Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Florida's Ungeschehenmachen

--Florida's gubernatorial contenders: 
Charlie Crist and incumbent Rick Scott 

What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of 
--What the World Needs Now is Love, 
Jackie DeShannon

 Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around 
--Money (Cabaret)

 Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight 
--Dumb All Over, Frank Zappa

Subtitle: Two peas in a pod.

Sunday's New York Times magazine ran an in-depth feature on Florida's current gubernatorial race (How Billionaire Oligarchs Are Becoming Their Own Political Parties.)

The lede graphic depicts the contenders as disembodied puppet heads on a stick, lacking the flesh-and-blood of an impassioned real candidate. In reality, they are marionettes whose strings are pulled by a netherworld of monied political interests which inhabit a universe unto themselves.

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling gutted the McCain-Feingold limits which had been imposed upon political campaign spending. So The People are now exposed to incessant 30-second sound-byte media lies, often created by a PAC with a benign-sounding name, a name often totally contradicting its actual agenda. This is how elections are determined by today's continually-wired electorate.

Read it for a sad insight into the election process, 2014-style.

(An excerpt):

At the cramped conference table, Baldick rattled off more news, both good and bad. A series of recent polls found that both candidates were extremely unlikable. (“Crist and Scott Could Make History by Being So Unpopular in Florida” was the headline of one recent report at FiveThirtyEight.com.) Baldick said this could actually be a positive development. “Both of them are not liked,” he explained, but “if you think people are going to show up because they hate, not love — I do — there’s more people who hate Scott.”
Steyer leaned back in contemplation.

“You think that’s what gets people to vote?” he asked.

“Oh yeah, hate, fear —”

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Netroots Obit

Do the right thing do the right thing
do it all the time do it all the time
make yourself right, never mind them 
--Diversionary, Ages and Ages 

Since you're gone the nights are getting strange
since you're gone nothing's making sense 
--Since You're Gone, The Cars 

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity 
--The Second Coming, W. B. Yeats

  This is still a free country,
 ladies and gentlemen
--1964 Republican Convention,
Nelson Rockefeller 

The Florida Netroots coalition, and its national affiliates, was a hopeful nascent political upwelling that began during the early days of internet social networking. This is its obituary.

Back in the early days (less than a decade ago, a millennium in internet years), some constituents from within the Florida Democratic Party sought to rally and harness a hopeful spirit of rejuvenation from within the ranks. The time seemed right: Karl Rove, et. al., had finished savaging any shred of decency left within the Republican party machine. The gig was up for the "compassionate (not) conservatives". Or so it seemed.

"Netroots" is a portmanteau of "internet" + "grassroots", coined in 2002 to describe the gathering energy displayed across the internet, primarily through blogging and other platforms promoting activism and connectivity via the internet. The culmination of the fury was seen in mid-decade elections; by 2010, Netroots was breathing its last.

Newt, Rumsfeld, GWB and the cast of regulars were growing stale and ossified, providing the ground from which Netroots sprang. Could the Democrats snatch victory from the jaws of defeat wrought by a party machine honed on emotional fail-safes like "family values" and gun rights, and ostensibly wholesome positions like anti-gay marriage, abortion rights and every other thing which became handy whipping boys for the burgeoning dysfunction of a once-great nation?

Alas, Netroots had no Karl Rove of its own and no platform -- only an amorphous passion, and a passion without purpose flames out fairly quickly.

And so it was with Netroots. There were conventions, and like all such events, there was grandstanding, glitter and celebration. Then, like waking up to a hangover on a too-bright day, the lack of a core directive led to its dissipation. Morning in America gave way to a languid afternoon and dull twilight all too soon.

Entre flash mobs performing Andrew Lloyd Webber songs in malls and cat videos.

The passing of Netroots indicates the Democratic process is in severe jeopardy. The death of grassroots activism -- especially in the age of easy internet networking -- may coincide with the slow, inexorable death of Democracy, as American political thought has been based in grassroots movements since the inception of the Republic.This is now lacking.

What remains are the corporations and the mega-rich who can dump millions into election propaganda pitched to an electorate which makes its decisions based upon 30-second agitprop commercials. There is no counterbalance, and this does not a wholesome and vital Democracy make.

