De Equitus Non Est Disputandum

Dubai Dubai Do

2006-03-01T18:36:00.000-08:00

From almost the first break of the Dubai port controversy, I figured this was another case of much-ado-about-nothing - a mostly manufactured story spun to hurt Bush's approval ratings. It's been tremendously effective, especially in the first few days. Then more moderate voices like Glenn Reynolds began to come around.

I'm amazed that the story is still going, but when the coverage and commentary continues to distort and misstate to the extent it has, so I guess it should be no surprise.

So I'm disappointed in Tony Blankley's defense at Real Clear Politics. I like Blankley; he usally is straightforward and makes a lot of sense. But in this, he makes strange bedfellows with Joe Conason. Both attack those who wonder if objection to the deal is based on xenophobia, if not islamophobia.

And I mean "attack" because both Joe and Tony bend and stretch their strawmen rather violently.

No Soviet propagandist or third-world revolutionary has more stingingly libeled the American people.

One original thinker after another insists that there can be no honest criticism of the Dubai deal. They tell us that every critic, no matter how measured, is a protectionist bigot; and that every argument, no matter how rational, is a calumny against Arabs and Muslims. There is a strange whiff of demagogy in these screeds.

Each proceed to bring up already debunked details and assuaged concerns and ask disingenously, "To doubt the competence of this government is neither xenophobic nor racist."

Here's my take:
- This is a fairly minor deal in the big scheme of things. The transaction is the sale of a port management business between two foreign entities. In the U.S., this affects a number of port terminals - not entire ports - in major cities. I suspect the total affected is but a small fraction of all activity in those ports. So it's little suprise that Bush was not aware of the deal until after the ocntroversy erupted. Small potatoes, and he has a lot of more important issues to attend to.
- The Federal Government, by law, has a mechanism to review this transaction. In this process standards must be met and concerns answered. This appears to have been applied fairly to this deal. The Coast Guard raised questions, and much fuss was made in the media, but in the same report those questions were said to have been answered satisfactorily before final approval.
- So, we have a rather ordinary port management transaction subjected to due dilligence by the government. At the end of the process, if there is no basis for rejection the deal is approved.

Here's the kicker:
On what basis, then, should the Federal Government (the Executive Branch, the Bush Administration) reject the deal?

Imagine a checklist. One by one, each item is addressed by the interested parties and only when all requirements are satisfied is it checked. When all are checked off, the approval is final. But wait... The buyer is an Arab country under Muslim rule. "No ports for you!" The deciding factor is race and religion, isn't it? What do you call that if not bigotry?

Here's the point where objectors would point out the UAE's al-Qaeda connections and claim - without evidence - that there HAS to be a security risk, despite the fact that our security review uncovered none.

But maybe it is better to play it safe, given that history. Here again I think the story has been distorted.
- The links with al Qaeda are mostly superficial - i.e. They used thier banks. They passed through their airports.
- These transgressions are all pre 9/11. Since 9/11, UAE and Dubai in particular have been exceedingly helpful. Our Navy regular ports there.
- Dubai, although non-democratic and under a form of Sharia law, is one of the more open and cosmopolitan of all the Arab nations. Sort of a Hong Kong or Singapore of the Persian Gulf, a hub of banking, finance, and resort tourism. Heck, Michael Jackson lives there. This is no Taliban - not even a Syria.

Dubai has proven an ally in the GWOT, and I don't think we should be placing sanctions on them - at least not without due process. And that's what some in Congress are proposing. But they can't in fairness just ban this particular deal, without a clear-cut reason. So they must pass a broader regulation, banning either foreign-owned port operations (something like 70% of port terminals!) or foreign state-owned port operations (This would retroactively outlaw significant port operations by companies owned by China and Singapore.) Do we really want to go down this isolationist road?

As I said, from the start I suspected this of being a manufactured controversy. Ingenious, though, for Democrats to get to the right of Bush on security - and guaranteeing a bandwagon effect among insecure Republicans. Like most such stories, this one is based on mountains of disinformation. But it has the added benefit of appaling to latent bigotry in the Red States.

Totally bogus headline

2006-02-10T02:46:00.000-08:00

"Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks" on CNN.com

I'm no fan of Scooter Libby. I detest sleaze and corruption as much as anyone, but it's never been clear to me he did anything untoward - on this Plame thing or anywhere else. (I try to keep up with the case at JustOneMinute, who are strangely silent on this story so far.)

