Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, February 02, 2007

The Debate is Over

In Paris today, Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first section of its contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report: a 20-page Summary for Policymakers. The report represents the combined judgment of scientists from a hundred nations. Anthropogenic global warming may no longer be presented as "controversial" by any but the disingenuous.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level... Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [> 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.


The best estimates of continued average global warming over the 21st century range from 1.4 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. All models predict the worst warming by far will occur in the Arctic--3 to 8 degrees Celsius--and under several scenarios late-summer ice vanishes entirely from the Arctic ocean by the end of the century! The estimates of sea level rise range from 18 to 59 centimeters... but the panel notes these estimates that do not include recent studies of rapid, dynamic ice flow. Consensus on rapid ice change does not yet exist (wait until the 5th report, perhaps?) but could only make the situation more dire. Furthermore, the weather will grow more violent worldwide.
It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent...it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation...

Perhaps the bleakest part of the review is that a great deal of damage has already been done. Unless we can actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere (never mind merely restricting emissions!) we are already doomed to a thousand years of global warming.
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized... Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.

There is a sliver of good news though. Some of the nightmare scenarios we have feared are pretty much ruled out. The Atlantic current (the thermal "conveyor belt") will slow but not stop, and the Antarctic ice sheet is not expected to collapse.
[I]t is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century... It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century... Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting


If we commit ourselves to stabilizing the atmosphere, we will not avoid all global warming, but we will avoid disaster. This is a graph summarizing the five major scenarios summarized in the IPCC report. Two decades of inaction has cost us much already. The debate is over. Now is the time to act.

Read More...

An unbelievable amount of money

Bush is asking for $245 billion over the next two years to pay for his wars. Most people have a hard time comprehending that much money, so let's put it this way -- if you took all that money in one-dollar bills and made two stacks with it, each stack would be taller than the earth is thick.

Congress needs to stop this war. NOW. Deny this funding. Pass the bills presented by Woolsey in the House and Obama in the Senate. Make a statement. No more talk.

Read More...

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Great Moments in Deep Thought

To herd the cat some times you have to let them stray. Think about that. Keeping them together by letting them stray.

-Trent Lott, January 31, 2007.

Read More...

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Give War a Chance

This is the message of the Republicans, "Give this plan a chance." Senator Cornyn (R-TX) on the News Hour said two things: (1) if you oppose the troop buildup, cut funds; (2) if you oppose the troop buildup in any way, you are opposing the troops themselves. Both are hogwash, of course. Particularly I would like to focus on #1. Cornyn knows that a plan to cut funds might pass the Senate. He claims the Democrats are being cowards not to try, but it's all talk - literally: the Republicans will filibuster any attempt to hold such a vote. If they agree to let votes on all resolutions, they may then accuse the Democratic majority of not having the courage of their convictions to pursue the harsher resolutions.

I'm writing this because Cornyn has proven himself to be a gross hypocrite and fascist over the past several years, and I'm tired of PBS giving him a microphone. They never cut him down to size appropriately.

Read More...

Chavez Power Grab

Hi Everyone,

You probably have heard of Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez. Well, he's poised to make a major power grab that would erode still further the tenuous grip on democracy that that country still has. Fueled by high oil prices, Chavez has managed to become so popular that the National Assembly is going to vote him the power to rule by decree. The CNN.com story is here.

His declared intent is to use these decree powers to transform Venezuela into a kind of oil rich version of Cuba. What ever you may think about the desirability of modeling a country after Cuba, think about the means he's using to do it.

Chavez has majority support in the National Assembly. If he wanted to pass new policies, he could get the Assembly to vote his way. Certainly their willingness to grant him decree power is a good indication of their loyalty to him. But instead he's having the assembly grant him decree power. This shows that the policy changes are NOT the point. The point is the decree power itself. What's more, it is likely that his plans for using the decree powers go far beyond what he has openly admitted thus far.

