Sic Semper Tyrannis

Mr Dooley, as perceptive as ever.

He is rumored to have said "I belong to no organized political party.  I am a Democrat."  Hillary Clinton defeated Obama by a quarter of a million votes in the first big state "polled" this political silly season.  Her margin of victory over Obama was more or less equal to Edwards' total vote. Nevertheless, she (at least temporarily) gets no delegates for that because the Democrats can't organize themselves enough to agree on the rules of their game.  Sad.  Still, a victory like that is significant.  If she does that well in California, Obama better start thinking about what a nice lady she is and that living in the VP's house for eight years might not be so bad.  She won by 150,000 votes more than McCain's margin over Romney.  Apples and Oranges?  I don't think so.

Romney says he wants to "throw the scoundrels out of Washington."  Lots of Washington "scoundrels" are backing him in the hope of stopping McCain.  McCain is not shamming when he says he dislikes the "scoundrels" and he begins to look unstoppable.  He will need a conservative Southern VP candidate on his ticket.  Thompson is un-inspiring.  Perhaps there is someone else out there.

Giuliani?  He appears to me to have fallen prey to the notion that "flyover country" meant everything outside of the New York City metropolitan area, south Florida, greater LA and the Hub.  This is a common misconception among the "sophisticates."  So, tant pis pour lui.  He should not expect that McCain will want him as VP.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am going on an overseas trip this evening and will be back in a week.  I will try to write from the trip.  pl

Bush can't compromise.

""The reason why you articulate a vision is to give people inside the Palestinian territories who don't want violence and who don't want to destroy Israel a chance to be for something." (Bush)

Until recently, Bush did not pretend that diplomacy was his thing. Talk to foreign leaders and officials or U.S. diplomats who have observed Bush in negotiating sessions, and you get a picture of a president who disdains bargaining and the essence of give-and-take.

"He is certainly smart enough to do it," says one person who has worked with Bush in such situations. "He would always get the first point across. But when there was pushing back, he didn't follow up with the rest of the argument or proposal that had been prepared. He just seemed not to care enough to do it."

Bush encountered such pushback from the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs on his Middle East peace tour this month, according to a variety of diplomatic sources. Open skepticism greeted his appeals to "moderate" Arab states to provide the political and financial support that might enable Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to move forward on peace. "  Jim Hoagland

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh!  Once again we have an exposition of the essential problem with the president.  He does not see the need to bargain with people.  He has a business mentality.  In other words, if you are stronger than your interlocutor, and they are in difficulty, then you don't bargain.  You dictate the terms of compliance.

The United States is the strongest country in the world at the moment, so he does not think he should bargain.  Unfortunately, the "little people" have not cooperated and will not in the Middle East.

He is going back in May?  He should be prepared for more non-compliance with his will.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502596.html

More on Ezekiel - Sidney O. Smith III

Moses Jacob Ezekiel is one of the greatest of American artists, and I must say that he has influenced my life.   I cannot recall how I first found out about him, it may have had something to do with the book Killer Angels.  But back in 1985, the National Museum of Jewish History had an exhibition of his works.   It was titled:   Ezekiel’s Vision:  Moses Jacob Ezekiel and the Classical Tradition.

I never saw the exhibition but, in the mid 1990’s, I called up the museum and the lady I spoke to was very kind, and she sent me a catalogue that accompanied the exhibition.  It explained much about his life and his works.

From time to time now, when I feel down about over our foreign policy, among other things, I pull out this catalogue and look at his works.  His style was neo-classical and it far trumps neoconservative.   If there is a neoconservative art form, it is about at the level of Rambo action-adventure, meaning imperial decadent.

But not Moses Jacob Ezekiel.   He employed universal symbols that break the bonds of time.

Ironically, just this past week, I was checking out via the net the Confederate memorial at Arlington cemetery.  It is a work of art created by Moses J. Ezekiel.  The reason I was doing so is because Col. Lang’s novel has rekindled my interest (perhaps better worded as soul-searching) about  the Civil War or War Between the States.  As a Southerner with Southern roots (understatement), it is sometimes a difficult inquiry.  But check out Moses’ work at Arlington at this website:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm

What jumped out at me was a Latin inscription on the base of the memorial:  “VICTRIX CAUSA DIIS PLACUIT SED VICTA CATONI,”  I looked it up and it translates into “The victorious cause was pleasing to the gods but not to Cato”—a reference to Cato the Younger.  This quote by Cato refers to his stance in support of a republic and against an empire of Julius Caesar. 

