complete annihilation of the enemy and his people, as demonstrated by the fall of Carthage centuries ago.

The US is taking this a step further. In a strategy unprecedented in history, the Coalition is not targeting Iraqi infrastructure. Power stations, sewage plants, water supplies, and transportation are all up and running at near normal capacity. We are making every attempt to minimize not only casualties to non-combatants, but inconveniences as well. This strategy will undoubtedly cost Coalition lives, and result in a longer conflict, but the end result will be an Iraq freed of the Ba’ath party, including Saddam Hussein and his sons, but with basic services largely intact. It also helps us to convince the Iraqi people that our assault is aimed directly at Hussein and his thugs, not them. As I watched over the weekend, I was amazed to see people walking around in the streets during bombing runs. Apparently, they have so much confidence in the US and it’s intentions that they don’t feel the need to take cover when the air raid sirens go off. This will pay great dividends for the Coalition once the fighting is over.

However, Iraq is playing by different rules. Like savages, Hussein has mapped out a strategy of “War to the Knife.” He rejects the conventions of modern warfare.

We’ve seen units of his armies come forward under the flag of surrender, then open fire as Coalition troops advance. The affect on us is two fold. First, we lose soldiers that we shouldn’t have. Second, it increases the chance that the next surrender flag may be ignored, and the unit destroyed out of hand.

We’ve seen army troop replace their uniform with civilian clothes, and fight guerilla style. When the army blends with the civilian population, it leads to more civilian casualties.

Saddam is using these tactics to provoke the Coalition forces into atrocities, in an attempt to sway world opinion against the war. This attempt will fail. The Coalition should respond to the first tactic by continuing to accept surrenders cautiously. At the first sign of deception, the unit should be destroyed to the last man. There is no other effective way to send the message other than making this tactic too expensive. If we ignore the risk and continue to accept surrenders, we will lose a lot of good men. If we choose not to accept surrenders, we’ve joined Hussein in the “war to the knife” which we would win, but at the cost of thousands of lives. There really is no effective counter to the second tactic, except time. We outnumber the guerillas, and as long as we have the support of the Iraqi people, we’ll be able to contain the threat, as we hunt down these men.

Saddam is playing an expensive game with the lives of his army and his citizens, all the more reason he needs to be put down. The sooner, the better.

Oscar notes

Yes, I’m a geek. I took notes.

• Steve Martin did his best impersonation of Don Rickles, with a put down for every occasion.
  
• Martin got it right when he said about removing the traditional red carpet: “That’ll show ‘em!” It was a basically meaningless gesture in an attempt to add solemnity to what in all reality is a very trivial affair.
  
• Keanu Reeves was spotted reading from a teleprompter which was rather surprising. I wasn’t aware that he’d learned to read. (Sorry, a little Steve must have rubbed off.)
  
• ABCNews broke into the telecast to let us know that nothing had really changed in Iraq over the 30 minutes the telecast had been in progress. I guess they wanted us to know they were still on the job.
  
• Whoever is doing the voice for Mickey Mouse these days really needs to be replaced. It was absolutely painful.
  
• Julianne Moore’s dress looked like it ripped down the middle 10 minutes before the show began, and was hurriedly stitched up by a Home-Ec dropout. (Sorry, Steve again)
  
• Adrien Brody nailed it in his acceptance speech. Who could argue with that? And if I had been up there, I would have grabbed the chance to kiss Halle Barry too.
  
• To Barbra Streisand, who said she was thankful to live in a country where everyone was granted the freedom to express their beliefs, I say I agree completely, and further, I am grateful that within a short time, Iraqi people will have that same freedom for the first time in decades.
  
• Eminem? Yeesh.
  
• My Favorite Year is one of my favorite movies. So is Creator. Peter O’Toole rules.
  
• I loved the audience reaction when Polanski won for Best Director. They all looked around as if they expected him to pop up out of the audience.
  
• Kirk Douglas may have slowed down a bit, but he’s still as sharp as a tack.
  
• To Susan Sarandon, and all the others who oppose the war, I say thank you for demonstrating your convictions in a way that was not divisive, mean spirited, or contentious. You showed grace and class by framing your opinions in such a positive way. I agree with you all that peace is a thing to be desired whole-heartedly. I too hope for a speedy end to the war, and a rapid return of our forces.
  

