Morning Coffee (109)

Today has not happened in a while. Being a leap year, we haven’t the opportunity to drink Coffee together on 29 Feb very often. I remember when I was a younger human, leap years were really a big deal because they were so rare, and the idea was quite novel and interesting. It seems nowadays, that no one really cares. I still get a kick out of it, but it’s generally treated like a normal day. I hope that kids still experience it with wonder and amazement.

Ahmadi-Number 1:

Since 1991, it has generally been believed by Americans and others that the United States is the world’s number one power. This isn’t the case anymore. There’s a new kid on the block (not the group), and this new kid has declared that he is now the number one power in the entire world (and perhaps the universe, but if not, then at least the galaxy, or at a minimum, the solar system). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran is the world’s number one, saying, “Everybody has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world. Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and it puts them in their place.” Just so you know. You should not mess with Iran if you value your teeth, because to do so will mean a firm punch in those teeth, which, coming from the number one power in the world, can only mean the creation of a schism between your teeth and your gums, and may even result the premature acquisition of false teeth. This can be bad, especially if you don’t have dental insurance. It is even possible, perhaps likely, that the force of the blow will actually drive your teeth through the back of your head, which would seem to doom you to certain death as those teeth would turn the medulla oblongata into a creamy paste. If for instance the might of Iran’s punch is deflected by your puny arms, the glancing blow will result in an embarrassing scenario which has you spitting out chicklets. You might also defecate out these chicklets, assuming you are hit so hard that you are forced to swallow your teeth. This is a double whammy; they call this move the ole “Genesis and Apocalypse” – Genesis is when Iran hits you in the teeth so hard that you swallow them, and the Apocalypse happens the teeth are removed from your body the old fashioned way. Ouch. You might get hit by Iran, and be knocked unconscious. And this hit might be so hard that when you wake up, your clothes are out of style. Or, Iran might actually hit you into next week, or even next month. If you were to talk smack to Iran, it might get hit, and it’s possible that your ancestors will feel it, because it’ll be a pretty hard hit. Iran doesn’t mess around. There could be as many as three hits: Iran hitting you, you hitting the floor, and the ambulance hitting 75 on the freeway. If you’re gay, you’re a likely target for a hitting by Iran. Beware, for you might be knocked straight by Iran’s might.

With the tomfoolery out of the way, I need only to remind you that Iran has virtually no legitimate force projection capabilities. Sure, it can task Hezbollah with sewing some terror, and it can dominate the Persian Gulf, but this hardly means “number one power in the world.” If Iran wished to stir up economic problems by locking down the Persian Gulf and cutting off the world’s oil supply, it would not be able to do so uncontested, and would very likely come out on the wrong side of any sort of naval engagement with the US Navy. Iran could cause some problems, but then again, so could Venezuela. Or just about any other nation for that matter. However, Iran could cause significant problems for the US in one area: pistachios. The US is more addicted to pistachios than even oil. Cutting off our pistachio imports would cripple American will and we would surely grant Iran anything it wished. Perhaps Amadinejad is onto something…

The Audacity of a Bloke:

We all know that Obama’s hope is audacious. As this article points out, this hope is sort of the equivalent to buying lottery tickets; Obama’s appeal is the same sort of appeal that induces people into buying lottery tickets, despite the odds being overwhelmingly stacked against the purchaser of these tickets. The advertising for such tickets indicates to the buyer, “If you dream it you can win it.” Of course, this is not the case. Not even remotely. But Obama tells us that all we need is hope. He says, sounding much like a commercial for the lottery,

“Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope. In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead.”

This, like “Hey, you never know” is a powerfully message that induces a certain behavior. Of course both messages are completely absurd. You would have to buy 88 million lottery tickets to have a 50-50 chance of winning, and there is nothing concrete attached to the flowery prose above. But it gets results; Obama leads in most national polls and people keep on buying those tickets.

I do not agree with Obama’s insistence that this “hope” thing is God’s greatest gift to us. And seriously, hope is the bedrock of this nation? And what does the rest of that nonsense mean? A belief that there are better days ahead? When? We really need to step back from the inspirational mumbo-jumbo and look at things a little more objectively. Obama is not a religious experience, Obama is a politician.

But he’d rather not sell himself as a politician. Instead he’s selling himself and his campaign as a movement, whether that’s political or spiritual, and considering his policies are as vague as his nebulous hope, the movement seems to be firmly entrenched in the spiritual realm. To contrast the priorities and policies of Obama and Clinton, one need only look at their t-shirts. Many of Obama’s say, “Vote for Hope” or “Hope for America.” Clinton’s say, “Hillary ’08.” I’m sure this is a selective sample, however, it’s telling. “Vote for Hope?” What does that even mean? I hope every day, but usually, my hopes are dashed against the rocks of reality.

“Sorry about that thing that nobody alive did”:

This year, Congress is going to consider doing what five states have done already: apologize for slavery. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) said, “I’m really shocked, just shocked that the federal government hasn’t apologized. It’s time to do so.” Actually, the time to have done so was in about 1865. You know, when people alive had actually participated in the institution of slavery. If people back then had thought it so ghastly as to allegedly fight a war over, why where no apologetic sentiments issued? Too divisive, that’s why. It was a time to heal, apparently. Now we’re supposed to apologize for acts committed by men who were never sorry then, and wouldn’t be now, and we also get to apologize for those who were sorry then, but didn’t have the moral courage to create a ruckus and force the issue.

You’ll never hear me say that slavery was an institution that we should have clung to. Abolishing slavery was a good thing, though our nation happened to do it a little later than some. But I don’t see the point of an official government apology. This sort of sentiment is the result of overwhelming guilt, which is generally a liberal trademark. I, for one, do not feel the least bit guilty for slavery. I didn’t do it, and my family was never wealthy enough to own slaves. But if they were, they probably would have, because that was what one did in many parts of America back then. If they did, I would have thought it regrettable that my family owned slaves, but I would not feel particularly compelled to apologize to African-Americans for it. I think our nation did the right thing, but failed to take advantage of an opportunity to apologize then. And now we’re stuck with that burden? I just don’t understand what purpose an official apology will serve. Perhaps someone can explain it to me in a way void of emotional outbursts and indignation and help me understand why we would want to apologize.

Another thing I find troubling is the precedence for apologies and what goes along with them. In 1988, the government apologized for interning Japanese-Americans, and since that wasn’t enough it gave each person still alive $20,000. And in 1993, the government apologized to native Hawaiians for toppling their monarchy in the early 1900s. There is actually a separatist movement in Hawaii, which has been somewhat legitimized by this apology. Will apologizing for slavery mean reparations? If this is the case, how much money will be wasted in verifying who are legitimate descendants of slaves? How do we combat fraud? Is it a wound that we truly want to open back up? If so, then I would ask that the Church and European governments pay me reparations for holding my ancestors in bonded servitude and oppressed them for generations.

I’m just wondering what sort of Pandora’s Box this will open. While I understand the point, I don’t believe it will be beneficial. Perhaps I’m wrong. Educate me, dear readers.

Taliban Receive Royal Ass-Whipping:

Yesterday, Drudge Report broke one helluva story*. It turns out the Britain’s Prince Harry, who is an officer in the British military, has been serving in and taking part in combat operations in Afghanistan.

I’ve followed Prince Harry’s story on and off since it was first revealed that he wanted to join the Army and fight for his country. I’ll admit it drastically changed my opinion of the young royal, who I generally viewed as a spoiled rich brat. Plus, I’m American, so I have a rather dim view of royalty anyway. Anyway, after his training, Harry wanted quite badly to go and fight in Iraq, but was told that wouldn’t happen since he’s third in line for the throne and the fact that he would basically be a bullet magnet and endanger the lives of his men needlessly.