Netroots was not the one-stop solution to a corporate, highly-factionalized politics, but it was a beginning, too-soon snuffed out. Perhaps it collapsed under the weight of its own largely superannuated history. Civil rights issues have been institutionalized, to greater or lesser successes, but the party did not seem to have any new issues to array on its platter.

Since the Democrats had been fighting for civil rights for so long, it poked around in that cabinet and found the only skeleton remaining -- gay rights. So this full enfranchisement on the basis of sexual orientation is coming to pass, but then what? The Democratic Party hasn't said, and that may be because there is nothing there but a mule, which is not to say any more of a fast-mover than an elephant, but just not too different.

The question remains: why would the  Democratic Party cede key terrain necessary to maintain a robust rivalry?

Netroots is not telling.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science

New Yorker satirist Andy Borowitz captures the sense of it:

Health workers, like these in Guinea, are at serious risk of contracting the disease. (photo: European Commission DG ECHO)
Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
17 October 14

here is a deep-seated fear among some Americans that an Ebola outbreak could make the country turn to science.

In interviews conducted across the nation, leading anti-science activists expressed their concern that the American people, wracked with anxiety over the possible spread of the virus, might desperately look to science to save the day.

“It’s a very human reaction,” said Harland Dorrinson, a prominent anti-science activist from Springfield, Missouri. “If you put them under enough stress, perfectly rational people will panic and start believing in science.”

Additionally, he worries about a “slippery slope” situation, “in which a belief in science leads to a belief in math, which in turn fosters a dangerous dependence on facts.”

At the end of the day, though, Dorrinson hopes that such a doomsday scenario will not come to pass. “Time and time again through history, Americans have been exposed to science and refused to accept it,” he said. “I pray that this time will be no different.”

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Range Etiquette

--Advertisement of girl firing Uzi 
in Blue Press (Nov. 2014 issue)

I have always known about man.
From the evidence, I believe his wisdom
must walk hand and hand with his idiocy
--Planet of the Apes (1968)

Remember when we used to play
Bang bang, I shot you down
Bang bang, you hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound 
--Bang, Bang, 
Nancy Sinatra

Mama used to tell me
Girl, you better load your gun up right
She said ya, ya gotta come out smokin'
Hit it with your best shot every time
 --I've Got My Finger on the Trigger,
Donna Summer

The above advert for Salute Targets appeared in the Nov. 2014 issue of the Dillon Blue Press catalog, p.5, a popular magazine selling reloading equipment. Pictured is a young girl firing a silenced 9 mm Uzi. It is unclear whether the weapon is full auto or semi, but Ranger asks, "What gives?"

Last month, a nine-year-old New Jersey girl accidentally shot and killed her instructor after her parents paid $200 for her to fire an Uzi sub machine gun at the appropriately named (for Mr. Vacca) The Last Chance firing range in Arizona (above):

"Cellphone video shows the pony-tailed youngster holding the Israeli military weapon, capable of firing up to 600 rounds a minute, before her instructor, 39-year-old military veteran Charles Vacca, switched the gun to automatic mode. As the girl pulled the trigger, she could not control the weapon’s powerful recoil and shot Vacca in the head" (When A 9-year-old Fires an Uzi).

What was the point in having this girl fire an Uzi on auto mode? Was this an empowerment exercise? Beyond the parent's foolishness, what was the range master and instructor thinking?


We don't know if the parents had answered the Salute Targets ad, but the magazine in which it appears is rife with conflict regarding the depiction of girls and women.

Each Blue Press cover features a siliconed-up model caressing a gun against various body parts (get it?) Almost always, the weapon is shown in an unsafe condition.

November's gun moll is holding an assault shotgun with the bolt closed -- a big no-no, unless you want it to accidentally go "boom". Guns should be in an observable safe posture, so why does the Blue Press, a publication dedicated to the shooting sports, emphasize sex over safety?

Probably for the same reason it allows advertisers who feature little girls wielding Uzis. Where are the grown ups? We grow older, but not wiser.