Reading this headline, I figured that Libby finally revealed or confessed to some conspiracy. The story begins:

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

In a letter to Libby's lawyers, obtained by CNN [details, please?], special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it is his understanding that Libby testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors

.
So in the headline, "Libby: My superiors authorized leaks", the "Libby:" part signifies one person's "understanding" of Libby's testimony. I would not have assumed this. I would assume it was paraphrasing some first hand statement.

Then we read:

A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration -- including Cheney -- authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

So another source denies any such thing. (Likely Libby's lawyer) Whether he did say that or not seems at least a little in doubt.

Yet we still have that headline. Does that seem fair?

Chem-Bio scare at U.S. Capitol - IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!

2006-02-08T17:54:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to be the first to say it....
story

The world just got a bit prettier

2006-02-07T12:12:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.

Raising McCain

2006-02-06T21:53:00.000-08:00

I've had mixed feelings about John McCain. Moderate Republicans are usually fine with me as long as they're supportive of the War on Islamofascism. But McCain lost my support with his ill-thought-out campaign finance reform bill - which I believe is a grievous infringement on free political speech. (I also lost some faith in Bush when he signed it and the Supreme Court upheld it.)

But I gotta hand it to him on this letter rebuking fellow Senator Barak Obama for reversing his stand on Senate reform.

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere.

This is really biting sarcasm! And from a Senator!!

I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions

Love it...

I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

I'm liking McCain more these days.

At last, a voice of moderation

2006-02-06T21:45:00.000-08:00

Some Muslim students in Scandanavia apologize for the violent reactions of their fellows in faith over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. (Have they no shame?) (h/t Instapundit)

More of this, please. I want to believe in a moderate Islam that can respect differences, but you almost never hear of any Muslims taking this position. That makes it hard to keep up hope in a peaceful resolution to our conflicts.

I wanted to encourage the guys running this page to post on a regular basis links to more such moderate voices in Islam, but their comments section is overrun with crazies. Someone ought to, though.

Culture of shame vs. culture of guilt

2006-02-06T21:24:00.000-08:00

I spend a lot of thought cycles trying to understand just why some people believe the things they do or behave certain ways. For example, I try to imagine just what is going through the heads of today's liberal anti-war American. I try to keep up with what they say and do and I am interested in their opinions and reactions - all in an effort to reach a better understanding and perhaps even empathy. For this example, I have a few theories but for the most part am quite mystified by such things as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The big question these days is just what is happening in the Muslim world with regard to those cartoons of Muhammad. Via Glenn Reynolds, I found this post by Dr. Sanity on the psychologies on SHAME, GUILT, THE MUSLIM PSYCHE, AND THE DANISH CARTOONS, whose thesis is basically,

Islam has absorbed the dominant features of a "shame culture" from its Arab and tribal roots; while the West has become a "guilt culture".

An interesting read, complete with tables predicting particular shame/guilt behavoirs in each culture. (Disclaimer: I tend to believe that psychology is just barely a science - if at all. So I take this with a few grains of sodium nitrate. But it does help in understanding.)

Some key 'grafs:

SHAME MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. Everything else is secondary. Contradictions are irrelevant; logic and reason unimportant. HONOR MUST BE RESTORED, and this can only be done at the expense of those who originated the "insult".
[...]
For most shame societies, even the mildest insult must be avenged with death, because now everyone knows that you have been insulted, and without the death (or blood) to wipe it out, honor cannot be restored.

If true, this would explain a lot of what we're seeing and hearing among Muslims lately.
And regarding us:

Meanwhile, in our guilt culture, we obsess about how we might have hurt their feelings and some of us (not me) actually desire to make amends and apologize. This is laudable and very sensitive. It underscores the sense of tolerance that has evolved within Western culture. However well-meaning, IT WILL NOT WORK , particularly in the long-run. Making an apology for having "shamed" someone in such a culture is merely a sign of weakness from their perspective (since you are shaming yourself by admitting guilt), and hence only escalates the self-righteousness and demands that follow; and it does not ameliorate the next insult when it inevitably (and usually unintentionally) comes.