And you thought those commercials were annoying....

Oscar mayhem

I'll do more on this tomorrow, but I had to comment on this piece from the Reuters:

Politics grabbed center stage at the Academy Awards (news - web sites) on Sunday as the winner for best documentary, director Michael Moore (news), charged President Bush (news - web sites) with waging a "fictitious war."

Wagging his finger from the stage as he was both applauded and booed by the assembled celebrities, Moore said, "We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you"

Given that Moore was the only one boorish enough to turn his acceptance speech into an overtly political attack on the President, I hardly think politics were "center stage." As for the audience reaction, I heard far more boos than applause, and it seemed that the orchestra came up pretty quick and pretty loud, trying to drown out that buffoon.

I really thought it was interesting that on a night when many with anti-war sentiments, including Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand, were able to state their convictions without being offensive, Michael Moore chose to spout gibberish that embarrassed even liberal Hollywood. It seems clear that far from being sincere, he's a spotlight hungry troll.

Betcha he's seen his last appearance at the Academy Awards.

Rubber Hoses and Shop Vacs...It must be Friday Night at the Hailey House!

Yep, things can get pretty freaky here on the weekends. It's Friday night and daddy is ready to play!

Yeah, right.

I got into the shower this morning and turned on the water, bleary-eyed after staying up until 3 again, watching the war. I started washing, and after a couple of minutes realized the soap just wasn't lathering up like I expected it to. I rubbd a little harder, tried this and that, switched hands, but to no avail; it just wouldn't lather. Then I noticed that neither the soap nor I were getting wet.

Like I said, I was tired.

I looked at the shower head, and this pathetic little drizzle of water was trickling out of the showerhead. Yippee. It wasn't a complete surprise; I had noticed that the hot water was really no more than luke warm over the last few days, so I knew the water heater was feeling lonely, and wanted a little personal attention, but something must have gone seriously wrong to kill my water pressure.

So being the resourceful (broke) guy I am, I decided instead of calling a plumber, I'd fix the problem myself. I hooked up a hose to the heater drain, and opened the valve. Then I closed the valve and got out the electrical tape and fixed all the holes in the hose put there by my cat (may she rest in peace). I opened the drain valve again, made sure I had good flow, then left for the nearby home improvement warehouse, where I picked up 2 heating elements ($20.00), some teflon tape ($1.95), and headed back to do battle with the water heater.

I got back and checked the hose, and saw that the water heater was drained, so I got to work. When I got into the laundry room, I noticed an unusual smell. This is a normal occurance in my laundry room, so I didn't think too much of it, except that it got stronger as I got closer to the water heater. It was a hot smell, sort of like an old electric train transformer when you've run it too long. It just didn't seem right, so fearing a fire, I searched for the cause.

For future reference, there's a great big sign on the side of the water heater, telling you to disconnect the power before draining, or the elements will overheat.

You might want to pay atention to that sign.

After the heater cooled down a bit, I went to pull the element from the heater. They make a special wrench to pull the elements from the heater, but being the resourceful (broke) kind of guy I am, I figured I could do it with channel lock pliers. 45 minutes and 2 band-aids ($0.15) later, I headed out to my local home improvement warehouse for an element wrench.

I returned home, and once again set out to remove the upper element. I attached the hex shaped metal cylinder ($8.95 plus tax) and tried to loosen the element. It had been in place for 10 years, and was very comfortable there, and really wasn't interested in relocating. I tried to convince the element that it would be much happier in the land fill, where it could see all kinds of new and interesting things instead of staying locked in welded bliss to the water heater. It turned a deaf ear to my attempt, so I turned to gentle persuasion in the form of a three pound sledge hammer. One gentle tap sent the wrench rocketing to the floor, where it ricocheted up into my shin, causing considerable consternation on my part, and expanded my young son's vocabulary a bit more than I intended so early in his life.

I realized that the problem was one of leverage, not force, so I discarded the useless 5 inch handle for the element wrnech and substituted my biggest phillips screwdriver. Bracing my self, I gave a large tug, and the element began to pull free. With each turn, it got easier, until the it shot out, followed by a column of luke warm water.

