Man in the Street

The FISA Disaster

2008-07-13T18:16:00.000-07:00

So, as pointed out below, the Bush Administration with the acquiescent Senate of Harry Reid, has effectively turned the Fourth Amendment (already tottering from 20- odd years of the Drug War) into a relic of what once was. For those who are interested in the what, how, why, and when questions, we are blessed witth the superb work of Selise and emptywheel. If you want to know, and not avert your eyes or seek solace in ignorance, then start here:

Looking Back on FISA's Year in the House.

The FISA Loss: Recommendations for the Future.

I truly begin to question how much of this police-state-ness is reversible, even with leadership that has the best intensions. With substandard leadership...

The Class War?

2008-07-13T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Class War is over, and you lost.
Now comes the occupation.

How Liberty Dies...

2008-07-09T13:29:00.000-07:00

(h/t to Daniel)

And that is just how it happened today, July 9th, 2008, the day the Fourth Amendment died, by a 69-28 vote in the US Senate.

Malignant Reaganoma

2008-06-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

Ringing speech, isn't it?

"Government is not the solution to the problem-government is the problem."

This is the ethic that forms the cornerstone of the current Republican party in the US, in several ways, and it comes directly from the mouth of Ronald Reagan. While I consider the Reagan Administration a disaster for this country, based on the decline in race relation that characterized the times, the S&L debacle, the terrorist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, creating the mujahedin that became al-Queda, trillions in debt, the Iran-Contra affair, CIA drug smuggling, the creation of the secret-police infrastructure, selling chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, ignoring the AIDS crisis, dismantling the clean-energy initiatives put in place in the late '70's, and the dismantling of the middle class, all of that may not include the worst of it. I believe the previous well makes the case for "disaster" status...but I would like to discuss what may turn out to be his most toxic and long-lived influence: his philosophical legacy, best expressed by the "government is the problem" bumper-sticker soundbite. It is the philosophical foundation behind the disturbing symbolism of Reagan ally and lobbyist Grover Norquist : "I...want to reduce it [the government]to the size where I can...drown it in the bathtub."

Creepy. And the funny thing is, nobody treats this guy like someone who has just said, "I want to destroy the U.S. Government, but I'll settle for torturing it to death." Let us note something else-no political theorist in their right mind can truly argue that this is a conservative position. Conservatism acknowledges government as a necessary evil, some thing to be kept carefully in check, while serving to defend the coasts, deliver the mail, and provide a level playing field for business. The reason the Reagan/Norquist ideal cannot be defended as a conservative position is because it is not. It is a radical position, espoused by radicals, as surely as the stated plans of those radicals in the SDS, Weatherman, and SLA thirty-five or so years ago were radical. The biggest difference between the two in my eyes is, unlike those wild-eyed New Leftists who thought the Soviet System was IT, the children of Reagan and Norquist want to replace the elected, publicly accountable government as regulator with an unelected, unaccountable, unregulated, government-by-corporation, where the "invisible hand of the market" will decide who gets what services.

So, if this is your position, how do you create this reality? I don't mean, how do you seize power, steal elections, stack the courts, or exempt yourself from the law-although all that certainly helps. How do you generate privatization? How do you prove yourself right? Two methods- "starve the beast", which dries up the resources and leaves little alternative to privatization; and sabotage the operations of the recipients, to undermine public confidence in the institution and weaken public resistance. This is accomplished either by overtly bringing in people dedicated to dismantling the government's regulatory authority, or by turning operations over to incompetent political appointees.

People like, oh, Michael Brown.

You remember him, right?

Brown was a commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, a position he was forced to resign. He landed on his feet, though-he had people. After the election of 2000, remember, Bush essentially gave FEMA to his 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, as a political payoff. Allbaugh then had his old college roommate, "Brownie", installed into first the general counsel position at FEMA, and then the Deputy Director position, the number-two job at FEMA.

A horse show commissioner. A stellar background for a career in emergency management.

Anyway, Allbaugh resigned shortly after Brownie's confirmation, to become a blood-sucking war profiteer in Iraq, selling access to the CPA-and Brownie was installed as the director of FEMA.
We all know what happened next-Katrina came to New Orleans, and the hundreds who died there from lack of an adequate response from FEMA cry out for justice before the Altar of Judgment.

Why is this kind of thing acceptable, even desirable, for a "drown-it-in-the-bathtub" radic-con?

Because it makes the point. The ghost of Ronald Reagan can now stand over the GOP and wail, "See? Government doesn't work! Government was obviously the problem in New Orleans, not the solution! All those people died because they had been made dependent by the welfare state! Government has no business in emergency management-it should be the domain of the private sector. States or cities could contract for services, and companies could compete! It would create jobs, lower costs, and be more efficient...". And so on-that it's mostly bullshit hasn't stopped it from becoming standard-one can see the model all over the place, if one goes looking. Blackwater is a good place to start, before moving on to the privatization of our intelligence agencies.