Shooting competitively since 1965, Ranger learned the first rule on the rifle range is to be safe and thoughtful, and not to take imprudent chances. The rules have not changed, but people blithely behave as though they have.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Ebola: The Plague II, or, "Don't Panic"

[Humans are]
just an advanced breed of monkey
 on a minor planet of a very average star
--Stephen Hawking 

“Were such things here as we do speak about? 
Or have we eaten on the insane root 
That takes the reason prisoner?”
--Macbeth, Shakespeare

apathetic bloody planet,
I've no sympathy at all. 
--Hitchhiker's Guide to the Planet, 
Douglas Adams

Funny the response to my previous piece on Ebola. Most suggested I calm down my measured and rational argument for full disclosure of medical failures so professionals and the rest of us can formulate a reasonable protocol to address inevitable threats like Ebola. Perhaps this is the human animal soothing itself in the face of a threat. Projection, denial, and all of that.

Most shocking, however, is the blithe way in which medical professionals have confronted those patients demonstrating symptoms who had clearly declared proximity to Ebola -- recently-deceased Texas patient Thomas Eric Duncan and Spanish nurse Teresa Romero Ramos.

Nurse Ramos had contacted health facilities three times with health concerns before being admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of Ebola, this despite her declaration of having been on the team that treated Ebola missionaries a couple of weeks before the onset of her symptoms.

The Guardian reports,

"On arrival at the hospital, Romera Ramos warned staff that she feared she had contracted Ebola. Despite the warning, she remained in a bed in the emergency room while she waited for her test results. She was separated from other patients only by curtains, hospital staff said on Tuesday."

Romero Ramos was sent home with OTC fever-reducer Paracetemol, much as Mr. Duncan had been sent home with a bottle of antibiotics, this despite his declaration to hospital staff that he had recently traveled from Liberia, an Ebola hot spot.

Houston Chronicle Online ran an opaque Op-Ed regarding Mr. Duncan's treatment, which, without actually saying it, hinted that race may be a factor in terms of treatment received in a hospital ER. I would suggest the problem transcends race, and is possibly lodged at the level of the economic status of the patient, at least here in the States where medicine is big business. Those fortunate enough to possess Cadillac health insurance probably don't have too many worries, people like our Congressmen.

Unfortunately, the rest of us don't look too impressive sniffling in a metropolitan ER. I was one of those people in 2012.

After waiting in the ER for 6 hours with a registered fever of 102 and extreme body stiffness (which meant I had to be delivered to the reception area in a wheelchair) my total care consisted of two Tylenols in a paper cup, delivered only at my friend's inquiry regarding any forthcoming care. The only patient taken back (unescorted by police) was a man across from me who vomited and then keeled over, who was then wheeled into a separate room, and who knows how long he languished there.

As the evening wore on and the ER filled, it became clear that my best bet was to return home and wait until dawn, when I might schedule with my regular doctor. (My insurance was billed $300 for those two Tylenols, and the privilege of sitting in a roomful of very sick people.)

My M.D., a former Navy doctor, failed miserably in his diagnosis. He confidently concluded that I had H1N1 virus -- Bird Flu -- after viewing my presenting symptoms: 102 degree fever, spiking to 105 cyclically (every six hours), extreme shaking (to the point of almost falling off of the examination table) and malaise and heavy feeling in my limbs. To all of this, he smiled: 

 "You have a very strong immune system -- that's what going on here. Your body is trying to fight it. Here's a prescription for Tamiflu. Go to the CDC website and read up on Bird Flu."

Like Charles Eric Duncan, I was dismissed with the wrong prescription, and told to take double the amount of Tylenol recommended, in increments half the suggested dosing time (every 2-3 hours) and to mix that with aspirin, if necessary, as my fever would be high.

I trusted him, even though my symptoms didn't seem to be those of Bird Flu and did not abate; maybe he knew about some local variety. He gave me a paper mask which he instructed me to wear, which inhibited my already labored breathing.

Meanwhile, after the bout of fever in the exam room, I again found myself unable to walk, and waited while the office (housed in a large building of medical practices) found a rickety wheelchair to unceremoniously dump me at the front door while I waited for a ride.

By day three on Tamiflu, the relentless fever spikes every six hours were taking a toll. Never feeling so ill in my life, I called the office and requested an antibiotic, on the gut feeling that this was a bacterial infection. The doctor never returned my call.