I get my water from a well, and it's not really hard, but I can't call it soft, either. Minerals in water do a neat thing in a water heater. As the water heats, then cools, the minerals aggregate, then precipitate, which means that calcium chips form in the bottom. In my case, those chips were about 18 inches deep and had sealed off the drain, so the heater was still about half full of water.

I changed clothes, mopped up the mess, and started draining the heater again. I straigtened out a coat hanger ($0.15) and used it to stir up the chips any time flow slowed down. Eventually, the heater was emptied, for sure this time, and I got back to work. The old element was encrusted with calciun, so I threw it away, and went to remove the bottom element. This went much smoother, and the easy part of the job was done.

I checked the bottom of the heater, and it was filled with calcium chips and rocks, so I started scooping them out. This is a really fun job, because you have to work through an inch and a half hole. I used one of the old elements as a scoop, and pulled about a pound of calcium chips out through that hole a teaspoon at a time, when I was struck with an inspiration. I went and got my shop vac to suck out the chips. Unfortunately, the hose was too big to fit through the hole, so I could only get what was right at the hole. I could have run to my local home improvement warehouse again, but being the resourceful (cheap) kind of guy I am, I went and cut a short length of garden hose (which was ok because I don't have a garden) and duct taped it to the vacuum hose.

For once, something worked, and it only took an hour or so to remove 10 pounds of calcium, an old element somebody had left in because it was too crusted with scale to fit through the hole, one sock (don't ask, I have no idea) and two trilobyte fossils through the element hole.

It wasn't pleasant.

Eventually, that was done, and I was ready to install the new elements. I teflon taped the elements, snugged them down, and started refilling the tank. I had to open a couple of hot water valves to allow the tank to vent pressure while it was filling. I knew I had to do this from my Navy Nuclear Power training, which comes in handy every 2 or 3 decades. I plugged in the heater, and went to check my hot water.

Remeber when I said I had no flow in the shower? Well I didn't. Replacing elements does nothing for flow. Just in case you were wondering.

I unplugged the heater, drained it, which went much faster without all the calcium, and removed the elements to check the pipes. I looked through the bottom element hole and saw the cold water inlet pipe completely crusted over with more calcium.

Oh joy.

I disconnected the supply line from the wall, removed the pipe with a pipe wrench, and used my trusty clothes hanger to ream out the line. Unfortunately, the hanger wasn't long enough, so I headed out to my local home improvement warehouse for a plumber's snake ($25.47). I was too tired to be resourceful anymore. I cleaned out about 18 inches of calcium chips from insode the pipe, and closed everything up. Again.

I checked both elements for leaks, then checked voltage. The upper element was fine, but the lower element had no juice. So I went back to my local home improvement warehouse for a lower element thermostat ($8.95) caame home and replaced the unit. Then I read the label on the installation instructions, which said, "Non simultaneous operation." This is a fancy way of saying I just wasted time and money because both elements are not energized at the same time on this water heater.

But, I closed everything up, and checked the water. It flowed freely, and started to get hot. I had visions of my first really hot shower in three days. I knew it would take about an hour for the heater to finish heating the water, so I cleaned up the mess I made, and did a couple more chores.

About 2 hours later, knowing that the water would be hot, I went to take my shower. The hot water lasted about 3 minutes, then turned cold.

My three daughters were going out to a party and a school function, and each had taken a shower, plus done two loads of laundry. They did thank me for fixing the hot water heater, though.

A possible mistake?

We now have evidence that Saddam Hussein was carried out of the bunker we hit the first night on a stretcher, along with 2 or 3 other bodies. We don't know his condition yet, and there are several possibilities. He could be dead or severely wounded. He could be perfectly healthy and in hiding. He could have left the country at the last moment, leaving a double behind to sow confusion.

In any case, it's becoming clear that the Iraqi nation is leaderless now, which could represent a problem. Saddam knew when to quit. He surrendered during the first Gulf War. There's no guarantee that there's anybody left who has the authority to give the order to surrender. Without anyone to give that order, it is probable that the republican Guard will fight to the last.

A new kind of war

You know, usually we wait until after the war is over to help our erstwhile enemies.