When you hear about "liberal guilt," this is the danger involved - and why Democrats cannot be trusted with foreign policy these days. This also makes for an excellent rational for the tough policies that Bush and Sharon have pushed the last few years.

Muhammad the Prophet

2006-02-04T22:40:00.000-08:00

I ask you, could anything be less offensive, less judgemental, less neutral? Yet my posting this is a crime punishable by death. Huh...

Yeah, a real laugher

2006-02-04T22:28:00.000-08:00

Speaking of MSM treatment of the story concerning the reaction to those drawings of Muhammad, I got this screen capture from the website of my local paper, The San Francisco Chronicle.

It reads

Warriors Win A Rare Laugher
Danish and Norwegian offices in Damascus torched as outrage over Muhammad caricatures grows.

Caricature witness

2006-02-04T17:59:00.000-08:00

The furor in the Middle East over those cartoons depicting Muhammad is up to a full boil now, with European embassies being torched in Syria. Clash of Civilizations? Perhaps. But there are a number of things to note in this developing story that I don't think are given enough play in the media.

First let me try to make clear my position on the matter. I believe in a strong response on the part of the Western Nations. Not necessarily war, but always keeping force an option. I support the policies of George W. Bush for the most part, and acknowledge that there have been errors. I think Bush and his associates have demonstrated vision and clarity - and boldness - in their post 9/11 responsibilities. On the other hand, I continue to believe in the chance that Islam can be reformed, that its power structures can be reorganized to be more representative, less corrupt, and less violent.

So I shun pretty strongly anti-Muslim sentiments because I think the enemy is a hard-core component - a coalition of statist fascists and militant Islamists. I believe the situation is like the Nazis in Germany - a minority of hard core fascists with broad sympathies among the masses, fueled by hate. By all means, come down hard on that minority but at the same time win over the more moderate elements with the promise of economic freedom.

The cartoon imbroglio started modestly back in September when Denmark's Jyllands-Posten (It used to be my local paper. Honest!) published a set of 12 illustrations of Mohammad by local artists. Some were clearly political cartoons and contained explicit critiquing of Islam, and some where more benigh illustrations of a typical Islamic man. The political ones could be seen as offensive, but by Western standards they were pretty tame.

Since September, a small group of Muslims made it their mission to advertise these drawings to the rest of Islam. And in the process they added 3 additional illustrations - these FAR more offensive than the original 12. I saw what were claimed to be these other 3 last night (but have lost the link). Very poor quality, but I think one had the snout of a pig on the nose of a Muslim man, one had a more cartooned image of an mean old Muslim man gripping two children - allegedly a pedophile. The third looked like a photomontage (the quality really sucked) of a dog humping a man. Very offensive indeed.

I can imagine it is these three that really get the protestors blood boiling, inciting them to violence. I also strongly suspect that these demonstrations are being organized by much smaller groups who start out peacefully and then escalate to violence. Austin Bay has this covered, but I wish we saw more discussion of the complicity of some Arab governments and organizations in inciting this violence.

The demonstrations in Damascus began peacefully with protesters gathering outside the building housing the Danish Embassy. But they began throwing stones and eventually broke through police barricades. Some scrambled up concrete barriers protecting the embassy, climbed into the building and set a fire....

Demonstrators moved onto the Norwegian Embassy about 4 miles away, also setting fire to it before being dispersed by police using tear gas and water cannons. Hundreds of police and troops barricaded the road leading to the French Embassy, but protesters were able to break through briefly before fleeing from the force of water cannons.

If we know anything about life in today's Syria, it's that it is impossible for any group to demonstrate without the authorities first being in full control. So the Syrian government is complicit. Note that the the French were afforded some protection. Hmmm....

Elsewhere in the Arab world,

In Gaza, Palestinians marched through the streets, storming European buildings and burning German and Danish flags. Protesters smashed the windows of the German cultural center and threw stones at the European Commission building, police said.
Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the European Union...
Pakistan summoned the envoys of nine Western countries in protest, and even Europeans [but still Islamic, apparently] took to the streets in Denmark and Britain to voice their anger. (emphasis mine)

Doesn't appear the democratic nations in the region (Iraq) could muster as much anger.

I find the official reactions worldwide disappointing. Lukewarm in support of free speech and supplicant to the protesters. I'm really appalled by the uniform surrender by the MSM in my own country. Tim Blair put it well:

They won't publish cartoons, but they will run anything they can get out of Abu Ghraib. Both sets of images provoke Islamic anger; note how the media behaves when that anger is directed at them.