But he got his wish. After the Iraq deployment was quashed, the Army quietly arranged for him to deploy to southern Afghanistan. They made a deal with the press, wherein they would have a great deal of access to Harry before and during his deployment, but would not publish anything prior to his return to Britain in April. The boy would get his wish to serve his nation. And by all accounts, he has done so with honor, taking part in combat operations against the Taliban as a combat air controller. It’s remarkable for a number of reasons, but mostly because the press actually agreed to it. But, unfortunately, Drudge didn’t make such an agreement, so the information was leaked and it is now common knowledge that Harry is deployed.

Now the Prince must return home. It’s simply too risky for him to remain there. Why you ask? Because knowledge that the Prince of Britain is enticing for the Taliban or al-Qaida or whoever else wants some publicity by capturing or killing the man. This endangers him and those in his unit far more than necessary; far more than they would be in normal combat. I must hand it to the British government anyway, because if Harry died in normal combat operations, it would have been a PR nightmare. But allowing him to be actively targeted and captured and paraded around on TV would have been a disaster. Nevertheless, Harry got some of what he wanted, and it’s too bad that he has to leave his men. From the interviews he gave, he sounds like a real soldier, and for a real soldier, leaving your men is a fate worse than death.

*It is unfortunate that Drudge broke this story. His thirst for being first knows no bounds and he knows no tact. He needlessly endangered this man’s life and the lives of his men for a few thousand extra hits on his website (he already gets millions), and some more ad dollars. As much as I generally admire Drudge for his tenacity (although he’s a hugely sensationalist), this disgusts me. I’m frankly surprised, as is much of the British Army, that this was kept quite for as long as it was.

Word of the Day: Aplomb (noun): Assurance of manner or of action; self-possession; confidence; coolness.

On This Day in History: Leap year. As previously discussed, Columbus uses his knowledge of lunar eclipses to convince the natives to provide him with supplies (1504). Hank Aaron becomes the first baseball player to sign a $200,000 contract (1972). The current league minimum pay is higher than his entire contract. I wonder if the salary in any field has risen so quickly. Now, the average salary in the major leagues is in the millions. That is, sadly, about the most interesting thing that seems to have happened on this, the most rare of days.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville.

Morning Coffee (108)

It’s not particularly easy to write a follow-up to Liquamen II. For one, it’s a very emotive issue, and it would seemingly be inappropriate to follow it with some of the usual cynical sarcasm found in the Morning Coffee. Most importantly, though, is the fact that the very act of publishing this edition moves Sgt. Carmelo Rodriguez’s story off the front page of the MC. Despite this, the show must go on, and I hope that people will be interested in what we post here and will then check past editions.

I will tell you that while the comments on and responses about the story directly to me cannot be called voluminous by any means, the site has had more visitors than ever before. This is a good thing. Hopefully, the majority of those who visited will write their representatives.

So with that, let’s keep it light today.

Word of the Day: Temararious (adjective): Recklessly or presumptuously daring; rash.

On This Day in History: Abraham Lincoln makes a speech in New York City that is thought to be largely responsible for his election (1860). I’m guessing his message was not “Change we can believe in.” The Nineteenth Amendment, which allows women the right to vote, is challenged and this challenge is rejected by the Supreme Court (1922). Sit-down strikes, used by the Civil Rights Movement, are outlawed (1939). Carbon-14 is discovered by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben (1940). The 22^nd Amendment is ratified, limiting Presidents to two terms (1951). Perhaps it’s time to amend the Constitution for the 28^th time, limiting the number of terms our Senators and Representatives are able to serve.

Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, also known as Constantine I or Constantine the Great, was born in 272 CE. Constantine is an important historical figure. He is best known for being the first Christian Roman Emperor, having allegedly seen the Cross in the sky just before his fight against Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 306. Exactly what happened prior to this battle is much disputed. What isn’t disputed is his official policy of religious tolerations, particularly of Christianity, issued in 313 in the Edict of Milan, although this wasn’t the first such edict issued by an Emperor. While the issue of his conversion to Christianity is also the subject of much debate, he was clearly a strong advocate of Christianity, whatever his intentions in that advocacy. In 325, he called for the Council of Nicaea, which dealt with the heresy of Arianism and established church doctrine. In this way, Constantine, possibly a pagan until his death bed (or a pagan forever), greatly shaped Christianity, and his policies impact it even today. Also remember that he founded Constantinople, which would be a great city and carry on Roman greatness long after Rome fell in 476. Constantinople is presently called Istanbul, by the Turks.

First Equirria, celebrating the Roman god of war, Mars, was held today. Second Equirria was held on 14 March. Priests held rites purifying the army, and the city held horse races. Rome geared up for spring, the season for war.

Liquamen II

Today I’m going to talk about something that you might not want to hear or see. I surely didn’t. It is an issue that has made me angrier at my country than I think I have ever been.

I joined the United States Marine Corps in 1998; an idealistic young man who wanted above all to serve his country. I had wanted to be a Marine since I was seven years old, and when I graduated from high school, I shipped out. While I was in high school, my patriotism and desire to be a Marine must have rubbed off, because a number of my friends, most of whom were younger than me, also joined the Marines. I had a good career in the Corps; I loved being in the Marine Corps. But I left to move on to bigger and better things. Many days since my discharge, I’ve regretted leaving. I missed it. As of this moment, that is no longer the case. See, I was indoctrinated with the belief that Marines and the Marine Corps take care of their own. Sure, I always knew that in the bigger picture this wasn’t really the case; it wasn’t always practical, because the needs of the Corps always outweigh the needs of the troops. Nevertheless, I felt that it was a noble idea; it is generally an idea that is practiced at the small unit level. But yesterday evening, my self-imposed blindness was assaulted. It is impossible for me to ignore what I’ve always known.

Mike, a friend that I’ve known since he was in middle school, was one of the young men who somewhat followed in my footsteps. Yesterday, he posted a Myspace bulletin about a Marine that he served with while he was in (Mike is since out as well). That bulletin was about United States Marine Corps Sergeant Carmelo Rodriguez. Rodriquez’s is a story that is incredibly painful for me to tell, not only because it is about a person who I consider a Brother despite having never met him, but because his story fundamentally undermined my belief in my Corps and my government. Sergeant Rodriguez is dead.

He did not die in an IED attack. He wasn’t killed by a sniper. He didn’t jump on a grenade and save his men. He wasn’t accidentally run over by a Hummer or killed by equipment that has fallen from a 5-ton truck. He did not die in a plane or a helicopter crash. He didn’t drown in a training exercise. His death did not occur in the line of duty at all, in any way. Dying in the line of duty, while always a tragedy, is to die with dignity and honor, and in doing so, our military and our nation usually, USUALLY, treats such troops with the honor and respect. Sergeant Rodriguez died needlessly. His death was a waste because it could have been easily avoided. And this is only part of what angers me. Sergeant Rodriguez died because of military medical malpractice; misdiagnoses. Sergeant Rodriguez had melanoma, skin cancer. Sergeant Rodriguez did not have a wart.

In 1997, Carmelo Rodriguez enlisted in the US Marine Corps. During his pre-entry physical, the doctor noted skin abnormalities, and made a notation that said, very clearly, “melanoma on the right buttocks.” Rodriguez was not told to follow up with another doctor. This was 11 years ago. While Rodriguez was in Iraq in 2005, he went to see a “doc”, most likely a Navy Corpsman. This doc indicated to him that his condition was nothing more than a wart and that he should see a doctor when he returned stateside in five months. He didn’t know it at the time, but this doomed him.

Eventually, inevitably, the truth of Rodriguez’s condition became clear, and the hard-charging Marine was forced to retire. This, I believe, was not out of malice, but it is what happens when a Marine can no longer perform his duties. I was nearly forced to retire because of an arthritic condition in my knee. Regardless, Sergeant Rodriguez was doomed at this point. He had Stage IV melanoma. In 18 months, a supremely physically fit Marine was reduced to a mere 77 lbs as the cancer ravaged his body.