There is more, but the upshot is: this was a bacterial infection which had gone blood-borne -- not Bird Flu. On the fifth day of suffering after his misdiagnosis and my demanding simple tests (at the behest of a friend) which revealed the infection, he then prescribed the most powerful antibiotic available short of the intravenous route; the fever began to recede soon thereafter. Recovery took months.

"I don't like to prescribe anitbiotics, but when I do, I go big," he proudly stated.

I was fortunate; I survived. The doctor later sent me a registered letter saying that he recognized I had lost faith in him, and that he was resigning as my physician. 

Looking back shocks me anew. If this were Bird Flu, should my case not have been reported to some CDC database? Should I not have been hospitalized? How could putting a paper mask on my mouth have prevented any infection from spreading at that point? The entire scenario is horribly absurd to contemplate. In retrospect, the high fever and extreme malaise robbed me of the ability to be logical, against a doctor who was not. 

That is an example of healthcare in America. There are other such bad stories, but few successes. Practicing medicine follows the bell curve, as do most endeavors. The bell hits the mark frequently enough -- or the body heals on its own with or despite palliative measures --and when they are wrong, they try again (or the patient dies.) The thin tails are inhabited by practitioners who will kill you outright or heal you.

On the basis of what I have read and my own experiences, I do fear for our ability to confront any full-fledged epidemic.

If such an eventuality occurs, the fortunate few among us may be left to follow Giovanni Boccaccio's advice in his The Decameron. The pastorale recalls the experiences of a mythical group of wealthy Italians who escaped into nature to avoid contact with the Black Death which was then ravaging mid-14th century Europe. It is a primitive answer to a rather grim prospect.

Now you may call me alarmist, but based on current medical practice, if a plague were to come, the tack of Boccaccio's privileged in the face of doctors practicing medicine may look like a good option.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

The Plague: Ebola

--El bombardeo más urgente, 
Angel Boligan 

Ah, I'm sick to death of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now 
--Just Give Me Some Truth, John Lennon

The landlord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
But don't worry, be happy 
--Don't Worry, Be Happy, Bobby McFerrin 

I mean, what do the words say?
Oh, just lies, sir 
--Hamlet, Shakespeare (II, ii)
Are we really such ninnies that we can't be trusted to digest the news?

Concluding a report on the first reported incident of Ebola transmission outside Africa today -- a Spanish nurse who treated a missionary for the disease 25 Sept at a Madrid hospital -- is an interactive piece: Why We Shouldn't Be Alarmed About an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S.

The NYT headlines for the past couple of days seek to put a happy face on the events of the first stateside Ebola case:

Ebola Victim's Journey From Liberian War to Fight for Life in U.S.


What began as a joyful reunion - refugees from African civil strife seeking to rebuild their lives in America - spiraled last week into a national health scare.


As Ebola ravages West Africa, Liberians are losing an integral part of their culture, in which the double-cheek kiss was once the standard greeting.

"A joyful reunion", "the double-cheek kiss" -- happy terms, which belie the reality. The Houston Chronicle reported that because the family of Dallas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan did not abide by the quarantine order, police were posted at their residence to insure compliance. Because Mr. Duncan lied on his exit documents, he will prosecuted, should he survive.

Huggies go by the wayside? (Cue up Barney the dinosaur: "I love you, you love me," ad nauseum.) Haven't we seen Europeans doing the two-cheek kiss? "Gee whiz, honey, those West Africans must be more clean, refined, and sophisticated than we thought."

Oh, and "hiccups" in the Dallas hospital's ER initially send Mr. Duncan home with antibiotics. This doesn't make headline news, but it prompts a survey at an online medical site to ask, "Does this case undermine the CDC's assurances that U.S. hospitals are well prepared for Ebola cases?"

Shucks, whaddya think? Hiccups aren't that bad, are they?

Well, that's the image the news is conjuring, all intended to reduce your anxiety level and ramp up your compassion. Only, if we took the analogy to the logical next step, we would be even more terrified as we realized how close they are to being like us.

This issue is not like a cat video; it's really not cute. How do these these titles make front page in the NYT? The press is reining us in by withholding data. Why tell us the entire truth?  Because the more facts you have, the better decisions you can make.

They fear our resultant hysteria. But we might get angry enough to demand tighter controls, especially regarding people who have traveled from epidemiological hot spots.