I think this Latin inscription supports the idea that, at least at one level, the South was fighting against what it viewed as imperialism.  (And if you check out the Confederate Seal, you will note that at the center is George Washington on a horse).  These are surprising finds.

But the work of Moses Ezekiel goes well beyond the Confederate memorial at Arlington.  One of his most famous works is one dedicated to “religious liberty”.  It is worth contemplating as well.  At its base you will see that the sculpture is dedicated to the People of the United States, the Order of B‘nai B‘rith, and the, “Israelites of America”.  Of course in this day and age, I could not help but reflect: who are the true Israelites of America today?  Norman Pod?  Philip Weiss?  Satmar?

I am going to take liberty at this time and mention that Philip Weiss at his blog very recently had an entry where he wrote that his “spiritual” home was the United States.  Very courageous stance.  So it is easy to associate Ezekiel’s tribute to religious liberty with Philip Weiss.

Moses Ezekiel lived before the time that Jabotinsky’s Zionism reigned supreme, so when you study his works you are not fettered by the all the dilemmas that Jabotinsky creates.   And he had a mystical bent.  Good grief…with a name like Moses Jacob Ezekiel how could you not have a mystical bent?

I don’t know how to say this but I will give it a try.   I apologize up front if it offends.  I have spent much of my life as a “secularist”. But I didn’t understand the immense power of Jewish love until I saw the works he did of Christ.  Moses Ezekiel’s secret may have been an empathy that transcended boundaries.  And for that, I am forever indebted. 

One last point.  He lived a great life.  I must say, he figured out the good life.  By all means, check out the works and life of Moses Jacob Ezekiel.   

Sidney O. Smith III

Moses Ezekiel - A Forgotten Man

""I hope you will be an artist, as it seems to me you are cut out for one. But, whatever you do, try to prove to the world that if we did not succeed in our struggle, we are worthy of success, and do earn a reputation in whatever profession you undertake," Robert E. Lee told a young Moses Ezekiel.

Although mostly forgotten by moderns, Moses J. Ezekiel was one of the most renowned artists of the 19th century. Ezekiel was an ardent American patriot and, at the same time, an unrepentant Confederate. He was the first Jewish cadet to enroll at Virginia Military Institute.

Stan Cohen and Keith Gibson's concise yet thorough book about the American artist and Confederate soldier provides us with a fascinating glimpse into Ezekiel's life and work. The book is divided into two parts: Part One is about Ezekiel's life."  Wash Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Moses Ezekiel was knighted by the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel.  Consequently, it seems strange to me to see his name without the appelation "Sir" preceding it.  When I was 18 and in my first year at his alma mater and mine, he was one of the gods whose name was used to conjure up a vision of the possibilities of accomplishment in life.  I admire all his work but none more than the statue of Edgar Allen Poe at the University of Baltimore.  pl

http://www.washingtontimes.com/section/CIVILWAR

A New Bomber? Why?

"The U.S. Air Force announced plans for a new long-range bomber several years ago, but the program has not received much attention or funding in the regular defense budget because of competing budget demands.

According to defense experts, plans call for the new bomber to be subsonic, manned and have a range of about 2,000 miles.

Developing a new bomber from scratch could be costly, but defense analysts say the Pentagon may already have spent billions on early conceptual work from its classified budget.

A new bomber is needed to upgrade the Air Force's aging bomber fleet, which is based on 1970s technology and expensive to maintain, said Lockheed's Cappuccio.