This was about the time, three months ago, that Rodriguez asked CBS news to come to his home to interview him and Byron Pitts was sent by the network to do so. As the CBS news crew was setting up for the interview, a mere eight minutes after Pitts met the 29 year old Marine, Rodriguez died. He was unable to give his story. His family, however, was interviewed, and they relayed to Pitts Rodriquez’s reasons for wanting to speak out. He wanted his story to be known; he wanted other troops to know that they might very well be neglected by the government they had sworn to support and defend.

But while malice may not have been intended when Rodriguez was made to retire, the results of this decision is nothing short of malicious. By making Sergeant Rodriguez retire, the military was no longer obligated to take care of him. I’m still trying to look into what obligations the military has in regards to cancers, but have not been overly successful at this point. It’s possible that the military, or the government in the form of the VA, had to pay for his treatment and hospital/hospice care. I do not know. It’s also possible that they simply argued that his was a preexisting condition and were not obligated to pay for treatment. This happens all the time. Most insulting, however, is the fact that because of Rodriguez’s retirement, the military was not obligated to pay for the military funeral that he rated. His family did. His seven year old son, who will receive 55% of his father’s retirement benefits, was presented with an American flag, while a bugler played “Taps” and Marine riflemen gave him a gun-salute. Let me say it again: his family had to pay for something that the government should have been obligated to do as a result of his service.

You can read the CBS news story HERE, and I hope that you will. I will warn you, however, the video that accompanies the story is disturbing; watch at your own risk. Another version, one less small, is available HERE. I am telling you, beware. The images presented within the video bothered me, and I am not easily shaken. And this is how I force you to watch, because watching might be the only way you’re compelled to act.

By all accounts, Rodriguez was a good Marine. My friend Mike served with him in the 8^th Communications Battalion, Headquarters and Service Company, Motor Transport. Mike met Rodriguez when he (Mike) first checked into the Fleet Marine Force, and was immediately drawn to him. A Corporal at the time, he was a gung-ho, 300-PFTing “Devil Dog” who was a hard-core-motivator. Mike looked up to him; wanted to emulate him. They frequently spoke of their love of art, and Rodriguez mentioned that he’d like to pursue their shared dream when he got out. He mentioned his work as a part-time actor who once shared the set with Katie Holmes on “Dawson’s Creek.”

Here we see such a promising individual, a verifiable asset to our nation and society, discarded as if his service meant nothing. And the worst part, my dear readers, is that there is no recourse for this gross violation of justice. None. Whereas you can sue your doctor for misdiagnosing you and causing undue harm, Rodriguez’s family can do no such thing. The Feres Doctrine, as decided in 1950 by the Supreme Court, prevents any service member from suing the government for injuries sustained while in active duty. This doctrine is generally a good thing, as family members would be constantly suing the government for the deaths of their loved ones in the line of duty. But this surely cannot be the spirit of the law, can it? Was it really designed to protect the government from complete and total negligence? I would contest that it is not. And I implore our legislature to act to protect our service members from such malpractice. Such malfeasance.

We can do something about this. You can write your Congressmen and Senators, just like I will be doing over the coming days and weeks. Contacting the people you pay to represent you needn’t be limited to this issue; contact them liberally. But I hope you will, at the very least, do so on Sergeant Rodriguez’s behalf. We need to make sure that we’re taking care of our Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen. To do otherwise is unconscionable. We ask them to sacrifice for us, and it is our responsibility to make sure they are getting what they need, be it guns, bullets, armored vehicles, or quality health care, and failing that, the ability to be taken care of if the government fails them so utterly. To plagiarize from Barack Obama, this is change that we can believe in. A change far more substantive than anything he has suggested. Write your representatives, all of them, and ask that the Feres Doctrine be reexamined. We shouldn’t let what happened to Sergeant Rodriguez and what has happened to countless others continue to happen. Send us to war, send us to die, sure. We accept that. But do not treat us as animals. Do not throw our lives away needlessly. And pay your debts to us with the same equity as we serve you unquestionably.

Morning Coffee (107)

Gutentag. How about that weather, eh? Come on, that’s a stupid intro. I have a readership spanning the globe (seriously); remarking about the terrible weather conditions at my location is somewhat pointless. But anyway, how about that weather?

First, the important stuff: J-Lo has given birth to twins. Congrats. Marc Anthony is the father. No, not the Marc Antony that was Caesar’s friend as that would be a silly proposition. Instead, it’s the crappy singer Marc Anthony. I can’t imagine Marcus Antonius being exceptionally thrilled that his name has been corrupted by a man who sings “I need to know.” No, he’d run him through.

Kosovo Update:

Things appear to be heating up in Kosovo, which declared its independence from Serbia on 17 Feb. UN police were attacked by ethnic Serbs in northern Kosovo and protesters broke into the US Embassy in Belgrade and set a fire in the building which apparently killed one person, who turned out to be a protester who must have forgot to leave the building. Initial reports indicate that two floors of the Embassy were burned. Reports also suggest that the embassies of Croatia, Turkey, and the UK were attacked. No Americans were injured. The Serbian government, and obviously its citizens, are steadfastly refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence and are trying to annul the decision to break away.

According to CNN, Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin has stated that Russia “has not ruled out the use of force to resolve the dispute over territory if NATO forces breach the terms of their UN mandate.” Russia’s Foreign Ministry also stated that Kosovo’s declaration would be a negative impact. Mikhail Kamynin, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry said, “What happened in Belgrade yesterday is regrettable. But we would want to draw your attention to the fact that the forces that supported the unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s sovereignty should have realized the effects of the move.”

Contrasting this, NATO Secretary-General Jap de Hoop Scheffer said that KFOR (the NATO led 15,000 member peacekeeping force) would “respond swiftly and firmly against anyone who might resort to violence in Kosovo.”

Things could get interesting there in the next few weeks. Sixteen nations have thus far recognized Kosovo (including Taiwan, which really irked China, who for obvious reasons, won’t recognize a break away republic). It’s nice to see Kosovars celebrating their newfound freedom, but it could get ugly. Think about it. Would we want to see a portion of our country up and declare independence? A section did once, and we fought a horrifically bloody war over it.

Democratic Debate:

Last night. Be there, or be square. I was square. I had every intention of watching it, but forgot until about 3 minutes after it was supposed to be over. Considering it kept going for another 20 minutes or so, I did get to catch the end. I really just wished they would both shut up; it’s obvious they love to hear themselves talk. Despite missing the whole thing, I caught the highlight reel presented by Anderson Cooper afterwards, which was probably better than having to sit through all the boring parts, of which I am sure there were plenty. I can’t really comment on who I thought won, since I didn’t observe much. But I thought Hillary had a couple of good zingers. The commentators thought they were in poor choice, but I disagreed. On the plagiarizing issue, Clinton said that if Obama is going to put such an emphasis on words, then they should at least be his own. Good point. Even if he borrowed them with permission, I think maybe he should present his own material, since I’m supposed to believe so deeply in his message of change. Clinton then said, “That’s not change we can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.” Loved it. Apparently, it got booed though, so I’m clearly in the minority.

The Race to the Republican Nomination:

It seems that the Republican nomination has been secured, hasn’t it? But it hasn’t officially. Huckabee is still in the race. Well, “in” is a loosely used word in this case. He’s not in so much as he just hasn’t abandoned his campaign. He has abandoned the strategy of winning states and securing the nomination outright. His new strategy consists of holding out and pushing the nomination to the Republican National Convention. In his “brokered convention strategy” he desires a deadlocked convention in which he will be seen as the most conservative alternative and then secure the nomination as delegates threw their support behind him. I’m all for a man doing what he thinks he needs to do, but this seems a little childish. Not only that, but it could very well fracture the Republican Party as this drags out into September (dragging this out means more attack ads, which mean more negativity, which does the Dems work for them). A fractured Republican Party means that the Democrats might have an easier time in the general elections, which isn’t good for Democracy as a whole.