This is the most depressing thing I've read so far on the issue. Any acquiescence on our part encourages more and worse conflicts later. This was a chance to make a stand on a one of our most dear principles - freedom of speech. Instead, we're showing that avoiding Islamic offense is a higher priority.

OK, this really makes me mad

2006-02-02T19:09:00.000-08:00

Gary Busey, who I've always considered a harmless looney, is now "acting" on his basest impulses. (h/t Michelle Malkin)

In this movie, allegedly, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are portrayed as they

... kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.

I hope this is a hoax. If not, I hope it gets A LOT of attention here in the U.S.

Prophet-sharing

2006-02-02T17:10:00.000-08:00

It looks like the story about the Danish newspapers pubishing cartoons of the Moslem prophet Mohammed is getting some legs - some exposure in the main stream media. It didn't imagine that the issue would get so big, that the reaction of the Islamic world would be so overblown.

As I commented at Tim Blair's site:

It sort of looks to me like a “tipping point” of sorts, or at least a wake-up call for a host of interested parties - MSM, moderate Moslems, EU/UN axis and other enabling lefties.

I mean, it’s just cartoons for chrissakes! Kids’ stuff. And so the over-reaction will get a lot more attention. Hopefully followed by some soul-searching and clear-thinking. (The optimist in me thinks that. The pessimist in me reminds the optimist that I’ve thought something similar several times already, but have been disappointed.)

This tipping-point idea was carried further in this post in a blog that's new to me.

I hope it's clear that I'm not calling for continued war and violence. What I'm hoping will become of this is a greater recognition among those parties that this fundamentalist knee-jerk reaction is unsuited to the modern world - not worth the pain - and that the Wahabbist influence will go into decline once and for all.

Islam wasn't always so intolerant. It's really just a recent phenomena. (as this gallery of Mohammed images demonstrates). So I'm hopeful that the global Islamic culture is not too far gone to come back to the moderation and toleration of which they have shown historically to be capable.

Wake up! Wake up!!

The SOTUation....

2006-02-01T22:47:00.000-08:00

Yeah, all of you have bugging me to give my impressions of Bush's State of the Union Address yesterday. I thought it was good enough. Not his best one, but not a failure either.

Since his first inauguration, Bush has on occasion given some very fine and moving speeches. At times I've yelled back at the TV, "Yeah, he GETS it!" and other times I've choked up with him. Other times I wince his over-willingness to compromise with his opponents (Kennedy and No Child.... ?!?! What a joke!) or at how he makes himself such a juicy target for his foes.

There was none of that last night, though I was moved as I looked into the faces of the family of the soldier (marine?) killed in Iraq. Bush touched on all the topical issues: NSA, Hamas, Iran, congressional reform, etc. He was semi-strong on national security issues, almost blunt in his calling out of his "irresponsible" opposition, and a bit visionary in some of his domestic proposals. Nothing stood out though, but nothing objectionable either. But for a 6th year president, that's not bad at all!

The part that had my attention most, though, was the applause-off competition between the right and left sides of the chamber. Will the left side applaud this line with the right? Will they stand and applaud? It was always in the left's court - the right liked it all. At least one time the left applauded pro-actively - and made themselves appear utter fools (proud of having condemned future seniors of their share of their SS contributions). That and the candids of Hillary made last night's SOTU fine entertianment.

Tu Quoque?

2006-02-01T22:29:00.000-08:00

A sure sign that Hugo Chavez is spying on the U.S.:

"Venezuela's Hugo Chavez Accuses U.S. of Spying"

Those evil drug companies

2006-01-27T17:29:00.000-08:00

Look what big pharma is up to now. Putting syringe companies out of business!

Seriously, can anyone imagine a nationalized health industry ever investing in the R&D necessary to develop such a drug? It's my opinion that the pharmaceutical industry is unfairly targeted by liberals precisely because it's a clear refutation of their argument for nationalized health care.

Leave them alone, and let them continue to make our lives better.

Da Blogfather says it all for me

2006-01-26T19:24:00.000-08:00

Glenn Reynolds encapsulates the source of my political activism:

It's not that I'm that big a fan in the abstract, really, it's just that the viciousness and stupidity revealed in its enemies tends to make me view it more favorably than I otherwise would.