"It's really an economic thing with the government," said Cappuccio. "They have to recapitalize or go bankrupt holding onto a 1979 Chevy. Would you want to hang on to your 1979 Chevy for another 20 years? They have to do something.""  The Guardian

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do we need a new, very expensive bomber?  Why?  Modern fighter aircraft are pretty much all ground attack aircraft as well as air superiority machines.  Pilotless aircraft appear to have a vast potential. (The picture at the left is a USAF concept of an UNMANNED bomber) Why a new subsonic, manned bomber with a range of just 2000 miles.  What the hell is this, welfare for Air Force Academy graduates?  The USAF is understandably enough wedded to the idea of manned aircraft.  Without manned aircraft the aviators would have to start paying for their passion in life.

I suspect that this project represents the "military-industrial" complex in full view for a change.  I wonder what sort of "horse trading" went on among the services for this to have been agreed on.

A '79 Chevy?  A '79 Chevy is a reasonable analog for a B-1 or B-2 bomber?

pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7256466

"Mother Jones" on Iraq

This is a really good collection of interviews on withdrawal from Iraq among other things.  My only problem with the interview with me is that it would have been nice if the interviewer had done a better job of cleaning it up (connectives, etc.).  A few less expletives might have been a good idea.. pl

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/iraq-war-index.html

Just too old, sad but true.

"I didn't pick John to support because I'm just afraid that the vice president would wind up taking over his job in that four-year presidency,'' said Norris, who was hosting a fundraiser for Huckabee at his Lone Wolf Ranch. "So we need to find someone that can handle it for four years or eight years ... that has the youth and vision and communication skills to make that work.'' Norris, 67, is four years younger than McCain, who will be 72 in August. Guardian

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Biology really IS destiny.  I am the same age as Norris and I understand his thinking on this matter.  McCain has suffered a lot for this country.  His physical damage is worse than he manages to make it look.  His wife hovers nearby and helps him descend airplane steps.  God bless her, and him.He would be what after two terms? 81?  I don't think it is a good idea.  Who would we pick for vice -president?  I am going to be back at Ft. Bragg the next couple of days.  I do some teaching there for the Army from time to time.  82nd Airborne Division paratroopers are as young as they always were.  I certainly am not and neither is McCain.  pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7242079,00.html

Fred Thompson's Role in SC

Add half of FT's vote to Huckabee's in South Carolina and the result looks quite different.

McCain and Thompson are good friends.  Thompson has waged a lackluster campaign since his effort began.  His speech in South Carolina last night was quite different.  It was eloquent and was not a valedictory.

Think about the possibility that his role in yesterday's election was to deny Huckabee sufficient votes to give McCain a real chance.

Let's see if he now withdraws from the contest or goes on to perform the same function in other Red states.  pl

A Clinton - McCain Race?

Looks like it might be.  The results in Nevada and South Carolina point in that direction.  Romney's victory in the Nevada outcome is indicative of nothing more than the participation of his co-religionists.  The Clinton campaign continues to demonstrate its mastery of the process. 

Huckabee is out.  Too bad.  He was a legitimate representative of his people.  Thompson may yet be McCain's VP.  Not challenging but reassuring to the people who did not vote for Huckabee  in South Carolina in sufficient numbers to have their views truly represented.  They are not my views but I respect them and their views.

The MSM continue to be the whores for East and West Coast  elites that they have shown themselves to be lately.  The egregious Matthews still seems to be, what?  A fool obsessed with the sixties?

Hillary Clinton will be president.  I look forward to adult leadership in this country.

The Confederate Flag as an issue? Give me a break.  We all know who won.  Who could miss it?  pl

The Japanese are ______ (insert term)

"The Japanese whaling fleet is on its annual whale hunt in the icy Antarctic waters, with a target this year of killing about 1,000 of the giant mammals.

Japan exploits a loophole in a 1986 international moratorium on commercial whaling to kill the animals for what it calls scientific research, while admitting the meat from the hunt ends up on dinner plates.

The confrontation with Sea Shepherd had forced the Japanese fleet to suspend whaling for several days, but a spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research said the Yushin Maru No. 2 would resume the hunt as soon as possible.

"The Yushin Maru is heading back towards the rest of the research vessels and yes, when it has the opportunity, it will continue with the programme," Glenn Inwood told AFP.

Greenpeace said its ship the Esperanza had noted the Yushin Maru No. 2 leaving the whaling grounds to rendezvous to the north with its mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, claiming this as a victory.