However, I’m torn. I’m torn because it’s sad to me to think that the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio really mean little since the Republican nomination is all but secured. Huckabee’s strategy at least gives some influence to these late-season primaries and caucuses. What this does, however, is illustrate the need to revamp our election processes. Or it should. But it won’t.

Huckabee also said that there should be more debates with McCain. I agree. Why not? More debates means I get to see more of the eventual nominee in each party. That can never be a bad thing. Ever. The more face time these people get, the better sense we get of their ability to lead, act under pressure, what their policies are, etc. I like the idea of more debates. Period.

Huckabee then lost me when he compared “the drive that keeps him going to the dream that the defenders of the Alamo fought for in 1836.” So, for Huckabee, Texas independence and the right to own slaves is why he’s continuing his run for the Presidency? He then said something only an ideologue says: “You don’t engage in battles only because you anticipate you’re going to win them. You engage in your battles because you believe that they’re right.” I suppose that idea appropriate when discussing the Alamo, but comparing a campaign to a battle in which all of the defenders fought to the literal death is pretty crass. Huckabee, if he loses, will simply go back to the comfortable life he had before running.

That’s all we have time for today, unfortunately. The day started late, and is ending early. Enjoy your weekend.

Word of the Day: Dissolute: (adjective): Loose in morals and conduct; marked by indulgence in sensual pleasures or vices.

On This Day in History: Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is published (1632). The Republican Party opens its first national meeting in Pittsburgh, PA (1856). The Serbian Kingdom is refounded (1882). In Lake Placid, New York, the US hockey team defeats the Soviet Union hockey team 4-3 in the Miracle on Ice, considered to be one of the greatest upsets in sports history (1980). It should be mentioned that this game was not celebrated in the Soviet Union, though the individual Soviet players were sportsmanlike. While the game was televised in the USSR, it was played at 0100 Moscow time. Communist Party officials were thus able to limit the news of the embarrassing defeat. Pravda didn’t even carry a game report or mention at all.

And last but not least, on this day seven years ago, a good friend of mine rose from the dead. Thanks for sticking around, Brother.

“…Eleven seconds, you’ve got ten seconds, the countdown going on right now! Morrow, up to Silk…five seconds lift in the game…Do you believe in miracles?! YES!!” – Sportscaster Al Michaels, as the crowd counts down in the Miracle on Ice. I get chills just typing it.

Morning Coffee (106)

Morning Coffee; brewed only with the finest Arabica beans that can be produced. And when I say Arabica beans, I mean the things I observe. It’s metaphorical, people.

There’s so much to discuss today, but unfortunately, I can’t dive into it with the zeal I would like. I would like to really get into analyzing these things as they are all very important. However, there’s not enough time to do so. And I’m afraid that one or multiple of the topics would end up boring you to tears. So, I’ll talk about each, and provide links for those who wish to read on their own. Maybe this weekend I’ll be able to revisit some of the below. Of course, if the temperatures remain in the negatives, I might be turned into a frozen blogger by then.

Navy Shoots Down Dave Matthews’ “Satellite”:

The USS Lake Erie, a US Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, successfully destroyed that errant US satellite last night. It was a unique test of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. No need to get into the nitty-gritty of this whole system, but basically, the USS Lake Erie and her sister ships are all part of a defense system designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. Or at least that’s the hope. The satellite posed a unique challenge to the system simply because the missile used to shoot down other missiles is guided by an infra-red seeker, which the press calls a “heat-seeking missile.” The satellite, see, doesn’t give off much heat. Nevertheless, the Navy crew destroyed the satellite with one shot. I figured that they might have to take another shot because of the uniqueness of this target. But they succeeded. One shot one kill. Go Navy.

If you’re not aware, the satellite was targeted for destruction because it failed to respond to commands immediately after it was deployed in December 2006. Because of this, it was going to reenter earth’s atmosphere in early March and the potential existed for lives to be lost somewhere in North America because the spacecraft still had roughly 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a highly toxic chemical used as a fuel. Allegedly, the fuel tank would survive reentry and the fuel contained within could contaminate an area equal to two football fields. That would not be good for Suzy and her family, as their lungs would be seared real good.

We should not assume that our government’s complete and total benevolence was the sole reason for shooting this satellite. Doing this does a number of things. One, it further tests our capabilities. The military has not engaged in anti-satellite weapons testing since 1989, when an F-15 flying at 80,000 fired a modified air-to-air missile at a target in space. So this was a test veiled as a real-world mission (although the mission was indeed valid – it was an unproven technology). Second, the Chinese in January 2007 successfully tested their own anti-satellite weapon, and received worldwide condemnation for it because it left something like 100,000 pieces of debris in orbit, which puts other space platforms at risk. This test was likely to send a message to the US that they could blind and cripple our space-based platforms if they chose to do so; basically telling the US to back off over the Taiwan issue. So the US test could easily be considered a response to that, reminding them that their space-based systems are also at risk. (The threat from debris as a result of the US test will be limited, as most of it will burn up upon reentry within two weeks – slightly different from the end result of the unannounced Chinese test.) These messages, which might seem to most people odd and overly subtle, even when placed in context, are quite significant and important when one considers the present set of circumstances. Taiwan holds elections in May. China fears an official Taiwanese declaration of independence, and has indicated that it would do what it deemed necessary to maintain the “One China” policy (which the US officially recognizes). This could mean using force to deal with the renegade province of Taiwan. However, the US is somewhat obligated to come to Taiwan’s aid. This is why nations engage in such subtle messaging.

It should be noted that the US decision to target the satellite has also been received with fairly universal condemnation, or at the very least, quiet chastisement even by allies. China and Russia have been most vocal, because they have the most to fear from an advanced US anti-satellite program. And they also have advanced ASAT programs. They hem and haw about a treaty to limit weapons in space (because it would, as they desire, limit US capabilities to assault their space-based systems) but the US refuses to discuss such a thing, and in turn they can damage US credibility by calling US policy hypocritical. Of course, the Chinese are fairly hypocritical as well. It would actually be sort of humorous if it weren’t so serious. The Chinese test a system, with no prior announcement, which greatly increased the amount of harmful space debris in orbit, and then screams bloody murder when the US does a similar thing albeit with significantly fewer side affects, and they do this screaming as if they did nothing a year ago. Using the Chinese’s logic on this issue, one could argue that the Chinese made the first move in the most recent debate on the weaponization of space, and have been trying to achieve the capability to kill US satellites for some time.

The Obamaic Religion:

I am almost sorry that I suggested that Ron Paul’s overly-zealous supporters’ behavior was cult-like. While Paul’s supporters are rabid in their support for Paul, tenacious and indiscriminate in spreading his message, and will eagerly engage in combative discussion with detractors, they can barely be considered cult-like in comparison to what the Obama Campaign. I’ve stated on more than one occasion that the media is becoming squeamish with the messianic tone that has been indulged in not only be supporters (proles and celebrities alike), but by the candidate and his official representatives as well.

There have been, in the last few weeks, dozens of articles posted in numerous venues about this phenomenon. Another was recently posted on Politico.com (Disclaimer: Poltico has been criticized by the left-wing blogosphere as being pro-Republican, however true that is, I do not know). In this article, Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings was quoted as saying as he introduced Obama to a crowd, “This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.” Apparently, the article contends, this sort of sentiment is not unusual.

• George Clooney to Charlie Rose: “He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere.”
• Halle Berry to the Philly Daily News: “I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

Statements of this type are worrisome, not because they’re exceptions to the rule when it comes to Obama’s supporters, but because they seem to be the rule. Halle Berry will clear a path for him through paper cups, which one would presume to be refuse rather than simply a bunch of clean cups placed there for the purpose of making Ms. Berry prove her allegiance to Obama. And George Clooney would surely ridicule anyone who said that they feel compelled to follow George Bush anywhere, and rightfully so. A proclamation such as that is grossly inappropriate when made in reference to someone you know only through his stump speeches and interviews on Larry King. This sort of zealotry is scary.