I could apply that to any number of issues lately. Living in the SF Bay Area, with its rabid and very prevalent politics, tends to get to me.

Hamas in Charge

2006-01-26T17:28:00.000-08:00

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters is understandably dire about the election results in the Palestinian parliament. I see a possible silver lining, and it's not the typical one - that Hamas will moderate under that responsibility. (Scott Johnson pointed to David Horowitz's dashing of that hope here.)

First of all, I can understand why the voters voted as they did. Fatah operated under extreme corruption. Aid intended for citizens was routinely siphoned off - leaving virtually nothing for the needy. At the same time, the social services wing of Hamas provided what Fatah should have - food, schools, etc. I agree with some that Hamas is firstly a charity, but I also believe that it tightly holds to it's commitment to the elimination of Israel through terrorism - and that violence is endemic to its members. In short, I think Palestinians voted with their wallets, so to speak - with the militant foreign policy a secondary concern.

I think this will be a case where things have to get worse before they get better. Hamas will have a majority government and thus total responsibility for the Palestinian territories and its people, something they are unprepared for. If things go as expected, they will impose a fundamentalist regime - alienating the moderates. At the same time, a lot of funding for the territories will dry up - reduding their ability to provide for its citizens, The government will face extreme pressures from abroad to renounce terrorism, and will lack the political skill to make friends and supporters.

Assuming that there will be another election on schedule (when is that, by the way?), Hamas will by then have lost most of the good will it has earned among the voters. That's a big assumption, I know, but I think holding elections is one of the few things that the international community will insist upon.

I'll acknowledge a weakness I see already in my argument, and that is the conditions for maintaining financial assistance from the international community. If Hamas agrees to elections, they'll continue to receive money - which in turn will improve their standing among voters. My head hurts!

Is the U.S. under attack or not?

2006-01-26T16:54:00.000-08:00

Via Power Line, I found an article by NY Congressman Vito Fosella (no, I never heard of him before) arguing for renewal of the Patriot Act. This paragraph stood out to me:

Bin Laden's impotence is due not to a lack of trying, but rather to new and enhanced U.S. security measures. Since 9/11, U.S. officials and forces have disrupted 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated 3,000 operatives worldwide and captured or killed nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's senior leaders.
emphasis mine).

Think about that: 150 or so terrorist events that did not happen in the U.S*. So we're batting 150 for 150 since 9/11. Remarkable.

There are many on the more extreme Left that dispute that we are under any threat at all at home. They go on to base many of their political positions on this assumption, arguing that Bush has ulterior motives for the WoT (oil, racism, imperialism). I think this single fact, if true**, completely undermines their position.

How can anyone, knowing this, possibly take them seriously?

[* Not clear that all of these were in U.S. territory. It's much more likely that local officials are the ones to act abroad, and not "US officals and forces." The exceptions would naturally be in Afghanistan and Iraq. If these are included, then I'm not as impressed.

** I can't 100% accept this fact yet, given that this is the first and only time I've seen this statistic. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, especially when something rings true, but I naturally will come to trust some sources over others. I'm going to keep my eyes open for corroboration or refutation. (Ain't I fair?)

For the record, I don't think I'm not too conspiracy minded - as I think it's very difficult to keep such things secret for long and "truth will out" - usually. Lies, especially using specific numerical facts, will eventually be exposed. (Not that this will necessarily be well-noted or impact public perceptions - sadly.)]

That Benjamin Franklin Quote

2006-01-26T13:54:00.000-08:00

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither" - misguided fools

I've heard this quotation referenced a number of times the last few years with regard to the War on Terror - mostly in discussions (email) with some liberal peers. Of course, it has assumed new prominence lately in light of the NSA controversy.

Last week, at an address given by Attorney General Gonzales at Georgetown University (broadcast on CSPAN), a group of student protestors unveiled a large banner with the second, abbreviated, quote. They were allowed to keep the banner up and to remain in the auditorium (God Bless American and the First Amendment).

Later, on CSPAN's Washington Journal call-in program, the host invited comments on this quote. Most of the calls where hysterical reactions to the alleged dramatic loss of freedom under King George - even those on the Republican line (a common tactic of liberals these days, to pretend to be converts).