This is not to spread paranoia, or hatred of sick people, but rather to establish a reasonable medical protocol for survival in world growing closer daily. A quick online scan of news on Ebola at reputable science journals returns cheery headlines like, "Ebola is difficult to catch," "You can't get Ebola from an asymptomatic person," and "It's not airborne." But when you read the articles, all of this is refuted.

Ebola virus is transmitted via contact with bodily fluids. This could be micronized, aspirated saliva particles from someone sitting in close proximity to you, like the seat next to you on an airplane. Or you touch something after the infected person has left behind a trace of body fluid, and you then touch a mucous membrane on your own body with that unwashed hand.

Airborne transmission has been proven between pigs and monkeys. An asymptomatic man who has recovered can pass the virus along in his semen. "A lab worker who contracted Ebola was still shedding the virus in his semen for 61 days after he recovered according to the World Health Organization." CDC Director Tom Frieden now admits that aerosolized particles could "theoretically" transmit the virus.

Moreover, beyond the immediate threat: why hasn't a vaccination or treatment for Ebola been developed? Ebola has been around for almost 40 years -- it was a known threat. In addition, it can be militarized, so why the laxity?

Why can't we get news that matters, which would be the truth sans the envelope?

Labels: ,

Friday, October 03, 2014


I am a cautious bureaucrat, attended by a fanatical warrior,
fighting for the freedom of my blood, which is my birthright
--Adolf Eichmann

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between 
--Accentuate the Positive, Johnny Mercer

They tried to make me go to rehab,
I say, "no, no, no"
--Rehab, Amy Winehouse

The think tank RAND Corporation has identified the problem in Iraq. Could beefing up the Iraqi Army's self-esteem keep them from dropping trou and running? RAND analyst Seth Jones says, "It's just an open question right now whether morale has improved significantly." (Cue up Bing Crosby singing the Johnny Mercer hit in blackface.)

But how to accomplish this squidgy task? Send them to a Dale Carnegie seminar? Perhaps an Oprah This is Your Life Weekend? Prescribe reading Dr. Phil, or have Tony Robbins deliver a buck-up talk? In a world where the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry gets frisked before entering a conference with Egyptian officials, perhaps it is time for a new motto for the 99 percenters: "We Are Rodney Dangerfield" (he of the "I can't get no respect" shtick.)

Perhaps the slippery slope which brought us to this point is when everyone started getting a gold star in elementary school -- "everyone's a winner" (except, that is not how the world works.) Gone were the red, blue and silver stars which slotted a preschooler as an average -- or slightly below -- performer. So it was inevitable that today's think-tankers see the problem with the Iraqi Army as being one of "low self-esteem".

In addition to the "I'm OK, You're OK" school came the calls to identify and purge bullying (as though it were possible to re-engineer human predilections in a generation.) Through the bullying periscope -- the "bullyscape" (?) -- the logical response is given by NYT columnist Roger Cohen in his recent "Here There Is No Why": Islamic State represents the counterhuman. The human has no alternative but to fight back.

Here is an otherwise intelligent man feeding at the trough of pure emotion. Of COURSE the members of the Islamic State are human (though their behavior be repellant to most modern Western minds.) Human, all too human.

As Rep. Alan Grayson wrote recently, You Can't Defeat Somebody with Nobody.


"(Y)ou acknowledge that the government of Iraq is unable to control its own territory, which is the most basic function of any national government. Under the auspices of the UN and the Arab League -- both of which have already authorized military action against ISIS -- you then assemble an international Sunni fighting force and deploy it against ISIS.

Now, let's suppose that the neighboring Arab League countries refused to provide such a force. What does that tell us? Why should we defend them, when they won't defend themselves?

But that's unlikely, because three Sunni Arab countries already have said that they would populate such a force, and with prodding from the United States, more would join. That force largely would consist of soldiers who speak Arabic, who look like the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria, who understand the religion and the customs, and who would not be regarded by the locals as invaders. Unlike the Iraqi Army, they have responsibilities other than cashing paychecks and looting from the locals, and they would be able to keep their own casualties down to what modern military forces view as acceptable levels.

That is how you defeat ISIS.

Meh, maybe. But really, it is not our job to defeat ISIS. ISIS will do as ISIS does in its own neck o' the woods. The concern of the United States is to protect its own territory.