"We are very happy to see yet another of the fleet has left the whaling grounds, and we will do everything we can to ensure they do not return to hunting," Greenpeace campaigner Sakyo Noda said from the Esperanza.

Greenpeace described the mother ship as a "factory ship" where the whales are processed and said its campaigners had seen whales that appeared to be safe."  Yahoo news

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You have to wonder if the Japanese think the world really believes them to be doing "research" with regard to whales or merely harvesting hundred pound steaks.  What sort of "research" would that be?  Perhaps it is the same sort of "research" that Canadian "researchers" perform on baby fur seals every year.  You know, the kind that is done by bashing their heads in with clubs and then skinning them.  That kind.

Whaling once served some useful purpose.  Whale oil lit the lamps of the world.  I haven't seen any whale oil lamps lately.  Maybe someone should harpoon a few of these ships.

When the American Civil war ended, CSS Shenandoah was in the Bering Sea capturing and burning Yankee whaling ships.  The little remembered high seas raiders of that navy sank a lot of whaling ships.  The New England whaling industry never recovered from the losses.

19th century ecological activists!  What a thought.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080118/sc_afp/australiajapanwhaling

NATO amounts to what?

"Britain, with a higher percentage of its forces deployed worldwide than the United States, is stretched thin in Afghanistan. Not only did the British have insufficient force strength to hold conquered territory, but the reconstruction and development assistance that was supposed to consolidate military gains did not arrive.

"It's worth reminding the Americans that the entire British army is smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps," said one sympathetic former U.S. commander in Afghanistan. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The British Army including its resrve forces has around 135,000 men.  The Royal Marines around 6,000.  The other NATO countries committed in Afghanistan have even smaller forces.  Only France is a serious land power and they are not "playing the game" there.

We tend to think of these armies in termas of World War 2 or the Cold War when they were much larger forces.  No more.  Now, they are pitifully small shadows of their former selves. 

The alliance retains some political meaning but it also constitutes a burden in dealing with the fears and anxieties of Russia. 

As military reinforcements the NATO armies are not very significant.

This alliance was built to deal with the USSR.  That country is gone, long gone.  Maybe NATO should be gone also.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402722_2.html?hpid=topnews

The "Surge" and its results

With their usual consensus driven sense of what is true and what is not, the media have bought into the idea that the improved combat situation in Iraq is the result of "The Surge."  If by that is meant the increased number of troops present in Iraq this last year, I can only say that the judgment of the media on this subject as on so many others is just silly.

Yes, more troops made possible a more complete application of Petraeus' revival of counter-insurgency methods and that was a plus, but that does not mean that the increased number of troops would have produced a similar result without the basic change in strategy.

In addition, the Sunni Revolt against the takfiri jihadis lies at the very heart of what has changed in Iraq.  That revolt reached the point of "critical mass" at a time in which many people succeeded in convincing the American command in Iraq that predestination might be a feature of religious thought for many Americans but the idea of redemption as a possibility for insurgents would probably be a better operational approach.  This serendipity (revolt plus counter-insurgency methods) made the difference this year in Iraq, not more infantry.  Once again, the additional infantry were useful, but only that.

It is reasonably said by some that none of this matters because the underlying social and political causes of the internal problem in Iraq have not been solved.  That is true, but I haven't given up on the possibility yet.  pl

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-bush13jan13,1,7175910.story?coll=la-news-a_section

A Fools Errand

I would love to be sanguine about the president's mission to the Middle East, but I am not.  Physicians take an oath to "cause no harm," perhaps politicians should do the same.  Someone said to me yesterday that the conversion of the chief executive of the US into an "action officer" for the revival of the "peace process" in the Levant was a worrisome thing.  I agree.

In my opinion, the issues that divide the Palestinians and the Israelis are actually deeper and more intractable that any of the other major dividing
"bright lines" throughout the area. 

The Bush Administration, seemingly at the urging of Israel's supposed friends, seems to continue to believe that this truly existential struggle beween these two peoples is a difficulty in communication and that a thoroughgoing discussion under "adult supervision" can clear up the misunderstanding.