His opposition, Hillary Clinton rival for the Democratic nomination and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, have both contended that Obama is an eloquent peddler of empty speech void of substantive ideas, and that he has ridden a wave of euphoric followers who are made so solely by his flowery grandiloquence about a brand of change that can only be described as amorphous. I would wager that Obama’s potential as the President of the United States is somewhere in between Clinton’s and McCain’s suggestion and the hopes (or is it delusions?) of his supporters. And it’s unlikely that Obama himself believes the hype, because he’s recently begun to tell supporters that a President cannot do it by himself (maybe he’s trying to preempt the issue a bit). But surely, few men who seek such power will actively play down the feel-goodery and try to mitigate such euphoria in his followers; instead he’ll use it to his advantage, which while smart, is indicative of a power-hungry man. To know that he can’t be what they think he is but allow them to continue to believe it. However, if he does believe his own hype, he’s worse; he’s as deluded as his supporters.

Throwing your weight behind someone to this degree must represent nothing short of a Faustian Bargain; a deal with the devil. You’re sacrificing reality for the hope of a change which cannot be sufficiently described. Reality abandoned for “Change you can believe in.” You’re far too emotionally invested, and your hopes and dreams will be certifiably crushed when you inevitably realize that this man cannot possibly deliver on any of the things that he lets you think that he can. What, pray tell, will happen the first time Obama fails to “bring people together”? After all, this supposed, wondrous unifying ability is frequently the sole reason articulated by people when asked why they support the man. In fact, his political commercials, as I’ve discussed recently, reinforce this perception. But what happens when he fails to bring together the incredibly diverse personalities that make up our government? What happens when he is unable to effectively extricate the US military from the “illegal and immoral” war in Iraq? What happens, dear friends, when the hopes and dreams of Obama’s supporters are trampled on because Obama is unable (or unwilling (or both)) to usher in this change he speaks of so frequently? What then? I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be optimistic when it comes to someone new and exciting, but to suggest that you would follow the man anywhere or clean up garbage from his path is silly, especially given what we know of the man (which isn’t necessarily bad, but rather limited). I suppose that it would be grand to be able to throw your trust and faith so blindly behind something, without having to think. Just succumb to the feel-good vibes. But I cannot (or I’d be religious), and I hope that the rest of you do not do so in this case either. At the very least, the man should present to us a cogent, feasible plan before we allow him to be our President. Anything less is our failure.

I lied. Apparently, I dived with zeal. I had wanted to discuss some news about McCain that has recently come up, that being the possibility that he’s had lobbyist support, which goes against everything he’s said during this campaign. But today’s Coffee is pretty long (and late) so it’s best that I do it tomorrow. Besides, I haven’t fully been able to digest this news, as the Times article is difficult to follow.

Word of the Day: Factitious (adjective): Produced artificially, in distinction from what is produced by nature. 2. Artificial; not authentic or genuine; sham.

On This Day in History: Mikhail I is elected as Tsar unanimously, beginning the Romanov Dynasty of Imperial Russia (1613). The British government led by Winston Churchill abolishes ID cards in the US, “set[ting] the people free” (1952). And 55 years later, we’re going to implement our own.

“Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against.” – W.C. Fields.

Morning Coffee (105)

I woke up this morning to about 4 inches of light, fluffy white stuff on my truck. No, a Cessna filled with Colombian cocaine did not explode over my house. It was snow. And it was coming down. Of course, the city hadn’t yet bothered to mobilize the legions of snow plows, so the drive into work was like being a lone merchant vessel in the North Atlantic circa 1940; just waiting to take one to the keel. It never happened though, thankfully.

Delusional Change Someone Else Can Believe In (Revisited):

Talk about beating a dead horse. I was fortunate enough to hear the Obama commercial again this morning. The cute-girl-sounding announcer nearly has me convinced to vote for Obama on primary day. “Obama has a way of brining people together.” How? Where’s the proof? Give me an example. Alas, they do not. She says, as to why one might vote for Obama, “Maybe you want to end this war.” Then some teenager kid says to me, as if to illustrate the burning desire of all young people to end this “illegal, immoral war,” “Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning.” Great. Wow. Can you put that into context for me? For what reasons was he against the war? Was he against it for being against its sake? Would he support any war? In what ways would war be a valid option for Mr. Obama? I have a lot of questions for the freshman Senator from Illinois on foreign policy and war. None have ever been answered. (Of course us proles don’t get sit downs with Presidential candidates, even the ones who have a way of bringing people together.) Then Obama comes on, and I’m reminded of a portion of his ad that I forgot about yesterday. He says, in closing out his ad, “Believe in the dream we call America!” America’s a dream? Nobody told me! I’ve been living in a dream world my whole life and just now I find out about it. What’s worse, I’m told to believe in this “dream” in the same breath. Must America be merely a dream? Can it not be something far more substantive? I’m clearly being facetious here, but I hope you get my point. Flowery rhetoric is Obama’s forte. But what substance does he have? Is he any more substantive than the dreams of which he speaks? Obama wrote a book called, “Dreams from My Father.” Dreams is a prevailing theme in his speeches and one might think that dreams make up his entire political persona. No substance, just dreams. Dreams might make us feel good, but the do not solve or assuage reality. Sure, I like a forward thinker as much as the next man, but a man who dreams and doesn’t do…is that who we want as President? Flowery rhetoric and feel-goodery is just that.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, is apparently proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Go ahead, read it if you want. Barack’s excuse for her is…lacking. Hers was a poor choice of words.

McCain’s 100 Years War:

I don’t even want to talk about this whole thing, because it’s stupid. Obama’s campaign has unleashed the rhetoric-monsters on a fairly old McCain bit in which McCain made mention that it doesn’t matter how long we’re in Iraq so long as we succeed and we aren’t suffering casualties; even 100 years if necessary. I’ll be the first to admit that McCain’s phraseology was stupid. First of all, if we are, as McCain states, to “maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world,” we’d be suffering casualties, probably right up until the time we left. They may be minor, but we’d still lose men and women over there. I do see his point, that being that a secure Iraq is an important goal, and a set timeline is not something that is necessarily conducive to success. But the statement was dumb. And the Democrats seized on it. Now all you read about from the spokesmen of their campaigns is how McCain wants more than 100 years in Iraq, no matter what the topic is. He doesn’t “want” 100 or more years in Iraq. And they should remember, as McCain pointed out, that we’ve been in South Korea and Japan and Germany for quite a long time. There is an overwhelming precedent for long-term deployments of US troops overseas. What annoys me so is the misleading characterization that these political campaigns make on a daily basis, and on virtually every issue (tax cuts, anyone?).

Here’s the deal. McCain wants there to be a secure, stable Iraq, no matter the timeline. Success is the measure of success. Clinton wants the measure of success to be the withdrawal of all troops within 60 days of her election to the office of the President, no matter what that might mean for Iraq or the region. Obama would like to enact a “phased-redeployment” wherein all US forces are removed from Iraq by 31 March 2008. Getting involved in Iraq may have been a poor choice, but now that we’re there, we should make every effort to finish the job. I’ve written a great deal on the reasons for doing so, as some of you might remember. Not only are the pragmatic reasons, such as Iraq being secure from outside forces (Iran), important, but the more esoteric reasons like how we are perceived by the rest of the Muslim world are important as well. I’ve contended that leaving Iraq to its own fate after having annihilated its army, economy, and infrastructure and sewn the seeds of ethnic and religious violence is a terrible idea. A terrible one. If leaving Afghanistan to its own devices in 1991 was a bad idea that netted us 9/11, imagine how Iraq might turn out for us.