Staunch the bleeding here, and do not even think to proselytize for democracy elsewhere, for that is fascism, too. A people come to democracy or not. One man's meat is another's poison. Let the people of the region duke it out for themselves, as we did in our Civil War. The land claimed by Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, is neither ours for the taking, or reforming.

Improving the lot of our own is Job #1.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 26, 2014

A Movable Feast

That's all war does
is produce unintended consequences
--Dexter Filkins, on Fresh Air (25 Sept 14)

The discontent generated in backward countries
by their contact with Western civilization
is not primarily resentment against exploitation 
by domineering foreigners.
It is rather the result of a crumbling or weakening
of tribal solidarity and communal life
--The True Believer, Eric Hoffer

You get nothing! You lose!
Good day, sir!
--Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)

The Nusra Front "and other Syrian Rebels", Khorasan Group (sounds like an investment firm) and all the usual suspects darting in and out of the picture, donning or shedding uniforms and flags as the moment dictates -- it's a roller derby of viciousness, a hillbilly hootenanny, Eastern-style. Come aboard, one and all.

The U.S. press says the opposition to these "madmen" are "moderates", but moderates do not fight, nor do they win, civil wars. Winners are always extremist, de facto. Good guys do not win nasty wars.

So where will the defeated fighters end up? If ISIS is defeated -- which does not seem imminent -- their fighters will disperse and continue in the guise of terrorists or Low Intensity Conflict players. They are a Mobius strip of violence, the Wankel rotary engine of mayhem.

How or will the defeated fighters reintegrate into any society? Will they be thrown into Gitmo Gulags? Will they have their Masada? Unlikely, for as Mr. Filkins said in today's NPR interview, those chimerical rebel fighters the U.S. is supposedly supporting are incapable of -- anything, really. His book title says it all: The Forever War.

Moreover, as Filkins says, the Islamic State is not a direct threat to the U.S. or Europe. Oh, they might roll over Jordan, and/or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon, but not the West. The unbridled enthusiasm shared by the M.E. fighters is not ours; the U.S. has naught to gain by further intervention; they never did.

In a little ditty sent by RAW's South FLA associate and self-proclaimed bard Rick Spisak, he writes:

And in another five or ten years we'll attack our current "temporary" allies. Those we're currently arming and training as we depose this week's hated tyrants of convenience. 
Saddam, he's our guy, the Shah of Iran, he's our guy, Khadafy, he's ours, too. Assad, he's our guy, Maliki, he's our guy, Diem, he's our guy, Mubarak, he's our guy, and the bodies stack higher and higher. 

Whatever motivates the U.S. is surely not the same thing motivating the players in the Middle East.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 25, 2014

The Latte Salute


Now, I get tired, but I keep on tryin'
Runnin' out of foolin', I ain't lyin'
Yes, respect, all I need is respect 
--Respect, Aretha Franklin

You're the sail of my love boat
You're the captain and crew
You'll always be my necessity
I'd be lost without you 
--Cream in My Coffee, 
Nat King Cole

I love coffee, I love tea
I love the java jive and it loves me
A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup! 
--Java Jive, The Ink Spots

Looking as though he couldn't be bothered, our President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama gave a token coffee salute in response to the proud young Marines who saluted him as he disembarked from an official helicopter yesterday.

C'mon, Mr. Obama. These military men are fighting your wars -- show some respect and a certain gravitas.

In another faux pas this past July, after Obama hung the most distinguished military award in the U.S. military, the Medal of Honor, around the neck of Sgt. Kyle J. White,  he referred to the Soldier as "Kyle". Kyle? Would Kyle call Mr. Obama, "Barack"? This is not a Beer Summit, Mr. President -- far from it. 

(Fr. AOL news): According to the Daily Caller, a U.S. Marine Corps manual titled 'Customs and Courtesies' states that the act of saluting officers is 'the most important of all military courtesies.' And CNN points out that it has become tradition for presidents to salute the military officers he encounters when boarding the official helicopter, a custom that is widely believed to have been begun by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed the new Deputy Chief of Staff General C. George Marshall as "George", the general corrected him (“Mr. President, don't call me George.”) Marshall said he "wasn't very enthusiastic over [FDR's] misrepresentation of our intimacy… I don't think he ever did it again.” The military man was to be called "General", and the President by his title, or "Sir". Some public and private conventions are worth maintaining in the name of respect, solemnity and rectitude.