In fact, it remains the case that the majority of people in both sides want "peace," but the ways in which they define peace are quite different and reflective of a desire to dominate the other side.  All else is tactics designed to herd the American dummies along in the direction of advantaging one's own side.  As I have said many times (sorry), if there was real good will on both sides the issues could be easily resolved and the subsequent treaty written on a couple of sheets of paper, but there is not such good will.

I continue to believe that the problem should be approached by seeking regional bilateral and in some cases multi-lateral agreements that address the interests of all concerned and which reduce the "temperature" in the region.

Whoever it was that sent Quixote off on this venture against the windmills of obduracy was quite wrong.  There might be a piece of paper agreed on by the time Bush leaves office but it will mean little.  People in this region are good at agreeing to things they have no intention of doing.

What Bush should have sought on this trip was to advance regional negotiation on the one hand and to find a more reasonable way to deal with the problem of Palestinian division on the other.  Truce, maybe?  pl

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/11/content_7407617.htm

Homage to New Hampshire

In accordance with my preference for finding wisdom in unlikely places, I would echo at least some of the sentiments of this Fox News story.

Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire.  It was a satisfying experience for those of us who support her, but it was a shattering, paycheck threatening experience for the punditry.

Christopher Matthews had howled with glee and danced like the proverbial dervish for days in derision and loathing of HC and her husband, all the while swooning like a teenager over the possibility that Barack Obama might fulfill the "dream."  Whose dream. Well, who else?

In a funny way this kind of attitude is patronizing toward black people.  Obama is a plausible, grown up candidate for president of the United States.  He is fighting a well organized, persistant campaign for the nomination.  Maybe he will win or maybe he won't.  That is the normal way of things.  There is no reason to treat him as though he is some sort of high school project in "civics" or an occasion for a debating team to reach new heights of emotional exposition.  For a couple of days up there in New Hampshah, people started acting in mighty strange ways.  The wildest thing I saw was an interview in which a white woman college student sobbed softly that "at last there was hope."  She meant Obama.  Hope of what?  The end of days?  The second coming?  Free lunch? What?

In the end HC won.  Why?  I think it was because she and her husband started looking like real human beings with real feelings.  Women voted for her in large numbers.  You could see it coming the last day.  CNN had a bar graph on their set at the beginning last night that showd HC was polling higher than Obama at the end that day.  Oddly, Wolf and company ignored that.  I guess they were still "cooking" with all the buzz.  My thought is that all those pale faced Yankees up there finally found someone they could identify with in that soft voice filled with regret.  There was a picture of her chatting with a couple of women holding signs in support of her opponents.  That, probably, is the real story.

Matthews looked stunned last night, "mugged by history" in a phrase one of the pundits applied to HC before the election.  He sat silently with his arms crossed in a defensive posture.  Howard Fineman, equally wrong, was pretty quiet as well.  Brokaw and Dobbs had a good time mocking the pundits.  It was fun.

By this morning, Matthews had rallied and appeared with the equally egregious Joe Scarborough on MSNBC to say that it was his opinion that HC and her dastardly husband had not won. No.  The election had been "stolen" from Obama by nasty secret white racists who had lied to the pollsters.  Matthews then went on in a fit of emotion (he seemed to tear up a bit) to describe Obama in terms remarkably reminiscent of first love.  I was particularly "taken" with Matthews' trembling outrage that BC might have suggested that Obama is a "fairy tale."

"He IS the sixties," Matthews declared at the end (praise God) of his declaration.

I never liked the sixties.  I had a good time but I was glad when it was over.  By the way, Chris, it IS over.  pl

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/good-night-for-clinton-but-not-so-good-for-pollsters-pundits/

"we dance in our chains" Nietszche

"The phrase dancing in chains is in Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter VII. "This world with which WE are concerned, in which we have to fear and love, this almost invisible, inaudible world of delicate command and delicate obedience, a world of "almost" in every respect, captious, insidious, sharp, and tender--yes, it is well protected from clumsy spectators and familiar curiosity! We are woven into a strong net and garment of duties, and CANNOT disengage ourselves--precisely here, we are "men of duty," even we! Occasionally, it is true, we dance in our "chains" and betwixt our "swords"; it is none the less true that more often we gnash our teeth under the circumstances, and are impatient at the secret hardship of our lot. But do what we will, fools and appearances say of us: "These are men WITHOUT duty,"-- we have always fools and appearances against us! "  TS Wittig

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this passage in "Beyond Good and Evil" to be expressive of much of human experience.  It captures something  I have been trying to express in several ways including "The Butcher's  Cleaver."