Cancer, Bacteria, Whatever:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends get their blights confused. Last week, one of his lackeys described Israel as a cancerous growth. Today, Mahmoud has described it as bacteria. Not just any bacteria, but filthy bacteria. He says, “The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.” I love propaganda. Such beautiful prose. Like a wild beast. Lashing out. Filthy bacteria. As humorous as his bloviating sounds, we should remember that most people attempt to eradicate such things as cancer and filthy bacteria. Hell, one of the chief methods of eliminating cancer is radiation. You know where you get radiation? Enriched uranium. Know what you can do with uranium? Make nukes. Nukes kill cancer. I’m unaware as to whether or not the Iranian regime is working on antibiotic-tipped missiles, but they may be doing just that. If so, we know what their intentions are, don’t we?

Ahmadinejad later says that Israel “uses terror as a threat every day, and afterwards is happy and joyful.” This in response to the actions against the pink mist that was Hezbollah chief Imad Moughniyeh. Iran doesn’t do terror. Nope. No way. Not on your life. Unless of course you consider a little thing like bankrolling Hezbollah as, I don’t know, supporting terror every day. Or kidnapping British Marines right off the Persian Gulf. Twice. Nah, Iran does not support or condone any form of terrorism. And if I get cancer, I know where I’m going: Bushehr.

Castro Steps Down:

After nearly 50 years of rule, Fidel Castro has stepped down as the President of Cuba. Castro had been in power since 1959. I haven’t really anything remarkable to add to this event, as it doesn’t appear that much will change in Cuba right away. Castro’s brother Raul will take over. There’s hope, as Raul has indicated that things need to change in Cuba, but I doubt much will happen while Fidel is still alive. Anyway, I just figured I’d mention it if some of you only get your news from the MC (which would be a bad thing).

A hearty Happy Birthday to our US Postal Service, which celebrates its 215th birthday today. The Postal Service Act was signed by George Washington in 1792. Let’s test your unofficial motto and see if I get my mail today.

Word of the Day: Ersatz (adjective): Being a substitute or imitation, usually an inferior one. We are presented with ersatz Presidential candidates.

On This Day in History: Congress proposes the Twenty-First Amendment, which will end Prohibition (1933). Good idea Congress. Movie studio executives agree to allow the Office of War Information to censor movies (1943). John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the earth (1962). Marilisa Xenogiannakopoulou, a Greek politician, and current record holder for the person with the longest name to receive an MC mention was born (1963). Kurt Cobain was born (1967).

“It is possible to provide security against other ills, but as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls.” – Epicurus.

Morning Coffee (104)

As I drove this morning, I noticed something in the sky. It was very low, and I could barely make it out through the trees. But I could see that it was sort of pale orange, and quite large. At first, I thought it was some sort of strange light, maybe some advertisement to a store or something. It was so odd looking that I uttered aloud, “What the hell is that?” As I pulled into a parking lot, I continued to look it occurred to me that it might be the moon. Turns out it was. It was pretty much the biggest, weirdest looking moon I’ve ever seen and I wish that I had the opportunity to sit and watch it. Of course, it was colder than hell, so sitting in my truck would have been the order of the day, but still. It would be nice to sit and enjoy nature once in a while. Someday perhaps.

Speaking of the moon, there will be a lunar eclipse in the western hemisphere late Wednesday and early Thursday. This is allegedly a recreation of the eclipse that saved Christopher Columbus in 1504. See, the locals were getting a little upset with Columbus and his pals mooching off them. They were always coming over unannounced and drinking the natives’ beer and eating their food while watching football games, but they never seemed to bring anything to share. Sometimes they’d borrow the tribe’s lawnmower or weedwacker and not return them for weeks, and the tribe’s grass would grow so high that the little native babies would get lost. The final straw came when Columbus’s first mate spliced the native’s cable line and began stealing cable and the next day broke their encrypted Time-Warner wireless internet account. Chief Nahgonnatakenoguff confronted Columbus about it and said that his tribe was pretty much fed up and would start killing, cooking, and then eating Columbus’s crew, starting with Columbus himself. Columbus, after a bit of nervous hand-wringing, consulted his trusty German mathematician-created astronomical almanac and saw that a total eclipse would take place on 29 Feb. Armed with this bit of European technology, Columbus began Operation NATIVE DUPE. He called up the Chief and told him that if he and his tribe didn’t start being more friendly to the white men of his tribe, he (Columbus) would make the moon disappear the next night. They were understandably skeptical of such a boast. However, Columbus was good to his word, thanks be to German mathematics. He did make the moon disappear. The Chief’s son, Cowedbydaman, leapt up in fear, wrapped his scrawny arms around Columbus’s legs, and begged him to make the moon reappear. Not wanting to disappoint, and having no choice, he acquiesced and the moon soon reappeared, to the delight of the natives (and the tides). Needless to say, Columbus and his men had all the free cable and chicken wings for which they could ask, and were rescued on 29 June of that same year. The natives got theirs in the end, however. When more white men landed on the New World, the natives proved elusive; moving westward; never letting the Europeans accomplish their unspoken, burning goal of completely eradiating them. I can’t help but wonder what would have happened had some bright young native simply said, “Wait a minute, Christopher. Do it again tomorrow night!”

Nevertheless, I will test this method of coercion. At 0900, I will march into my boss’s office and demand a raise and a promotion, or I’ll make the moon disappear tomorrow night. Being the superstitious man that he is, I suspect that my psychological operation will work and that I will be promoted by the end of the week.

Believe in this Campaign, AND Yourself!:

This morning, in addition to the wonders of nature, I observed the wonders of man and his impressive capacity for self-delusion. By this I mean I heard an Obama advertisement. In it, some young woman was saying something about going out to vote or something. But then, Obama himself came on the air. It was a recorded segment of some speech he gave somewhere (probably more than once). He asked me to believe in his campaign. He asked me to believe in myself. And then he threw in America, for good measure. The problem for me is, well, I already believe in myself. And if our collective self-esteem is as such that we need a campaign and a Presidential candidate to tell us to believe in ourselves, then we’ve got problems. Seriously, this is his message. Notice that that is not a question. It’s a statement. THIS is his message. His campaign is more about his campaign than it is anything else, and one has to wonder if there isn’t some sort of messianic complex going on.

His main campaign slogan is, “Change we can believe in.” That’s it. Just change we can believe in. Anyone can get behind that. I mean, it’s change, and change is good. But is it really? In what context is this change? What sort of change are we talking about? Or maybe they’re just stating the obvious; the fact that in 2009 we’ll have a new President. Political slogans like this, void of any substance whatsoever, make me slightly ill. Or maybe it’s the antibiotics I’m taking. Or a combination of both. Either way, if Obama wants to talk about change, there are a number of issues he can get onboard with. Let’s start with term limits and work from there. Come on Obama. That’s some Change I Can Believe In.

As an aside, Clinton accused Obama of plagiarism of an excellent speech by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Portions of Obama’s speech were remarkably similar, and the delivery wasn’t nearly as good. For as good as Obama is at speaking, I guess he should stick to his own material if that’s how he’s going to butcher the “borrowed” material. Anyway, Obama’s campaign then accused Clinton of plagiarism and the whine fest ensued. For what it’s worth, Patrick says he and Obama share material. Neat. How’s that for Change?

Alley Cat Scratched Wrong Post:

Kirstie Alley recently gave the Church of Scientology $5 million; money she earned as the spokeswoman for Jenny Craig. She apparently then gained some weight, and was promptly dumped by Jenny Craig. Perhaps she should have thought twice about giving all that cash to the Church of Scientology because she might need it. Maybe the Church will feed her. Or not. Big feed bill. Okay, that was a little low for this faux publication.

Word of the Day: Abominate (transitive verb): To hate in the highest degree; to detest intensely; to loathe; to abhor. Holy cow. I can’t believe I missed this word.

On This Day in History: Roman Emperor Setimius Severus defeats the usurper Clodius Albinus in the Battle of Lugdunum (modern Lyon, France) (197 CE). This was said to be the bloodiest battle between Roman forces. Cassius Dio, a Roman historian, claims that the numbers involved were approximately 150,000 on each side. This is disputed, as 300,000 is about three-quarters of the entire number of Roman soldiers in the empire at the time. Serfdom is abolished in Russia (1861). The phonograph is patented by Thomas Edison (1878).

“Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.' Just words? Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words?...” - Gov. Patrick (Oct 2006).

"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? Just speeches?" – Barack Obama (November 2008).

Morning Coffee (103)

It's a great day to be a Coffee drinker, no? A lovely Monday morning.

I am pleased today for two reasons. One, Spring Training has recently started. Baseball is a great love of mine, and I dare say a lot of people in the US. Unfortunately, this offseason has been one of distraction, what with the Mitchell Report and steroids and Roger Clemens. But it's time to start anew. Baseball is like that. Every year, the moment pitchers and catchers report to camp, you get to forget about the disappointments of last year. Spring Training represents eternal optimism; every team is a contender (for the short term). You never know what sort of magic will take place throughout the next 8 months. What records will be broken. What amazing performances you'll witness. Sure, there are a lot of problems with baseball. Skyrocketing salaries, made by young men to play a game, amounts which the common man cannot even appreciate let alone identify with. And of course steroids and accusations which have brought low our heroes. Ticket prices that are prohibitive for the aforementioned common man. Convoluted rules about blackouts for cable TV sports packages. But none of these things put a damper on the elation I feel when I think about Spring Training.

Another reason to be joyous today is the death of Imad Moughniyah, who was formerly Hezbollah's guerrilla commander. Being Hezbollah's guerrilla commander will probably net you a few enemies, and someone assassinated him. In fact, Moughniyah was among the illustrious Most Wanted by the United States. Why would someone who you've never heard of be on such a list? If you're old enough, of if you're a US Marine, you might remember the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983. Moughniyah assisted in the planning and execution of that attack, and another executed that day.

On 23 October, a man drove a truck full of the equivalent of 12,000 pounds of explosives towards the Marine Barracks in Beirut. The Marine sentries, under restrictive rules of engagement, were unable to quickly respond to the threat, and the suicide bombing successfully detonated his explosives after crashing the gate and plowing the truck into the front of the building. The four story building collapsed, killing 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers. Sixty other men were injured. This was the single deadliest day for the US Marine Corps since Iwo Jima. Two minutes after this blast, a similar attack took place against a French barracks about 4 miles away leading to the deaths of 58 French soldiers. This was arguably the first time that a modern terrorist organization caused a radical shift in a nation's foreign policy. Despite public insistences that US forces would remain, the Marines were withdrawn four months after the attack (after they had already been moved off-shore) and by April, the remaining Multinational Forces had been withdrawn. Taking this into consideration, and including the Mogadishu debacle, is it any wonder these groups are so certain that they can defeat the US?

Regardless of the outcome of those attacks, Moughniyah obviously continued his dastardly ways and eventually paid for it. I know some people might think that you should never wish for someone's death. However, even if this were true, I'd make an exception for Moughniyah. I'd rather he have suffered a bit more; a car bombing might have been a little too quick and painless. But he's gone now, and Hezbollah is weaker for it. This is a good thing. (Remember, Hezbollah is closely affiliated with a country called Iran.)

In less somber news, the community of nations welcomed a new member into its ranks yesterday as Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. By all accounts, Kosovars took to the streets to celebrate. Can you imagine how they must feel? They have a long road ahead of them. While the US, France, Britain, and Germany have announced recognition of Kosovo today, Russia and China are very much against recognition, and Russia is a long-time supporter of Serbia, which still regards the newly formed Republic of Kosovo as part of its territory. I wish them luck, and I hope they find their independence to be fulfilling.

A very short Coffee, I know. Consider it to be a cup of Italian cappuccino or something similar: small but potents. Well, the potency of this Coffee is up for debate.

Word of the Day: Sine qua non (sin-ih-kwah-NON) (noun): An essential condition or element; an indispensable thing.

On This Day in History: The first ongoing filibuster in the US Senate begins (1841). This lasts until 11 March. The Lincoln Country War between ranchers and the owners of a general stroe begins in Lincoln Country, New Mexico. A young man by the name of William Henry McCarty, alias William H. Bonney, alias William Antrim, alias Billy the Kid, was a participant in this war on the side of the ranchers. Snow fell in the Sahara Desert in southern Algeria for the first and only time in recorded history (1979). (1878).

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. - Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Morning Coffee (102)

I know, I know, fellow Coffee drinkers. I have been in contempt recently, for I’ve failed to deliver a steady supply of delicious Brew. Regrettably, I came down with quite the illness during the past week; I had a debilitating combination of the Plague, a cold, the flu, Ebola, hoof and mouth disease, SARS, gout, West Nile virus, and rheumatoid arthritis. I was in no condition to Brew much less breath. I feared for my life on several occasions.

There was a veritable short ton of material about which to write, and I diligently saved links and ideas so I could discuss them with you. However, most of it is now “OBE” or overcome by events, so there’s little point in bothering now. It’s tragic, really, because I enjoy our time together. And frankly, ranting about the world’s absurdity is a good way to stay sane.

The Dying Democracy of the Democrat:

Perhaps you’ve heard about these supreme beings called “superdelagates”, a strictly Democrat idea. The creation of these things is rather simple: the Democratic Party wanted the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) composition to be less dependent on the will of party leadership and more reflective of the votes the common man cast. Of course, party leadership felt that these changes might have crimped their power and influence a little too much, so they created superdelagates. Where regular delegates (attendees to the DNC) are selected by the voters, superdelegates are not and are free to support whoever they want. Since the Democratic nomination is so tight this year, the superdelegates might play “king-maker.” By that I mean they will have the ability to select the nomination, somewhat usurping the role from the people. Remember, superdelegates can support whoever they want; they’re not beholden to the will of the people.

Some, however, are probably beholden to one of the candidates. These superdelegates are usually elected officials. Elected officials like campaign donations because as we all know, money rules the day when it comes to candidate viability in elections. So, it’s feasible that some of these superdelegates could be, I don’t know, influenced by certain campaign donors to vote/support one candidate over the other because he or she happened to slip some cash into the super’s pocket. You know, to support their reelection. It just so happens that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done just that with a number of superdelegates. The point is made in that article that handing out cash to individual voters or the delegates pledged to represent the voters’ wills would be considered somewhat tasteless, if not illegal, in our democratic process, doing the same to other elected officials who happened to be superdelegates to help these supers in their own elections isn’t so bad. It can’t be. Since Obama and Hillary have donated a total of $890,000 to superdelegates in the past few years. Obama’s political action committee has given $694,000 since 2005, and has 81 superdelegates who’ve pledged support to him. Of those 81, 34 were the recipients of $228,000.

Surely not all superdelegates are so easily swayed. I don’t doubt that some of them are moral and objective (well, reasonably so). But the old adage “money talks” must apply here as well. Some of these delegates will pledge support to someone in a dance of political favors. (Speaking of political favors, Bill Clinton recently yelled at Bill Richardson for his not supporting Hillary – asking him if two cabinet posts wasn’t enough. Richardson was a two-time Cabinet appointee of Bill Clintons.)

I’m bothered by the superdelegate issue for two reasons. One, as previously mentioned these delegates simply don’t have to cast their vote towards the candidate that the people want. They can vote for whomever. That’s placing yet another barrier between the people and the selection of their President. Two, these delegates can be bought, because they’re not required to represent the people, and because most of them are party or other elected officials and while it’s not bribery, campaign donations surely influences one’s decision about who to support. Must we really have more non-representative steps in our processes?

In fairness, the Republicans also have non-pledged delegates. But while non-pledged superdelegates make up approximately one-fifth of the 4,049 votes at the DNC, the Republican superdelegate total consists only of the 123 members of the RNC. This is out of 2,380 delegates. The likelihood of the DNC supers making a difference is much greater.

Frankly, superdelegates as a whole make me a little ill. Not being beholden to the will of the people is bad enough, but they get a disproportionate amount of power when it comes to electing a President. They can cast their delegate vote to whomever they wish, and then they get to vote in the general election, not to mention that they may influence voters simply by the virtue of their offices and ability to nominate and thus endorse a candidate.