I have no idea how long Chavez will be in charge in Venezuela. But every step like this he takes makes it more likely that the eventual transfer of power will be a dirty business.

It is unfortunate that Bush has us bogged down so obsessively in Iraq. Venezuela under Chavez is turning into a real threat to us and our allies. Chavez has meddled in the elections of a number of friendly Latin American countries (including Mexico) so far with mixed success. His consolidation of dictatorial power in his own country is a worrying signal of his intention to threaten our interests and those of our allies in the region.

I'm not suggesting we should invade Venezuela, but having the ability to do so would make the diplomacy easier. Thank you for screwing this up too, Mr. Bush.

Read More...

Monday, January 29, 2007

On Organizational Change & Government

In his last post, Dr. S mentioned the issue of war budgeting as addressed by the Iraqi study group. I want to open this issue up a bit. Pentagon budgeting is hardly transparent.

But using emergency funding to cover war expenses has had far reaching effects on the DoD budgets. Namely, it makes it very hard to separate war expenditures from basic operations for the daily DoD activities.

For example, let’s take the Center for Lessons Learned, which opened a few years ago as part of the Military’s transformation plan. They are training people to fight wars. And they will do this regardless of whether there is a war or not. But at the same time, they are critical to the war effort now. So how much of an emergency appropriation goes to them for their role in the current war and how do you separate that from the regular budget? How do you track the funds? It isn’t clear.

To track these new funds, the Pentagon has created whole new levels of bureaucratic hell. The levels of bureaucracy have increased 4 fold. Long time DoD employees tell me that they have never seen or experienced anything like it before.

Private contractors are proving to be mixed blessing. The government has always had contractors, but now there are so many and the sums of money are so big that we are back to the days of $500 toilet seats and gold plated hammers. Contractors who are brought in as consultants encounter a lot of polite smiles but little action. Some of these contractors are honest players whose job is to help guide organizational change. The resistance to this type change is serious. Rumsfeld wasn't all wrong when he talked about the "anchor chain" in the military.

But there is some good that is happening as well. Government is trying desperately to update itself, its organizational structure, and its methods of doing things. Government is turning to private industry because it needs to become more like private industry. At the same time, private industry is grabbing the most promising employees from government to help fulfill government contracts by waving huge sums of money in front of them. Those yonger workers who to want to stay in government find themselves increasingly frustrated.

The government sector is facing 3 huge issues 1) an office technology gap 2) an aging workforce that needs to be replaced. 3) a lack of solid leadership to help make needed changes. Notice that money is not the problem. There is more than enough of that. And while we knock the philosophy of the Ayn Rands of the world, she is on to something: the ability to block needed change under the cover of "the greater good".

Due to the burgeoning bureaucracy, government institutions suddenly need electronic document management technologies because funding allocations are getting lost in the approvals process. This means that managers spend more time filling out complicated paperwork and following up as it passes through the various gates rather than leading. Bureaucracy has replaced leadership and is sucking up energy. Great minds are spent tyring to comply with contradicting rules that change daily. Decisions, if htey can be made at all, are being made based on individual ego trips rather than on logic or reason. Middle managers are ignoring chains of command and forming quiet resistance movements simply to get things done.

The whole government salary system is being trashed and replaced with a new, more flexible merit based system, which is a good thing. But older workers aren’t rotating out as they should be and they aren’t keeping up either. They either stay in place, sleeping at their desks and collecting a salary while younger workers who are ready to grasp the reins are being blocked. If older people retire, they sign back up as contractors. So the revolving door that used to belong to Congress has filtered down to mid level functionaries.

So I ask, how can you win a war abroad when you don't even have the capacity to operate effectively and efficiently at home?

Read More...