The protracted process of the presidential primary season brings this very much to mind.  Perhaps the campaigns enjoy all this.  For me it would be a time in purgatory.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.  pl

Giuliani - Yes! Ron Paul - No!

Yet another triumph of manipulation and heavy handedness for the "Dirty Digger" and Roger Ailes.  Come to think of it Britt Hume probably had a hand in this as well.

Consider it.  The supposedly conservative Fox News organization did not invite to their debate, Dr. Paul, a true blue Libertarian Conservative who is rising steadily in funding and in the polls. 

Why would they do that?  Easy.  Paul really IS a conservative as opposed to the brand of neocon, Jacobin rightist so dear to the hearts of people like Murdoch.

Giuliani is on his way to the discard pile of history, weighed down with his foreign policy advisors (refugees from the first Bush '41 term), Bernie Kerik, other friends, and a cell phone that rang too often.  Nevertheless, HE had a seat at the table at the Faux News extravaganza.  Remember. Paul beat him in Iowa.

How many media outlets does this man Murdoch own in this country?  pl

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/paul_fox_debate/2008/01/06/62102.html?s=sp&promo_code=426E-1

A Strange Season for Politics

A good friend tried to persuade me last evening that in the end this year's elections for president, vice-president and the Congress will be decided by money.  This, of course, mirrors the accepted wisdom of the social scientists.  For most ofthem elections in a highly developed "market" are a matter of funding and "branding."

Maybe so, maybe not.  I hope not.

In any case, this year seems very different.  The Obama and Huckabee phenomena speak to something very much at odds with the accepted wisdom of the social scientists.

Barack Obama is virtually an unknown quantity.  He is a gifted orator.  He carries himself like a president of the Kennedy type.  His election will signal a new phase in American race relations.  We all know that race relations haunt us in the ways that Faulkner expressed so well.  Nevertheless, his meteoric ascension to threaten a Clinton restoration is illogical.  Who is this man and what will he really do if he achieves his goal?  Not enough is known about him to say.

And then there is Huckabee.  I would like to have a beer with him but he probably does not drink.  He is anathema to the political establishments of both parties, a son of the despised rural South, an evangelical Protestant minister, and another gifted orator.  His very name sets the teeth of political commentators on edge.  Christopher Matthews, in a display of rage, called him the "hick" a couple of nights ago.  Now Huckabee has humbled Romney, the poster boy for political ambition.  He and McCain are clearly combining to destroy Romney in New Hampshire.  Look to see Huckabee do better than expected in New Hampshire.