Not anymore. This is a picture of two US soldiers giving aid to an Iraqi soldier, shortly after he surrendered. This goes right in hand with the unprecedented nature of this war. We're leaving the national infrastructure intact. The lights are still on; the water still runs; phones work; e-mail is on line; bridges are still standing. We are doing everything possible to demonstrate that our target is Hussein and his government, and not the people of Iraq.

Picture via FoxNews

Welcome

Welcome to any of you coming here from the NewSentinel story. Sit back, relax, and take a look around. There's all kinds of stuff for you to look at. To the left, you'll find links to my favorite pieces from the past, along with links to my fellow Rocky Top Brigade members. We pretty much cover the spectrum from conservative to liberal so you're sure to find something you like.

Stop in any time.

Missing the obvious

I was listening to the radio today while ferrying children around, and I heard a guy ask this question when talking about the war protesters:

"I've seen hundres of thousands of people marching against the war. Where are the hundreds of thousands marching in support for the opressed Iraqi people?"

They're in the desert, marching toward Baghdad even as we speak.....

And we trust these guys to make foreign policy comments?

I was just skimming through an article, and I found something so sick, so twisted and disgusting, so mind bogglingly stupid that I had to share it with the rest of you.

You know how I feel about 'celebrities' using their status to mount the soapbox and weigh in on issues that they really don't understand. Take movie starts for example. I hardly think that a demonstrated proficiency in long form lying (AKA acting) makes one suited for political punditry, although it probably does come in handy when running for office. Yet these folks feel no compunction when foisting their ill considered view on us, as if the thoughts of George Clooney on our military capabilities automatically have merit in the real world just because he played a soldier a couple of times. He played a doctor on TV for a while two; would you let him operate on you?

Yet because of their success on stage or screen, we automatically accord their opinions with some level of respect. This might be barely justifiable if there weren't so many examples bad career decisions by these same starts. I started thinking about this when I found this site

Yep. Somebody in Hollywood thought it would actually be a good idea to make a series out of Tremors. Now I'm sure Fred Ward needed the work, after all, he did do Tremors 2, but even he had enough pride to stay away from this stinker. Why on earth did anybody in show business think this was a good idea? And if they're capable of being so devastatingly wrong about something in which they are supposed to be expert, why should we listen to their blather about things which they obviously know nothing about. Let's look at the 'expert' moves of some of the more prominent anti war celebrities.

• Ed Asner Just go here. The list is too long
• Alec Baldwin The Shadow and The Adventures of Pluto Nash

• Warren Beatty Ishtarand Redsand Bulworth Has Beatty made a movie recently that didn't wind up as a tax deduction for somebody?
  
• Cher
PeeWee Herman's Christmas Special

• Larry Hagman Orleans and JR Returns
  
• Dustin Hoffman Ishtar and Sphere

• Madonna Swept Away and Evita and Body of Evidence and... but why go on? Actually all by herself Madonna makes a good case for why expertise in one area (Music) does not automatically translate into another(Film).
  
• Martin Scorsese Bringing Out the Dead
  
• Barbra Streisand Yentl
  

  I'd have a hard time giving the guy who greenlighted Water World any credence whatsoever.

  But that's just me.
  

  Posted by Rich at 3:02 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

An Interesting Question

My son and I were watching the news a little while before the deadline expired. Oliver North was interviewing a Marine Captain and my son asked me an interesting question.

"Daddy,' he said, "Marines are an amphibious assault force. What are they doing in the desert?"

He had me there. The logic was inescapable. They were in a desert, not a marine environment. Sure, the Army could be in the desert, and the Air Force as well. But the Marines? Then it hit me.

"It's the sand, son. There's sand on the beach, and sand in the desert."

That's why I'm the dad.

Iraqi Oil

Fox is reporting that Iraq has set its oil wells on fire.

I've got an idea on how to deal with this in a way to let the world know once and for all that it's not about oil.

Let 'em burn.

The French want the oil; let them deal with the fires. Seems fair to me.

Of course, we'd be more than happy to help them extinguish the blaze, like we did in Kuwait, but we're a little tied up right now. But I'm sure we could work a deal, send them some tech support folks for a few billion dollars or so.