And you thought this was a democracy. Well, it is, sort of. Loosely. In a way.

Mao: The Generous One:

Chairman Mao Zedong was concerned that his country was poor, and had little to offer the US in the way of trade. So he came up with an interesting proposition, which he posed to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973. He offered what he had a surplus of: Chinese women. He offered to “give a few” to the US. Tens of thousands. A few minutes later in the meeting, he came back to that issue and offered Kissinger 10 million Chinese women. Mao stated to Kissinger that they had too many women, and these women birthed too many children. Kissinger did the only thing he could do in the situation without embarrassing Mao: he said that it was such a novel proposition that “we will have to study it.” Could you imagine being a fly on the wall in those negotiations?

Word of the Day: Ennui (on-WEE) (noun): A feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction arising from lack of interest; boredom.

On This Day in History: The USS Maine sinks in Havana harbor, which leads to the Spanish-American War (1898). Does anyone remember that ship, what was it, the Maine? The Soviet Union officially announces that it has completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (1989).

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.

Morning Coffee (101)

Good day, fellow Coffee drinkers. I troll a lot of internet during the day, and throughout my journeys I read a lot of things that really annoy me and some that actually make me angry. There are, of course, the general idiots who post poorly thought out comments at the bottom of articles. There are partisan pundits who write the disingenuous garbage that these people reply to. These pundits are so arrogant (or sloppy) that they even cite sources that negate their claims or expose their claims as misleading. I can’t really do anything about all this except maybe point out some of the most egregious examples from time to time. But there are a number of little things that I see weaved throughout all of these articles and posts that I must discuss with you a little. Individually, they’re little more than minor irritants. But when you see article after article and comment after comment using the same wording, it can drive you mad. So here are a few things that have succeeded in incurring my ire.

“The emperor has no clothes.” This is a big liberal catch phrase and it is liberally applied to Bush. The story is that the emperor is somewhat delusional and he insists that he’s wearing lovely robes and clothes when he’s in fact nude. No one dares to point this out. But a young boy, upon hearing the citizenry fawn over the emperor’s clothes, states simply that “the emperor has no clothes.” See, he’s all innocent and such and is pointing out the obvious whereas no one else dares to. Please, stop using this phrase. It wasn’t even that funny when it was first uttered. I get your point in using it on Bush, but come on. Come up with something new.

Lately, I’ve seen the term “fascist” used when describing liberals. I realize that it’s become somewhat of a slur against an opposing political party, but it is nonsense. I can better understand (but don’t condone) the use of more general insults, because using an existing ideology to describe another ideology is inane. The term is inherently negative, and is used not because it even remotely accurately describes liberalism but because it paints liberalism in the light of Hitler and Mussolini. Some aspects of liberal ideology might sound as if they’re similar to those of fascism, but that’s not the point, and if it was the point, it would still be a false comparison. Pundits and uninformed citizens use it solely because it sounds really bad. What’s ironic is that it has mostly been used to describe those on the right wing of the political spectrum.

Take the previous paragraph and substitute the term “fascist” with “Nazi” or “Islamofascist” and you have the same complaint. This is how hate speech starts. Hate crimes aren’t far behind.

You’ve all read about someone who “parties like a rock star” or is just plain “like a rock star.” But they’re not. They’re not rock stars and everyone knows this. They don’t party like rock stars, and they aren’t “like rock stars.” So why are these phrases being used (over and over and over again)? Nobel laureate Al Gore has been described in this manner. “Al Gore is like a rock star nowadays…” Al Gore is most certainly not a rock star. Sure, he’s popular right now, and he travels a lot and a lot of people want to see him give (boring) speeches (like they didn’t get enough of Mr. Personality in 2000). But that doesn’t make him a like a rock star. Similarly, Obama is not a rock star. He’s a politician. He’s charismatic, sure. But not a rock star. When the likes of Al Gore and Barack Obama start playing guitar, recording in a studio their own music, drinking heavily, snorting cocaine, traveling with an entourage of gorgeous women and roadies, then you’re more than welcome to describe them as rock stars. Until then, can we come up with a more appropriate descriptor? They’ve exhibited virtually none of the characteristics attributed to rock stars save the ability to draw a crowd and get paid for standing on a stage from time to time. Thus, not rock stars. Not even “like” rock stars or “sorta” rock star-ish.

For those of you who do not read much, you might not know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Surely you know of someone named Hussein, and I’ll bet he’s not a Boy Scout (Saddam?). Well, some people on the right take joy in referring to Obama by his middle name. I’ve seen “B. Hussein Obama” in more than one posting on websites. They do this to really illustrate to you what they perceive is his disconnection with mainstream America. They’ll also misspell his last name “Osama.” Wow. Talk about amateur. They claim that he’s Muslim. No, they assert that he’s Muslim, they don’t claim it. They do this as though he’s all one big lie and give the impression that they think that maybe he’s an al-Qaida sleeper agent, and they use his middle name exclusively to tie him to Islam. They say that he lived in Indonesia when he was young (true) and that he was educated in a madrassa (false). This is all very dumb. At the very least, I wish they would discredit him substantively; point out that he wouldn’t be a good President and why. Don’t resort to such smear tactics. When you refer to a viable Presidential candidate by his middle name to produce images of a totalitarian Middle Eastern leader, it makes your opinion meaningless.

The incessant comparisons to or wishing for past leaders in this race are making me ill. Obama is not the second coming of John Kennedy. Ronald Reagan will never again be. Asking any candidate to be these men, or comparing them to these men, is pointless. JFK and Reagan have become idols in our minds, and like all idols, we’ve forgotten (well, the worshipers have) about their faults, of which there were many for both men. JFK had more foreign policy experience in his right pinky finger by the time he ran for President than Obama will probably ever have. Even with that experience, he mucked up the Bay of Pigs pretty good. Do I really want a guy in office with less experience dealing with an arguably bigger issue? The Kennedy Administration also backed a coup in Iraq in 1963, which happened to allow a certain Baath Party to take power. Maybe the comparisons should stop, for the sake of Obama’s candidacy. Supporters say that it’s the hope for change that Obama brings to the table, just like JFK. Change, change, change. That’s all you hear about Obama’s campaign. What sort of change are we getting? Who knows?

And the Reagan issue? Well, I’ve discussed it before I think. If not, well, in short the whole “I’m a Reagan Revolution foot soldier” bit with McCain needs to stop.

Obama looks towards the future looking towards the past. McCain does the same with more emphasis on the past. It’s sickening. Can we have someone who has their own ideas? Does Obama have any ideas at all? We know McCain does, and he bucks the conservative system which makes conservatives mad (hence his insistence that he’s the new Reagan), but are his new ideas just going to be regurgitations of Reagan’s?

Funny Side Story: Amy Winehouse was denied a visa to come to the US to perform at the Grammy’s. It makes me laugh inside.

Political Update:

Yesterday Romney “suspended” his campaign, which actually shocked me. He says he did it so that McCain wouldn’t take too much of a battering before the general election in November. Noble of him…pundits say that he is setting his sights on a run in 2012. Read what Obama said about his campaign after Romney gave his reasons for the suspension (which was a swipe at the Dems). Also, read this ABC News blog on the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign. You’re going to have to read for yourselves today; no biting analysis from me. I’m finished; stick a fork in me.

Word of the Day: Aberrant (adjective): Markedly different from an accepted norm; Deviating from the ordinary or natural type; abnormal.

On This Day in History: Mary, Queen of Scots was executed (1587). She was suspected of being involved in a plot to murder her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England. A doctor in Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony, suggests that two girls may be suffering from bewitchment, which led to the Salem witch trials (1692).

“All of us failed to match our dreams of perfection. So I rate us on the basis of our splendid failure to do the impossible.” – William Faulkner.