Maybe this isn't just about money and marketing?  pl

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/

What change is wanted? Part Deux

"As often stated the "Devil is in the Details." So here goes and sorry if this seems so technical but it is necessary for democracy to prevail in our Republic. 1. Statutory caps on political appointees in Federal Departments and agencies. 2. Elimination of the central planning types that both parties seem to place in the Executive Office of the White House and OMB. In addition the current budget code systems (e.g. 800 is general government, 050 is National Defense) should be revised and explanatory materials issued for public analysis and a system for Congressional input to that system). 3. Elimination of the "Deliberative Process" exception in FOIA and its incorporation in "Executive Privilege." Let's let the world know what the President and his subordinates are receiving in the way of advice unless appropriately classified. Maybe this would reduce incentives to "tell all" in books at the end of each administration. Also establish a Professional historian position by statute in each department and agency and have the NARA give technical advice to Congress on the funding of those agencies. 4. Enforcement of the rules with respect to "original and derivative classification" and "creation of classification guides." Further limit the ability of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies to establish "SAP" programs. 5. Revising the statutory charter of the MSPB and Office of Special Counsel to allow full disclosure of waste, fraud, and abuse. 6. Revision of 18 U.S.C. Section 568 (or perhaps its 28 USC 536)to make criminal referrals the exclusive perogative of the OIGs not the head of the departments and agencies. Also by statute designate the DOJ OIG the review authority for allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse by Executive Branch OIG personnel. Findings can then be circulated on a redacted basis to all the OIGs. 7. Allowing hearings on the record, and full disclosure of adverse decisions to grant, withdraw, or otherwise prevent one agency from deciding exclusively that persons with only its own clearance have a "need to know" with respect to programs that impact other agencies. A review board system of multi-agency personnel with appropriate expertise might be utilized. (Note that this might have prevented the 9/11 attack). 8. The Department of Justice should become the exclusive litigation arm of the Executive Branch (even if its personnel are deployed to other departments and agencies.) 9. Federal lawyers should be subject to a statutory federal ethics code as opposed to relying on the ethics codes of the 50 state bars. 10. No conversion of Non-career SESs to Career status, except after a two year waiting period outside of the federal government. 11. All career SES positions be made for a 5 year term with the possiblity of one renewal. After that pay retention but not rank-in-grade. 12. Congressional staff be limited to Citizens of the United States. 13. Governors be granted security clearances based on their election not background investigation but then have a centralized process for determining the "need to know" for Governors and Gubnatorial staff. 14. The Service Academies be turned into graduate institutions, subject to merit selection of faculty and students, and Congress eliminated from the appointment process except for flag rank officers. 15. Judicial salaries be increased to reflect their skills and responsibities. 16. the US attorneys be given 5 or 7 year terms. 17. Key White House advisors like the Advisor to the President for National Security Affairs be subject to Senate confirmation. 18. The Federal Vacancy Reform Act be strictly enforced. 19. The Anti-deficiency Act be repealed and instead a mandatory review process be established to learn how and why the deficiency occurred, who was responsible and what can be done to correct the matter and have the head of each department or agency made accountable for correction. 20.Decriminalize the federal ethics operation (OGE should centralize and review all Ethics Disclosure Forms by non-career personnel and be in charge of enforcement for those individuals) and make stringent civil penalties and restitution required and include those in the private sector that may have participated in the unethical behavior of the federal official and/or employee. Hope this is of some interest to some people.

William R. Cummings"

What Change Are we Talking About?

I understand that people wept while listening to Barack Obama's speech following his caucus victory in Iowa.  I think he is a fine speaker.

The main theme of his campaign is the assertion that he will bring deep and significant change to American life and government.  Indeed, he seems to say that he, himself, symbolizes that coming change.

The chattering class on TV have taken to rattling on about how well his election would "play" overseas where we Americans have come to be more than usually reviled.  They seem to be more interested in public relations than the expectation of revolution of some sort.  They also don't seem to wonder what sort of president he would be.  But, what else would you expect from most of them?

We have been listening to this "change" talk since the first Clinton campaign for president.  At that time the pop music of the 70s, was made into a clarion call for the realization of the supposed goals of the cultural revolution of the 60s.  Then there was much the same kind of talk in the election campaign that gave us GWB.  We were told that a revolutionary reversion to Christian morality and small town values would follow upon the election of George Bush.  What we got instead was the "K" Street Project and the Jacobin driven war for Westernization and security in the Middle East.  Oh, yes.  There was also Halliburton, etc.

Now we are called by this young man and his rivals to believe that he (they) will change the social and economic matrix in which we live.

We think about hard things here.  My question to my fellow Americans is simple.

What are the SPECIFIC changes that you EXPECT and WANT Obama or any of the others to make to American government, economic life, society, etc?

I am not interested in the touchy-feely emotional atmospherics of increased integrity, honesty, modesty, etc.

What SPECIFICALLY do you want and do you think you can get it?  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

"The Mendacity of Hope" Richard Cohen

"You can appreciate the usefulness of this false claim. It says something compelling about the plight of young, black males that is essentially true -- their condition amounts to a calamity and something has to be done. But this particular comparison is wrong, and Obama must know it by now. Ought to be true is not the same as true. "  Cohen

"After all, it ought to be true that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It ought to be true that he had ties with Osama bin Laden. It ought to be true that aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program, and it ought to be true, really, that none of this mattered since what mattered most of all was a larger truth: Hussein had to go and the Middle East had to be urban-renewed for the sake of democracy."  Cohen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Cohen wrote this column for the Washington Post a couple of days ago.  I have been thinking it over, amidst the hubbub of the holiday season.