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Recommendations 46 and 72

It was 4:30 AM. I had coughed myself awake and I could not sleep: another victim of flu season. So it was the perfect time to finish reading the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report. If you have not read it, I recommend it: 96 short pages of (mostly) straight talk about the mess over there. It may have been the fever, but two recommendations in particular stood out as unusual, going beyond the Iraq crisis. First, with almost no explanation, there was this little gem:

Recommendation 46:
The new Secretary of Defense should make every effort to build healthy civil-military relations, by creating an environment in which the senior military feel free to offer independent advice not only to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon but also to the President and the National Security Council, as envisioned in the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.

Wow... So we all knew the generals were under pressure to hold the party line when talking to Congress... but this recommendation states as clearly as a bipartisan panel would dare that Rumsfeld also prevented his generals from talking openly and honestly to George Bush and Condoleeza Rice (in her former job). I think I finally know why Rumsfeld got fired.

The second thing that caught my eye was not actually the text of Recommendation #72 (that Iraq war costs should be part of the regular annual budget, rather than "circumventing" the normal process with emergency supplemental appropriations) but rather the explanation for that seemingly modest recommendation.
[t]he executive branch presents budget requests in a confusing manner, making it difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to understand the requrest or to differentiate it from counterterrorism operations around the world or operations in Afghanistan. Detailed analyses by budget experts are needed to answer what should be a simple question: "How much money is the President requesting for the war in Iraq?"

The ISG report goes on to complain that the emergency supplemental appropriations are approved by "pressured" committees and the Congress after only "perfunctory review" and "minimum scrutiny." The result, says the report, is that, "the must-pass appropriations bill becomes loaded with with special spending projects that would not survive the normal review process." The report chides the administration for continuing to use supplemental appropriations, noting that, "the war is in its fourth year."

I am sure other Citizens were more astute, but I had not realized that Bush's insistence on conflating the war in Iraq with the war on terror, and his tactic of having "emergency" supplemental appropriations every year, served a real budgetary purpose for the Republicans: to use these wars as cover to grab even more pork. Makes you sick, doesn't it? Anyhow I just thought these two were worthy of special mention, as they have not, to my knowledge, been noted much elsewhere.

Read More...

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Great Discussion on Youtube

Hi Guys,

I was surfing the tubes this morning and found this great discussion on Bill Maher's show. Here is a link to it on youtube.

I think it's interesting for a couple of reasons. First, because they are talking about "Jesus Camp" a documentary that I never got to see here in my small, Midwestern town. Second, because they quickly depart from talking about the movie and embark on a discussion of the nature of religion itself. I agree with Bill Maher on this one quite strongly.

Take a look at the clip. It's a good conversation.

Read More...

Thursday, January 25, 2007

June is Just Fine

According to the NY Times, several large states, including California, are once again attempting to gain influence over the nomination process by moving their Presidential primaries earlier in the calendar. We have made this error before.

In 2004, California moved its primary to March, which was viewed by all as a disaster--it was way too early and didn't give California a voice anyhow. Other states just leapfrogged California. So California returned its primaries back to the first week in June for 2006--the same time California had always held its primary elections since 1946. (Before that time, it was the first week in May for Presidential primaries and the last week in August for off-years.)

I cannot find any specific evidence of an attempt to move California's primary again--can anyone help?--but I strongly oppose it. Let California do its part to stay out of the fray and choose a date that is best for California's own concerns. I know that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it--but come on, will California's political parties really repeat the same mistake made three years ago?

Read More...

Gerrymandering the Electoral College

Interesting tidbit. As you may know, the Congress is preparing to pass a bill that would increase the House to 437 reps permanently, adding 1 for DC and 1 for Utah. The Utah seat would be at-large until post-census redistricting (and reapportionment) in 2010. The interesting effect is on the electoral college. DC already gets 3 EV, and would not get any more under the 23rd amendment ("...but in no event more than the least populous state"). But Utah's EV would be calculated by adding the total number of reps + senators. So Utah would get +1 EV (increase from 5 to 6). This means there would be 539 EV available, not 538.