I was watching the program (at 4:00 am on the West Coast) because I was having trouble sleeping - but the callers' comments only made things worse. I got to thinking about it.

First of all, the now-accepted abbreviated version has eliminated some critical modifiers. Take the word "essential" - in the sense of "necessary and indespensible." The abbreviated quote implies that the idea applies to the giving up of any liberty. This is nonsense. We all gladly give up minor liberties every day, from locking our doors to obeying the speed limit. So then, what is an "essential liberty"? I couldn't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain this does not include the liberty to accept calls from foreign terrorists while expecting the conversation not to be eavesdropped upon. What is essential about that? Dropping that modifier radically changes the Franklin's idea.

Let's move on the the exclusion of the word "temporary" and the substitution of "security" for "safety." As I see it, the NSA eavesdropping is a tool in the global War on Terror. The goal of the WoT is to win, and such a victory - once it is achieved - will not be a temporary guarantee of security, but a permanent relegation of Islamofascism to the "dustbin of history." I think if Franklin were addressing such means to long-term guarantees of safety, he would not have included the word "temporary" as he did (as much as the Left wish he had). As for "security" in place of "safety", I'm not sure. Perhaps the difference has to do with "national security" vs. "personal safety." In any case, the Liberal partisans have disingenously altered Franklin's quote (without his permission, I might add) to suit their political agenda.

Finally, there's one aspect of the original quote that I've always had misgivings about. How can one say that any person does not deserve liberty or safety (with the exception of convicted felons or terrorists)? I mean, this is essentially condemning to slavery anyone timid enought to not stand up for their rights. This is not just or fair, no matter what the Great Man said. "Liberty is God's gift to man," and just because one might be weak or timid does not make them second-class citizens undeserving of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution - no matter how much disrespect they may deserve.

It think on this basis alone, we should give Franklin's comment little notice.

"Unlimited" Executive Power?

2006-01-26T12:57:00.000-08:00

Like any wanna-be blogger, I try to pay close attention to what is going on in the political sphere. And like most bloggers, I don't have much expertise particular to such issues. I try to apply fairness and common sense in interpreting events. I try to identify my own biases and be honest about those. And I try to gain as much knowledge of the facts (as presented by both sides) as I can muster.

An in the name of fairness, I'm continually making good-faith efforts to understand just what is going through the collective minds of the political opposition. My first instinct, for better or worse, is to assume reasonable intelligence and good faith in others.

Many a time, though, my good faith runs thin. I have to ask myself, how is it that these otherwise decent people can come to believe such outrageous things (i.e. the litany of leftish political conspiracy theories). I've started to develop a number of ideas of what's happening here, but I'm only just now starting to articulate them.

The latest "meme" among the Dem/Left is that Bush is accumulating "unlimited powers" befitting a dictator. They will cite the current NSA controversy as evidence of this. But as other bloggers have made clear, Bush is in fact being remarkably even-handed in his bid to do "what is necessary" to disrupt terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Why the paranoia? What makes otherwise sane people interpret these quite minor constitutional questions as full-fledged totalitarianism?

My theory is simple: When Bush first assumed office in 2001, the Democratic Party for the first time in seven decades were shut out of both the executive and legislative branches. That's a very long time - the entire lifetime of most Democrats. Being out of power was a totally alien experience for them, and the adjustment has been excruciating. For the first time in a long time, the Democrats had little or no ability to "check and balance" the executive branch. Furthermore, as their influence in the Federal Courts continues to wane, their feeling of powerless is only increasing.

This can be emotionally very trying for the "true believers" - the activists of the Party, the policy makers and the base. And once such strong emotions enter the equation, you can kiss goodbye rational and good faith politics. Hello paranoia.

Under such circumstances, I can start to understand how they could interpret Bush's confident and aggressive leadership as simply too much. Their paranoia forces them to see the entire Republican establishment as a monolith, with Bush (and Rove) in complete control - with no check or balance at all. Couple that with a deep-seated faith in Bush as evil and power-mad, then they have no choice but to conclude that the United States is on the road to becoming a totalitarian state.

Those of us with clearer heads understand that this is nonsense. We understand that Congress and the Judiciary are still comprised of individuals, the great majority of whom are decent-minded folks capable of making their own decisions - none of whom would cotton to the U.S. becoming a dictatorship. The blessed checks and balances are very much intact. And it's also clear that Bush respects this, as evidenced in the legal due diligence paid to Congress and the Justice Department when instituting the NSA surveillance program.