Minimizing non-combatant casualties

Katie is worried about the mothers and children at risk from an air campaign:

I will sleep terribly tonight, knowing that bombs I helped pay for are dropping on homes where mothers are huddled on top of their terrified children.

They cannot leave or hide. Unlike during the London blitz, when mothers sent their children to the country to protect them, these parents have no options. There are no subway tunnels or bomb shelters to speak of. The dictator who rules them has sentenced them to certain death and our bombs will carry out the execution.

If we must invade Iraq, I believe that this "shock and awe" air assault is the least ethically defensible way to do it. We should go in on the ground, minimizing potential for civilian casualties.

I share Katie's concern for non-combatants, and certainly a WWII style air campaign would cost the lives of thousands of non-combatants. Fortunately we have no plans to launch that type of campaign. The strikes last nght can truly be called surgical in their precision, and there is no reason to expect anything less throughout the conflict. We don't need to carpet bomb cities anymore. Guided munitions and smart weapons allow us to strike military targets, minimizing the chances for non-combatant casualties. Also, our goal, the liberation of Iraq, calls for a different type of campaign, one which is targetted on specific areas and assets. We don't have to defeat the Iraqi people; all we need to do is defeat Saddam. Once we remove his capability to wage war, it's over. Sadly, there will be some casualties among non-combatants, but nothing like Dresden, Berlin, or London. I also believe that fewer will die in the course of liberation than would have tied in Saddams torture rooms, and rape rooms if we didn't act. It's hard to play mathematics with people's lives like that, because none of them deserve to die, but Saddam has left us no other choice.

A ground war, on the other hand, virtually guarantees heavy civilian casualties, particularly if Saddam carries out his plans to create a massive humanitarian disaster to slow down the Coalition advance.

The War is on...

which means the time for debate is ended. Both sides have voiced their beliefs, some with eloquence, others with vitriol. There are sincere folks on each side of the issue, arguing for or against military action with facts and logic and passion; while I may disagree with their opinion, I respect that they arrived at it with serious deliberation, operating from a different set of core beliefs which leads them to a different conclusion. There are also those on either side who argue from hatred, or bigotry, or ignorance, who spew their poison on any who disagree with them. I have no respect for them.

I count among my friends some who disagree with military intervention, some because they are pacifists, others because they don't trust President Bush, and others because they believe that there are other options. I disagree with all of them, and while I believe they are wrong, I respect their right to be wrong.

And so, I'm not going to write any more on the justifications for military intervention. I'm not going to critique anti-war posts. Everything that needs to be said has been said. (I may toast an exceptionally egregious statement from the foreign policy experts from Hollywood, but I will try to behave myself.) The time for argument passed at about 9:30 EST tonight.

I don't expect those who disagree with the use of force to stop voicing their opinion, nor would I want them to, but to debate over whether we should go or not is now moot.

Target of Opportunity

We hit Iraq at about 9:30 EST. According to the Pentagon, we got intelligence about when and where Iraqi leaders were meeting, and took advantage of it.

It remains to be seen whether the strike was successful or not, but it appears to have been aimed at Hussein, his sons, and two other key aides.

This suggests two things to me. Assuming of course that the intel was accurate, either we have human intelligence resources (spies) operating inside Baghdad, possibly even in Hussein's inner circle, or members of Hussein's government are turning on him and providing info to the US. Either possibility increases the chances of a short, relatively bloodless campaign.

Changes

As you may have noticed, I'm making some design changes around here. Let me know what you think. I'm coding this with the MT manual in one hand, and the "Idiots Guide to HTML" in the other, so bear with me as I try to whip this thing into shape.

Besides, it gives me something to do while I wait on news updates.

Amazing the difference a day makes...

On Sunday, the conventional wisdom said fear of war was driving the stack market down. On Monday, after the President's speech, the Stock market climbed over 200 points, and increased those gains today.

On Sunday, Britain's Prime minister, Tony Blair, was fighting for his political life. Today, after the President's speech, Parliament voted against oppsing the war, and for removing Hussein from power "by any means necessary."