In the military, superiors are addressed as "Sir", and when they speak down the chain, they say "Soldier" or use the serviceman's rank and name. Nothing else is acceptable. When acting as the C in C, the President may not address soldiers by their first name (even IF he knew them from Adam.)

The President does not merely seem like a schlub when he knocks his temple with his Starbucks cup in his half-hearted salute, he is violating the customs and courtesies of the U.S. Armed Forces.

With all due respect, tighten up, Sir.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Isil Metrics

--Obama Strategy, Cardow (CAN) 

A glimmer of civilization in the
barbaric slaughterhouse we know as humanity 
--The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

A man may die, nations may rise and fall,
but an idea lives on.
Ideas have endurance without death
--John F. Kennedy

--What's that?
--It's a copy of the Qu'ran, fourteeth century
--Are you a Muslim?
--No, I'm in television 
--V for Vendetta (2005)

In assessing the risk posed by the Islamic State (IS), the actors must be defined. History, rather than hysteria, provides the template.

IS can be seen as a terrorist group which is transitioning from criminality to organization, to the adoption of terror tactics; this is where most groups end their journey. The heinousness of their actions ends up alienating those whom they would seek to integrate into their movement. It remains to be seen whether terrorist groups originating in the Middle East will buck this tradition. After all East is East, and West is West.

The classic Euroterror groups of the 1970's and '80's never transitioned to warfare in the spectrum of conflict because they lacked the active and passive support of groups like IS to make it to the next level. Terror groups must kidnap for ransom, murder and collect new members to finance and keep the group viable. These activities allow the group to gain an identity while also fomenting a governmental overreaction, further cementing their facticity.

IS is not only participating in these foundational terrorist behaviors, it has captured large swaths of territory against minimal opposition. In most previous terror episodes, the home country (the site of the activity) is on-board with any counter-offense. This is not the case in the zones which IS is now controlling.

The only viable opposition comes again in the form of targeted aerial bombardment from the U.S. This is token violence which primarily serves to animate future recruits to the ISIL cause. The narrative is clear: the Big, Bad Wolf is bullying us again, but we in IS have cause and conviction. Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Tra la la la la.

IS says, we will blame them for creating us ... and there is some truth, there. Not that brutality is ever justified, but the U.S. is a great scapegoat. They just need to show a bloodied baby in  swaddling cloth (possibly injured by their own); the U.S. stands with hands tied behind back by its Rules of Engagement.

It is not even a scratch: IS gains a millimeter of ground with each photo depicting blighted Arab people. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands riven, and continues to toss a few token military personnel into the fray to appear to do SOMETHING, because as Shrill Hill (Hillary Clinton) taunts, "doing nothing is not a plan".

IS is a terror organization which has accomplished all of the prerequisites to transition from criminal terror to established army. Terror organizations seldom engage in direct action against hard targets, nor do they jeopardize their senior operatives, rendering the application of traditional military actions spectacular failures. While the beheadings performed by IS are terror, the group has transitioned beyond being mere terrorists to a more conventional level. 

IS has fully transitioned, fighting armies like those of Syria and Iraq. Their defeat of Iraqi units indicate that counterinsurgency (COIN) and nation-building are not military fait accomplis. When a rag-tag army can defeat an army created by a world Superpower like the United States, it is clear that IS's recruitment, support and leadership are superior to those externally created.

Momentum and time is on their side, as IS is outpacing the U.S. ability to react, and the EU has failed to assume a role in countering them. It seems obvious that the only option is to let them run their course, or to encourage the EU to protect themselves while the villainy is playing out. The U.S. has an ocean and friendly borders on our side. Vigilence -- intelligence, police work / Interpol and the rule of law can do the rest, for us.

Some questions:

  • What role is Qatar and Saudi Arabia playing?  The Egyptians? Are the latter Janus-faced peace-brokers, supporting IS violence sub rosa
  • Is there cross-fertilization with Hamas?
  • Was the ballyhooed Arab Spring the birthplace of IS?
  • Why the official fiction that IS is a "Terror organization"? This creates a simplicity which does not exist. The story is, IS has crossed a line of horribleness beyond which even our good enemy -- al Qaeda -- would not cross.
  • What will the U.S. do when IS shoots down a U.S. aircraft and executes the pilot?
  • If the U.S. engages IS militarily, what does it do with the resultant prisoners? Do they receive Geneva Convention privileges as Prisoners of War? 