We clear-headed folk also aren't under the delusion that Bush is some sort of criminal - having had 6 years or more to take a measure of the man from his words and deeds. Not to say that there aren't some in the Administration or Congress with malicious intentions. But we just don't see that in George Bush.

I'm back!

2006-01-26T12:47:00.000-08:00

Things were getting so heated before, I thought I should take 10 months off so that everyone could calm down.

Now, let's all try to keep this civil. 'Kay?

[end of sarcasm]

8.7? 8.7 AFTERSHOCK?!?!

2005-03-29T19:14:00.000-08:00

I was pretty amazed when I heard about Indonesia's latest earthquake. Of course I was amazed at the original 9.1 shock. I've followed earthquakes, seismology, and geophysics in general quite a bit since junior high (yes, I was a nerd), and so I think I know a thing or two about them. The most important thing to know about earthquakes is we don't know nearly enough about them!

TSUNAMI!... not!
So immediately, everyone was concerned about the subsequent tsunami - and rightfully so. Yesterday's quake was a close cousin of the previous one, whose wave killed >200,000. Same fault line (undersea), same approx. depth, same approx. magnitude (well, in the neighborhood). But no tsunami. Why?

It's been interesting to me to see this "why"question start to emerge in the media coverage. Even funnier to see a news teaser such as, "Why no tsunami? Tune in at 11 to find out!" - only to tune in and get the expected "We don't know."

And we don't know. The historical record of major coastal quakes reveals a seeming randomness as to whether a tsunami will result or not (and to further confuse things, whether the wave is preceded by a receding tide or just appears suddenly). Experts are only just beginnng to come to grips with some of the reasons, and are far from being able to predict at all.

Wave goodbye!
That is, most of us don't know. I noticed on The Weather Channel last night, a staff meteorologist (missed his name) offered an explanation that meshed with my own personal theory. (That is, the first quake had major vertical displacement of the sea floor which would push up a big wave; while the second quake involved mostly horizontal displacement - shear - which would not disturb the water above much.) What bothered me was that he explained this as fact and not theory, when it is much too early to really know.

Other explanations held that there was a wave, but while the first earthquake focused its energy north and west - towards India and Thailand - this earthquake focused its energy south - away from any landmasses and so went undetected. I should point out that this too is just speculation. I'm also not crystal clear on what is meant by "focused energy."

The Swarm
Aside from the lack of tsunami, the most important and shocking thing about this recent quake was its proximity - both in place and time - to the one in December, in conjunction with its astounding magnitude. I heard another guy on CNN I think (science advisor to the USGS?) explain that this was NOT an aftershock, that it occured on a separate segment of the same fault. Possible, but I'm going to wait and see.

[UPDATE: the large map on this page illustrates separate rupture zones on the fault, and these two recent quakes appear indeed to be on separate zones and still quite close together. Bear in mind that these quakes didn't happen at a single point, but rather ripped along the fault for 100s of kilometers - like a zipper. I want to presume that the epicenters shown are really just the start of the rip.]

I'm willing to entertain this theory because I can hardly imagine an after-shock of 8.7 - almost incomprehensible. An 8.7 is very very rare as a seismic event as it is. The USGS science advisor on CNN did acknowledge that the two earthquakes were almost certainly related (the first increasing stresses on nearby sections) so in a less strict sense it is an aftershock, but in a technical sense (on a different fault segment) it is not.

Bringing the subject back to me...
Finally, to introduce my new insight to the story. [EXCLUSIVE: MUST CREDIT EQUITUS]There's been increasing talk in the geophysics community in the past few years about earthquake "swarms" - major seismic events bunched up in space and time, one tremor setting up the area for another, etc. A few recent earthquakes in Turkey have a lot of prognosticators deeply worried about Istanbul as the next likely epicenter to an ongoing Turkish swarm. These earthquakes in Turkey are relatively small, in the 6-7 range, and their timing is spread out over many years.

Instead, I would look to the precedent of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-12, in southeast Missouri. These were a series (2 or 3) of very strong earthquakes - 8.1 or so - that occured in a span of only 3 or so months. Were they aftershocks or not? I don't know. But as far as size and proximity in time, I can't think of any other examples of such a serious "swarm" of earthquakes in recorded history.