On Sunday, we had no hopes of using Turkey to launch an attack. Today, after the President's speech, the Turkish Parliament is voting this week to allow US war planes to use Turkish airspace and will reconsider whether to allow US troops to move through Turkey.

On Sunday, the French would not support military intervention, no matter what. Today, after the President's speech, France has offered to allow the US to use french airspace, and has volunteered to help in the event Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons.

Yep, President Bush sucks at diplomacy....

New feature

In my ongoing quest to become a bit more professional about this blogging/journalism thing, I've added a new feature above. Day by Day is a comic strip by Chris Muir that's been running for a few months, and it's a wonderful replacement for "Doonesbury", which has lost it's edge over the last few years. I read an interview with Chris, where he stated he hoped to get continued exposure for the comic, and the price was within my budget (free), so here it is for your entertainment. I enjoy the read, and I hope you will too.

Nice collection of links

Winds of Change has a post filled with tasty little chinks of war news, including the reference to Iraq's mobile bio weapons labs linked below. Check 'em out. One interesting note:

Note the key loophole: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing." In other words, as soon as they say "no" we can attack. I'd bet almost anything Saddam can't resist a public "no" by tomorrow morning at the latest.

I don't know if we'll take advantage of the loophole, but the window is open

Iraq's leadership on Tuesday rejected the U.S. ultimatum that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq or face war, and the United Nations (news - web sites) pulled its weapons inspection staff out of the country as battle appeared inevitable.

Bush's foreign policy--Incompetent or Idealistic?

Howard Owens has an entry today which takes President Bush to task for his incompetent foreign policy.

I didn't vote for Bush, and all of this brings rushing back the reasons why -- he just isn't well educated about the world. I think he's proven to have many great qualities that I didn't initially recognize. I admire his resolve and his tenacity in protecting America. But he simply doesn't understand how the world works.

As I remarked briefly (well briefly for me anyway) in his comments, I have a different take. I think he understands how the world works, and is working to change it.

Global politics is the most corrupt game ever played, and the recent UN Security Council debacle is just the latest example. Howard suggests that France knows exactly how dangerous it would be to leave Hussein in power with his arms intact, but that Bush should have done more to persuede them to take action. We should have flatttered them, played up to them, used their sence of vanity to get them to go along with us.

This reveals the fundamental flaw in the UN that has lead it to become as irrelevant as the League of Nations. Most of the member nations only act when it is in their own interest to do so. Far from achieving global consensus, the UN is a brothel, filled with prostitutes selling their support to the highest bidder, eager to gain power, money, or influence for their own country.

Our President is refusing to play the john to France's whore, and I applaud him for it.

To the UN, whether a certain course of action is necessary or right is a secondary concern at best. To many, it doesn't matter that Hussein is in violation of multiple resolutions; it doesn't matter that he has slaughtered thousands of his own people; it doesn't matter that he represents one of the biggest threats to stability in the Middle East, as he possesses both WMD and a willingness to use them; it doesn't matter that he's lied over and over about his weapons programs. Just today, we find out that he does have mobile weapons labs, despite years of denials. But none of that really matters; all that really matters is prestige and power.

According to Howard's thesis, France refuses to support military intervention not on the merits of the case, but because we didn't pay her enough attention, and he blames that on President Bush's foreign policy bungling.

If believing that nations should act in the best interest of the world because it is the right thing to do, rather than having to be paid to do so is bungling, then I guess he's right. But I call it idealism. The President believes, and I do too, that a thing should be done because it is right, not because you get paid to do it. It's the difference between being a mercenary and a soldier. Sure, it's naive, but maybe we need a little idealism these days. Bush has always been plain spoken; many who don't know him are surprised by the simple fact that he says what he means. I guess that's not popular in diplomatic circles, but it certainly is a refreshing change.

New Reference Link

Whenever I get into a discussion about the War Between the States, I start my search here. Shotgun, the guy who maintains the site is a Southerner, and tells both sides of the story. If you're a buff, like I am, his collection of links is invaluable.

My how things change aka hypocrisy from the left

I found this via Possumblog. It's from the Weekly Standard. Here's a few quotes from the President of the United States.

[What if Saddam Hussein] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

From other sources

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"

But it wasn't President Bush. It was William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.

And what does he say now?