RAW guesses that fixating on IS is easier than dealing with our problems at home, which are far more complex than ideological blather.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Breaking Bad II

 So we beat on, boats against the current, 
borne back ceaselessly into the past   
--The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald 
{continuation of Breaking Bad}:
How and why does the fiction that the U.S. is fighting Terrorism continue? This "New American Century" does not demand a "New American Studies" or a "New American Society". What we face is nothing new. Our citizens were wearying of these senseless wars, but they have rallied following the recent Islamic State beheadings of Westerners, led by the pied pipers of the press to imagine they are viewing some new sort of maleficence.

Citizens of our country may think that relations between our religious sects are more pacific, but all that is gone is that The Crusades (and subsequent edicts) bled off their fervor. Islam, however, suffers from no such restrictions. It may be demode to state the fact that the U.S. finds itself in the middle of a millennial fight between religious groups, but there it is.

Let these Islamic nations drown in a sea of blood and sand, and let the U.S. cease its support of any nation not supporting liberal ideals. The U.S. cannot fight a war when it has no sure friends in the region to whom it may turn. 

Our efforts at war are hopelessly hamstrung. We went to "go get 'em", but we fight conventionally and they do not. We have not learned to fight guerrilla war, and perhaps never will, and we lack the stomach or legitimacy for a broader elimination of the threat. What is left if to staunch our national bleeding. 

The reality is, more terror attacks may occur, but by putting our full efforts into a protective posture we can hopefully stave them off. Every attack in the U.S. gave off signals: the Boston Marathon bombing and the base shootings by Nidal Hassan in Texas are examples. The Washington Navy Yard shooting, though not terrorist, was another example. The intelligence indicators are there, and there is where we should put our resources.

Using all government agencies to focus on the Homeland imparts legitimacy and more importantly, interior lines of defense. Our defense would become concentric and relevant to the reality of the threat. Intel would coordinate with State and Defense, and would become the outer defense. Homeland Security, FBI and Justice, along with local police and intel functions would be the inner defensive ring.

The goals now should be not having our servicemen serving as bullet magnets in some far-flung danger zone. The United States is the zone we should be protecting with all of our might.

Labels: , , , , ,

Breaking Bad

 We may be witnesses to a Biblical prophecy
come true --
And there shall be destruction and darkness
come upon creation, 
and the beasts shall reign over the earth. 
THEM! (1954) 

 Comes a time when the blind man takes your hand 
Says, "Don't you see? 
--Comes a Time, Grateful Dead

 When is someone going to get 18th century
on Islam's mediaeval ass? 
--Boris Johnson, Conservative (UK)

It is time for an inversion of U.S. policy, namely of the clarion call to the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), "We must fight them there rather than here!" 

"Over there" is a platitude that ignores the reality that the spectacular terror attacks carried out on 11 Sept 01 showed that they were already here, so the cry makes no sense. Doing one will not obviate the need of the other. 

Let the U.S. prepare in an honest and realistic fashion for the world in which it lives, and in which it has lived for many decades, albeit blithely and blindly. The time for hubris is over. Terrorists have struck London, Madrid, Tokyo, etc., so why not New York City or D.C.?

Fact: we should have fought them here (which is where they were), and we will need to continue to fight them here bringing all of the tools of our civil arsenal to bear -- that is, if "they" muster the ability for another attack on the Homeland.

It makes more sense to fight (=address) the low level threat of terrorism here at home rather than fighting the far threat "over there" as over there has proven to be a dismal ball of confusion, conflicting goals and unattainable policies. Success has been elusive, because it is not possible. 

After ten years, the Iraqi Shia government cannot be said to be preferable to any other leadership. Let the Iraqi state fall in defeat. The current government's homicidal policies towards its Sunni minority brands it a failure. Why would the U.S. support either them or the Kurds? Neither action is in the national interest of the U.S.

[Next: Breaking Bad, II]

Labels: , , , , ,