Read More...

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Gay Science

There is a provocative NY Times article on the recent controversy over research concerning gay sheep. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the work of Dr. Roselli, who was seeking biochemical causes of homosexuality in sheep. (Apparently, about 8% of rams seek sex exclusively with other rams.) Various gay rights and animal rights groups, however, raised a storm of protest, claiming that Dr. Roselli's work was designed to find a way to "cure" homosexuality by hormone treatments. This was, of course, a wild exaggeration--although arguably the immodest way in which Dr. Roselli advertised his work may have invited some of the distortion.

But it does raise the question: Is it appropriate for scientists to investigate why some people are homosexual and others heterosexual? Consider a matrix of possibilities: nature/nurture on one side, mutable/immutable on the other. What if we were to discover that the difference arises from genetics, or from developmental conditions, or from some combination of the two? What if we discover that a person's sexuality is fixed for life, or easily changed, or somewhere in between? Suppose there are many different types of homosexuality and heterosexuality--many sets of answers to these questions?

As a gay scientist, I sometimes find myself torn between the thirst for knowledge and the fear of knowing. On the one hand, I understand some people's fears. In a homophobic society, the matrix of possibilities looks bleak: immutable nature would make us seem like freaks; immutable nurture would mean homosexuality could be prevented by rearing children differently; mutable nature would mean a drug could be administered to change one's sexual orientation; and mutable nurture would invite re-education camps for adults. But on the other hand, I know that if society welcomed homosexuality, the matrix would look much brighter: immutable nature would make us seem gifted; immutable nurture would mean parents could choose their children's sexual orientation; mutable nature would mean people could easily choose to be homosexual; and mutable nurture would mean people could learn how to be homosexual.

I guess the real message in here is that, when it comes to the science of homosexuality, it is our attitude toward homosexuals that will drive how society uses the knowledge, not the other way around. We should not sacrifice science on the altar of hate. Let's find out as much as we can about human sexuality. Because in sexuality, as everywhere else, enlightenment leads to freedom and ignorance to oppression. In other words, the truth will make you free.

Read More...

Obama Unelectable?

Barack Obama, according to his campaign website, attends the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Now, I'm a fan of the UCC, but this is a particularly radical branch. All Black, all the time. Follow this link to see the Black Value System it espouses. I don't think Point 8 is going to go over well with the electorate. Fox News will have a field day with this, and it will alienate many people. Imagine taking what is written below and replacing the word "black" with "white." This is what will will hear across the country. It will detract from the implicit message of racial healing that Obama's candidacy seems to bring to many white people.

To quote from the church website:
"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System. "

I think the UCC is a wonderful organization, and I understand the need to build up the African-American community, but I am a bit disturbed. My church has two priests, an African-American man and a white lesbian woman. They preach integration and unity, not separatism (as Paul said, "in Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female..."). The congregation is about 80% white, with a high gay percentage. I'm sure Barack Obama is not such a radical as his church statement of Black Values - if he is, he is a mighty hypocrite for being so centrist - but I suspect this may make him unelectable. And distancing himself from the church will be equally hard for his chances with the black community.

Read More...

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Webb Kicks Ass

So, Bush delivered his State of the Union Address tonight. Just miserable. He waited nearly 40 minutes to mention Iraq, although he sometimes claims we're a nation at war, like WWII all over again. His domestic agenda was long and full of nothing. Like he wanted "comprehensive [blank] reform" repeatedly. Great. And what does that mean? Very little applause, and none for his weird health care tax code ideas.

By contrast, Jim Webb was stunningly frank. He had two distinct messages: (1) there is a class division growing in this country with excessive corporate profits and a squeeze on the middle class (he used the term"class division"); (2) and the war in Iraq was recklessly entered into against the advice of all sorts of smart people, mismanaged, and a disaster that needs a new direction "to get troops OFF the streets of Baghdad." It was clear he is very pissed that his son is over there. And it really resonated.