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Speaking in the morning, Washington time, before the announcement of the evening press conference with President Bush, former president Bill Clinton, questioned why America appears so quick to rush to war.

BILL CLINTON: And I, you know, from my perspective, if we have to go in there and kill a bunch of people to disarm him, well we may have to do that but we could do that next week as well as today and so I would very much like to see an effort made to get this thing done without conflict.

The tune changes when you don't have impeachment hanging over your head. In 1998 we had to go right now, but in 2003, we can afford to wait and see.

Iraq must be feeling froggy

Instead of allowing the french to do their dirty work, Iraq has done it themselves by rejecting out of hand Britain's compromise proposal.

Iraq reveled Thursday in the diplomatic turmoil surrounding U.S.-led war plans and rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's effort to find a compromise over an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein.

"It is an attempt to beautify a rejected aggressive project," he told journalists. "(Britain) is trying to polish this project, which has been rejected by the majority of Security Council members."

Asked whether Iraq opposed the British list, he said: "Of course. We reject any project contrary to resolutions already adopted by the Security Council."

This is actually a good thing. By refusing to even consider this proposal, Hussein is declaring himself to be in material breach of the UN resolutions. Of course, he feels comfortable doing so, because the UN has shown that it will cave, rather than enforce its mandate. Fortunately, the US does not suffer from the lack of will evidenced by the UNSC.

FoxNews Poll

Check out today's poll on FoxNews.com

Going It Alone

Could the U.S. wage a war in Iraq without British assistance?

Yes, we don't need them.

No, we need all the support we can get.

The wording is a little weird here. The answers are twisted a bit, mixing a positive "Yes" and a negative "we don't need them."

The reason I picked up on it is I read the answers without really looking at the question. When I skimmed the question, I read "Do we need British assistance?" the answer to which is "No." But by wording the question the way they did, the answer is "Yes, we don't need them."

The way the question is framed leads you to the positive response (Yes), even though that response is negative (we don't need them).

It makes me wonder about Yes-No questions on polls. Is there any bias towards a "yes" answer, regardless of the question? If so, was this question framed to take advantage of that bias?

Any pollsters out there with info, please comment.

Recruitment in California Schools

California schools are urging parents to opt out of a system which notifies the military of the names and phone numbers of high school juniors and seniors eligible for service.

An amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires public high schools to give military recruiters the names and phone numbers of juniors and seniors — unless their parents say no. If school officials don’t provide the information, they risk losing millions of federal dollars.

But the San Francisco and Los Angeles school districts are engaged in an active campaign to let parents know they have the right to decline.

"We are complying with the law, but we are also making clear to our parents that … they have the opportunity to opt out of it, to choose not to have private information provided to the military," said Jill Wynns, a San Francisco Board of Education commissioner.

As a conservative and a veteran of the all volunteer Navy, I suppose I should be outraged.

But I'm not.

The decision whether or not to make that information available to local recruiters should be up to the parents first, then the child.

Not the school, and not some legislature.

In fact, I have more trouble with the law itself than with the school system spending money to fully inform parents about the law, and their rights under it.

Rummy blew it!

Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that America was willing and capable of going it alone against Iraq, without British assistance.

"Until we know what the resolution is (going to say), we won't know the answer as to what their role will be," Rumsfeld said of the British military, which is deploying 45,000 troops to the Gulf.

"And to the extent they are able to participate — in the event that the president decides to use force — that would obviously be welcomed," he added. "To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

Obviously, Rumsfeld was trying to keep the pressure on Hussein, letting him know that we were still coming. Unfortunately, this statement had the effect of cutting Tony Blair's legs out from under him, giving the anti-war faction in Britain more ammunition. They are saying that if the US doesn't need them, then the Brits shouldn't go.

If I were Blair, I'd be furious with this gaffe.

Serb Prime Minister Assassinated

Actually, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner

Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic -- who spearheaded the revolt that toppled former President Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000 -- was assassinated Wednesday by gunmen who ambushed him outside the government complex, police sources said.

Djindjic, 50, died in a Belgrade hospital after having been shot in the abdomen and back.

This guy had a lot of enemies. He handed over Milosevic to the UN; he targeted organized crime; he was going after Mladic; he supported closer ties with the West over Russia. There were a lot of people who wouldn't mind seeing him dead.