The profound truth of the line in red is impressive.  One of the things that I claim to have learned is that humans are prone by their very nature to believe whatever they wish to believe. 

This feature of the human mind is endlessly repeated in the pages of the history of intelligence analysis.  People often misinterpret or ignore the obvious conclusions that available data lead to.  Instead of applying Occam's Razor to a problem they (often collectively) believe something that satisfies their inner desires and needs.  This frequently leads to disastrous results.  The failure of allied military intelligence to see the possibilities for a German offensive in the Ardennes in 1944 and the earlier American failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are good examples.  In the Ardennes, the command wanted to "thin" the line somewhere and convinced itself that the terrain in the Ardennes made that a good place to do that and also a good place to place inexperienced units for "seasoning."  They chose to believe that in spite of the fact that the Germans had attacked across that terrain in 1940.  At Pearl Harbor the command convinced itself that the Japanese would first strike at US possessions in the Far East and that this would provide "warning" and time for the Pacific Fleet to sortie from Pearl Harbor.  There are many, many examples of similar behavior.  I have lived through a few of them, not least the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Now Cohen is telling us to remember that there is a danger of doing the same thing in choosing a president.  There is a danger of seeing what you want to see in someone, of accepting the crude image building that modern political campaigns depend on for shaping our weak minds.  In the case of Obama the danger is increased by the desire we all have to feel good about ourselves, to believe that he and we are now better and purer than we were.

This danger is not limited to Obama and his campaign.  It is everywhere.  Take care and think sceptically.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123101662.html

"Bhutto's Murder" Richard Sale

The chief suspects in the Bhutto assassination, as of forty eight hours ago, were lower and mid-level officers of Pakistan’s ISI, intelligence agency, and the Pakitani army.
Bhutto’s history with the ISI is long, tangled and, on the ISI’s side, murderous. The ISI or Inter-Service Intelligence agency was created in 1948, manned by officers from the three armed services. Pakistan became a fundamentalist Islamic state under the 1980s leadership of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq who assigned it to keep an eye on Bhutto’s Pakistan’s Peoples Party (PPP) among other things. In fact, according to an Indian counterintelligence source, B Raman, with whom I used to stay in close touch, the ISI’s Internal Political Division poisoned two of Bhutto’s brothers on the French Rivera in 1985, to try to scare her out returning to Pakistan in order to run not only the PPP but another group she had started, the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD). She ignored Zia and returned.
When Bhutto entered her first term as PM in 1988, she tried to reduce the ISI’s powers and boost the clout of the Intelligence Bureau or IB founded in 1947. Usually a Lt. Gen. heads the ISI, but Bhutto put in a major general close to her father. This was bitterly resented.
When she became PM again in 1993, Bhutto followed the custom of letting an Lt. General of the Army head the ISI. But she transferred the handling of operations supporting the Taliban from ISI to the Interior Ministry. It was at this time she began to work with Gen. Musharraf who was ISI’s DG of Military Ops. But factions within the ISI detested her, and in 1996, assassinated her only remaining brother outside his house Karachi in September, according to former US officials. A former ISI station chief in New Delhi hatched a plot to assassinate her in 1995, but the plan was foiled. Once Bhutto was in exile, Musharraf toppled PM Narwaz Sharif in 1999, and in the tradition of Zia, Musharraf, tied to weaken the PPP which has its chief base in Sind, the Sindhis basically a group with a lot of Sufi influence and given to religious tolerance. Musharraf set up a secret task force to wreck the PPP and scatter the Sindh nationalists. To do this it began to collaborate with the Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI), which is a jihadi group with ties to bin Laden.Musharraf also boosted collaboration with other dangerous terrorist organizations in aiding the Taliban. In fact, in 2001, US intelligence analysts had targeted Gen. Mohammad Aziz of ISI, Lt. Gen. Hami Gull, Lt. Gen. Avid Nadir and others. All had ties to al Aida and after the attacks of 9/11, they were removed thanks to US pressure.