Two things noteworthy. First, Hillary could not have given that speech. She voted for the stupid war. Second, Webb said "it's almost like we live in two different countries." So, it's to be an Edwards-Webb ticket, is it?

Read More...

Sunday, January 21, 2007

It's never too early to prognosticate!

Well, OK, maybe it is too early... But it's never too early to bloviate on a blog! So far, nine Democrats and ten Republicans have declared they will run. Here is the list, organized by the percentages from the latest Gallup poll (Jan. 12-14, 2007). Note that this poll came out before Clinton, Obama, and Richardson declared their candidacies last week.

Democrats:
29% - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
18% - Sen. Barack Obama (Illinois)
13% - (Former) Sen. John Edwards (North Carolina)
5% - Sen. Joe Biden (Delaware)
3% - Gov. Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
1% - Sen. Christopher Dodd (Connecticut)
<1% - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
<1% - (Former) Gov. Tom Vilsack (Iowa)
<1% - (Former) Sen. Mike Gravel (Alaska)

Republicans:
31% - (Former) Mayor Rudy Giuliani (New York City)
27% - Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
7% - (Former) Gov. Mitt Romney (Massachusetts)
2% - (Former) Gov. Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin)
2% - (Former) Gov. Jim Gilmore (Virginia)
1% - Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)
<1% - Rep. Duncan Hunter (California)
<1% - John H. Cox (Illinois)
<1% - Michael Charles (Oregon)
<1% - Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)
<1% - Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colorado)

It should also be noted that a few undeclared candidates appeared in the poll:
Unannounced Democrats
11% - (Former) Vice President Al Gore (Tennessee)
8% - Sen. John Kerry (Massachusetts)
2% - (Former) Gen. Wesley Clark (Arkansas)
1% - Rev. Al Sharpton (New York)
Unannounced Republicans
10% - (Former) House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Georgia)
3% - (Former) Gov. George Pataki (New York)

And here is a matchup chart, from a few days later (Jan. 17) looking at head-to-head races in the general election:
Clinton ~ McCain (48-47... dead heat)
Obama ~ McCain (46-44... dead heat)
Guiliani ~ Clinton (47-48... dead heat)
Guiliani ~ Obama (47-45... dead heat)
Edwards > McCain (48-43)
Edwards ~ Giuliani (48-45... dead heat)

My predictions are, as they have been for the past few months, the pedestrian ones: Clinton for the Democrats, McCain for the Republicans. And I am predicting Clinton takes the Presidency in 2008.

Read More...

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Nanny State Strikes Again

Last week, the news shows were wall to wall on the abductions in Missouri followed by stories that dealt in general about the emotional impact on children when taken from the parents. This matters because so many children in this country are getting abducted that it is now a rite of passage . . . .NOT.

After they were done with abductions, the next story was the poor performance of child safety seats in Consumer Reports trials, trials that have been since been shown to be in error, as if parents weren't frightened enough over the potential abductions of their little darlings ("The kidnapper would get so sick of you, he'd bring you back," as my no fear mother told us), now the state is after them.

After all the scare stories last week, NPR reported that the city of Bangor, Maine has banned smoking in vehicles to protect small children from the dangers of second hand smoke. We won't mentioned the safety hazard smoking presents. Instead, we want to protect children.

And now, as if you as parents weren't scared enough, California State Assemblywoman, Sally Lieber , is set to make spanking children illegal. Who, may I ask, is she to decide what is good parenting?

1. Children sometimes need a good swat or two.
2. Since when did children become such "cult objects" to steal a phrase from George Carlin?
3. When are adults going to remember that it is they, not children, who are in charge?
4. Since when has the state been good at "raising" children?
5. When are politicians going to realize that libertarian feelings are starting to peak in all of us?

Enough already! Leave us alone. This is NOT an issue for the law.

Read More...

LTG -- help!