That said, I have to admit the fault conditions in Indonesia and those in SE Missoura couldn't be more different.

Into the fray

2005-03-28T19:41:00.000-08:00

I found myself getting particularly perturbed
by news (via a "crushing of dissent" link at Instapundit) that Gay Patriot - an occasional read for me - was discontinuing his blog because of harrassment from blogger Michael Rogers. Rogers took offense at a post of GPs, and then went way over the line to retaliate (such as phoning GPs employer to get him fired).

I decided to spend time at Rogers' blogACTIVE, having never read it before.

I then took a long, hot shower.

I find it unbelievable
the lengths and depths some people will go in the name of politics. I've always been supporting of gays and gay rights to live as they wish. Along with this I've always been supportive of individual privacy when it comes to sexual preference. What Rogers is doing, what he calls reporting (god help us all), violates all principles of propriety, debate, and politics. (Of course, this comes in the wake of Gannon-Gate, where a conservative small-potatoes reporter who happened to be gay came under intense fire from the same "tolerant" lefty blogs for his sexual preference/political stance.)

What's even more infurtiating is that Rogers and Co. actually seem to believe in the justice of his activities, serving some sort of "greater good" in his mind. And even more, he seems to be generally supported by his peers on the left - cheered on in fact.

Can anyone think of any time in our political history when such behavior has been considered acceptable?

Clearly, no. But no matter - the LLL believes such unprecendented actions are acceptable in this case, because (in their opinion) GWB is such a bad and dangerous person to be occupying the White House. "By Any Means Necessary" - once the catch phrase of desperate radicals - is now the order of the day for Democrats and their allies.

When will this madness end?

At least as long as such "activists" believe that this opinion they hold so dear is more than opinion - i.e. fact. Unfortunately, such is the nature of "received wisdom" that the true faithful will never face criticism or logic, nor abandon their cause. The best we can hope for is completely marginalization, exorcizing them from the Democrat Party. Although I projected this would happen after Bush won reelection, the lack of any reasonable alternatives from the left has kept the lunatics in play.

A lose-lose situation for as long as it lasts.

Another small step (giant leap - pending)

2005-03-27T16:12:00.000-08:00

My Blog-Roll
I've been reading blogs for quite a while, political ones anyway. I try to keep up with the usual mainstream to right-leaning sites like Instapundit, The Corner, Power Line, Teem Bleah, VodkaPundit - and I've mostly stayed away from the more rabid fringes. An example of some other blogs I frequent include Captains Quarters, Oxblog, Roger Simon, and Belmont Club - although there are many others that I'll mention some time. I also make myself drop into places like KOS, Atrios, and DU every now and then, to try to get perspective.

Pontifications Past
I've sometimes participated in comments as equitus, but I've not become a regular at any one site yet. Funny though, I was a regular in CNN's old board before they closed it down in '02(?) - for a few months. More recently I was very involved in the current events email list at my job, where I was usually the sole voice from the right (a SF Bay Area software company). For the most part the discussions were very civil, but I was greatly outnumbered and I sometimes felt disgusted by some of the things my fellow contributors would write. I'd typically retreat - stop replying - rather than proceed with full-blown confrontation. I mean, this was at work after all!

Meme o' Mine
I think I sometimes have some interesting thoughts regarding current events. Lately I haven't had much outlet for my point of view. My wife, bless her, will sometimes indulge such subjects with me but I want to try to reach out. I don't claim to be an expert on such things, but I'm an avid hobbyist - and I have a particular knack for original thinking. Outside-the-box, if you will. I also like to make predictions, and while of course I'm often wrong I've been surprisingly right on some major things. (Let's see how I do now that I've made this boast...)

One small step

2005-03-27T16:04:00.000-08:00

It's about time that I started a blog of my own. Long overdue in fact.

I spent the first 20 years of my adult life as an early adopter when it came to personal computers and the Internet. But lately I've eased up quite a bit and now I seem to be falling behind even. This ain't good, as I've based my career thus far on my tech savvy.

Well, it's time I mixed things up a bit in my life. I'm at a turning point, between careers so to speak. I'm hoping that writing this blog will help me to realize what I want to do next.

That's right. Another self-indulgent, self-conscious, belly-gazing blogger.

A thousand apologies.