The key question is who got to him.

An ethical dilemma

OK, here's my problem:

Now that I have broadband access, Kazaa (a file sharing service) has become significantly more attractive. In the past, I would download a song or two, usually from new albums or artists, to preview before buying the CD. If I liked the songs, I bought the CD, then ripped it to my computer. I don't share those files over the net, because that would be stealing, but I do make copies for my own use. New mixes, "Best of" compilations, road tunes, whatever.

So far so good.

But now, I've entered a vast gray area of file swapping, and I'd like to get y'all's opinions.

My son and I are big Alias fans. He can't watch the show from school, so I tape it for him every week, then mail the tape up to him. This is an example of timeshifting carried to an extreme, but is permitted under the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law.

I think.

I'm also a fan of the show 24, although I rarely get the chance to watch it, and it's one of those shows where every episode is important. Miss one and you could be lost for awhile. I watched about the first 6 episodes last season, then lost track, and much the same happened this season.

Now that I have broadband, I searched and found all the episodes from last season available, so I downloaded them.

My rationale is that I was applying timeshifting, albeit retroactively, using a new technology, so no laws were being violated.

Then as I watched the shows, I noticed that some of them were much cleaner and had no commercials. I found out that Fox has released the first season of 24 on DVD, and these episodes must have come from that source.

And that's the dilemma.

All I want to do is watch the show, which was aired for free. I have no interest in going out and spending $50 for the DVD set, cause I'll only watch it once. It seems that the copyright protection in this case applies more to the format of the medium rather than the content, which is kind of bizarre.

Since I know nothing of copyright law (apologies to those of you convinced I know everything) I have the following questions:

1. Does copyright apply to format as well as content?
   
2. Am I right in thinking that copying files from broadcast for personal use is covered under "Fair Use" provisions, even if that copying uses a new technology like file swapping?
   
3. Is a DVD of a show covered under a different copyright than the broadcast version?
   
4. Is the Southern second person plural possessive the only word in the English slanguage with 2 apostrophes?

Why Dole?

Why did 60 minutes choose Bob Dole to debate Bill Clinton on 60 Minutes?

Apparently, Clinton didn't give them much choice.

It's putting a heavyweight up against a lightweight, an unfair fight," says one entertainment division employee based in New York. "It was clear they wanted Clinton and, really, only Clinton. But they knew they couldn't get away with that, so they got Dole."

According to another news source, names other than Dole were bandied about: former Rep. Newt Gingrich, outgoing Georgia Republican Party director Ralph Reed, William Bennett, even former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

"But Clinton's people were adament about who they would let their boss appear with, and they were especially sensitive about not wanting anyone who was directly involved with the whole Monica Lewinsky/impeachment thing. That kind of emptied the swimming pool."

Gotta make Bill look good, you know. Can't take the chance that somebody might actually compete with him. Someody like Fred Thompson, for example.

Fred is intelligent, telegenic, and has a reputation for honesty and integrity. He'd slice and dice his way through Clinton's rhetoric. Instead, we'll listen to Bill huff and puff, and Dole grumble.

Then again, if they go on like last week, maybe we won't.

Contemptible!

Richard Bennet has seen fit to attack(scroll down to Marriage and Attachment Parenting) our own Katie Allison Granju, claiming that the cause of her recent separation was her child raising methods.

I think the words "heartless bastard" apply here.

Enough is Enough

This is just too much.

With President Bush (news - web sites) anxious to resolve the U.N. standoff quickly and with 300,000 troops poised to invade Iraq, the United States and its allies reluctantly accepted a delay in its diplomatic timetable, possibly until Thursday or later.

We know Hussein is developing chemical warheads. Even Blix has to admit it now.

We know he has delivery systems ranging from rockets which exceed the UN limits, to drones with a range of over 300 miles. Even Blix has admitted this is true.

We know Iraq has failed to destroy thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. Even Blix admits to this.

Yet we still wait on the UN to 'legitimize' military action.

I don't want to hear anymore about Bush's "rush to war," or how he disrespects the UN and the rest of the world.

Posted by Rich at 11:17 PM |