Okay, the liberal blogs are all over attorney general Alberto Gonzales for this exchange (video at link):

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
But a diarist at Daily Kos convincingly claims the AG is right, and after all, he is the Attorney General! So LTG or any other Constitutional experts out there -- who is right?

Read More...

Student Loans

It went unnoticed by us bloggers, but last week the House passed legislation to decrease interest rates on subsidized Student Loans. This undoes what the previous, Republican controlled Congress did, which was to set student loan rates at a straight 6.8%. Prior to this loan rates had been set to the prevailing rate, capped at 8.75%. The Republicans gave into the lobby of the growing consolidation business. I get almost as much junk mail from consolidators as credit card companies. It is a little sick to see a whole industry getting fat off of the debt of young people. As I have said before, no one is considering the longer term economic ramifications of a whole generation of young professionals strapped with student loan debt.

For starters, this is cited as one reason young professionals are waiting longer to have children and buy homes. This is also in part because we are in school much longer. There are professions that require 4 and 6 year degrees, but that don’t pay much and that are critical to society: social workers (we will need them badly as the population ages), child care workers,
public defenders , city planners, teachers, pharmacists etc. Professions that were once considered trades now require college degrees. These are all vocations that will go underserved simply because they don’t pay enough to cover educational costs. We are in a consumer driven economy, but if people are paying back heavy loans, then there are many things they won’t be able to purchase. University educated Gen Xers will never be able to pay college tuition for their children or help support their aging relatives and friends if they are still paying back their own college debts. What are the social costs of that? University costs and student loans are a crisis in the making.

I chose to take on an extra degree. I wasn’t inventive enough to see how I could excel without a higher degree. I also wanted it for my own personal satisfaction. And I don’t object to paying back what I owe. I am glad that the loans were there so that I could go to school. I do object, however to how much I am paying back.

This new legislation is merely a placeholder until the more comprehensive legislation follows. However, Bush may well veto anything that makes it out of Congress.

For those of us who have consolidated, this legislation will mean nothing since those rates are locked in unless Congress decides to change the consolidation rules. In fact, I spent the last 5 years paying an interest rate that was twice the prevailing rate because of consolidation rules that prevent borrowers from re-financing their loans once consolidated. If they don't change the rules, perhaps they can offer a bigger tax deduction for those of us in repayment? Those deductions could be paid for easily by eliminating the loophole that allows businesses to avoid taxes by renting a post box in the Caymans. Let's all write our Congresspeople!

Read More...

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Here we go again

In August 2006, National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald Kerr reported that a Chinese ground-based laser had illuminated a U.S. satellite. Now, China has used a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy one of its own satellites--which the U.S. interprets as another test of anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration last August released its new National Space Policy that further articulated statements put out over the past few years that reject arms control for space and consider defense as a primary U.S. mission in space. In space, the U.S. wants to be able to achieve, "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." We've discussed this on the blog a few times before.

According to the Washington Post, China has been trying to call a conference to address the increasing militarization of space, but one nation has refused... You guessed it, the U.S. The Bush administration explains that there is no need for such a conference because there is no arms race in space. The more likely explanation, of course, is that we don't want to stop this new arms race because--so far--we're winning.

Read More...

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

More Troops for Everybody!

Now that Rumsfeld is gone, the NY Times reports that commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has asked for more troops. Ah yes--Bush always says he listens to the Generals "on the ground" when he makes decisions... Funny how what they say (or what we are told they say) changes when the Secretary of Defense changes.

One also has to wonder how this request conflicts with Bush's "augmentation" of troops in Baghdad. I'd like to see the Democrats champion a "surge" in Afghanistan instead.

Read More...

That's more like it!

Here are some early details on The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007. It details pretty much exactly what I want right now. Will it pass? Probably not. But it at least puts the ideas out there. If we relay it enough, you might get a lot of Americans saying "Hey, this sounds pretty good."

Read More...