So it comes full circle. The Republican Party, recreated in the supposed image of Ronald Reagan, has become something truly unique. It has become, in essence, a party with a vested interest in governing badly, in order to prove their point that government doesn't work and is the problem.
A political party that governs badly, on purpose, in order to further feed its power bases-the very corporate entities with which government functions are being merged.

Hmmm. Interesting historical echo: Benito Mussolini once said "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Mussolini would be proud.

The Republican Party, and its enablers and allies in the Democratic Party, has become a cancer. A malignant Reaganoma, growing on the body politic, eating our freedom and excreting fascism.

I blame Reagan.

P.S.: This post is dedicated to my friends Mike, Ashley, and Mary, (who helped me through a difficult time), and James, who asked the question.

The Secret History of the Gulf War

2008-05-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

Greetings all...Wow. I don't really have a lot to add to this, other than to encourage all to check it out immediately. Just a staggeringly comprehensive history, with much info rarely mentioned elsewhere (and aren't we all suckers for that?). Courtesy of those wonderful subversives at The Memory Hole.

The Gulf War: Secret History by William Arkin

P.S.: I would like to welcome the Armchair Admiral from Information Dissemination to the blogroll. This is an excellent, informative site dedicated to the activities of the US Navy, and, for hard information and analysis, I encourage all to check it out.

P.P.S: Check out Man in the Street's new feature, up near the top left of the page, called Where are the Carriers? This page keeps a continually-updated list of all US carrier deployments, for those who like to play RISK (or read tea leaves). Enjoy!

On Taking It to the Streets

2008-04-18T11:33:00.000-07:00

Man, have I been having fun with this report from the Navy.

Okay, "fun" is probably not the right word...not when a careful reading of how diplomacy should be conducted (if one wishes to avoid war) leads to the strong implication that the US wants war with Iran (and is probably going to get it), as I explore here. No, fun is not the right word...it's just so strange to come across something that seems so intellectually honest. It's comforting to know that somewhere, someone is crunching the data who isn't "fixing the facts around the policy". Sad, too-that the simple act of an analyst trying to do his job should be so noteworthy.

Anyway...the report I am referencing comes from the US Navy's Center for Contemporary Conflict, and the primary focus of it is to consider all the factors that led to the end of the Cold War (as opposed to the knee-jerk Reagan-worship that characterizes so much of US history of the era). The section I will be focusing on here is about the role of peace and human-rights campaigns, and their effectiveness.

As an activist, it can be very difficult to maintain one's sense of hope. Activists in this nation for the last forty years have been blamed for every variety of pathology that has afflicted the American body politic-from the widely-accepted talking point that says American protesters, fueled by the media, undermined US troops in Vietnam and "lost" the Vietnam War. Protesters are blamed (or credited) for freezing the US nuclear power industry. Protest movements against environmental destruction are blamed for the lack of newly-constructed oil refineries in the US, and thus blamed for high gas prices today. Protesters against apartheid in South Africa were routinely mocked and ridiculed, even as the US government was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist. And the protests against the atrocities carried out during the covert war in Central America, by the pro-government death squads in El Salvador, and by the anti-Sandinista Contra terrorist army in Nicaragua-those were like nothing I had seen in this country since Vietnam, and they were treated the same way: with mockery and derision in the State Media, with surveillance and infiltration by the FBI, and with tear gas and rubber bullets in the streets.

So why protest? Why put oneself through it?...

Because it works. From the Navy:

In response to the development of new nuclear weapon systems... and statements by Reagan...suggesting the United States could... win a nuclear war, massive protest movements arose in both Western Europe and the United States. These movements sought an end to... the nuclear arms race. Reflecting this focus, in the United States the campaign emphasized the call for a bilateral "freeze" in nuclear weapons development. It may sound strange to give some credit for ending the Cold War to both Reagan and his most vociferous opponents, but there is good reason to do so. The peace movements of the 1980's did not succeed in getting their explicit policy demands adopted...However, they did succeed in moderating Western policy. In response to the peace movement's success in appealing to public opinion..Reagan...ceased all rhetoric suggesting the idea of a winnable nuclear war; instead, President Reagan began speaking regularly about his own concerns regarding the dangers of nuclear weapons. In addition, the United States entered new nuclear arms talks earlier than the Reagan administration had originally intended, and, after talks broke down in fall 1983, the administration worked to ensure talks would resume again as soon as possible.

You mean...protest movements DID help end the Cold War?

Another, even more important strand of grassroots activity was centered in Eastern Europe... The efforts of groups like Solidarity in Poland and Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia paved the way for the revolutions of 1989 that swept away the existing Communist rulers across Eastern Europe. The most decisive events in ending the Cold War...took place on the ground in Eastern Europe. The citizens of these countries who organized and participated in these events have the most obvious, direct links to the crumbling of the Soviet bloc, so their contribution to the end of the Cold War should not be underestimated...Gorbachev's response to these events was also critically important. In the past, most notably in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union had responded to stirrings of independence in its satellites with military intervention. In 1989, Gorbachev made it clear that the Soviet Union would not use its military to assist the Communist governments in these countries in suppressing the opposition movements. This decision had nothing to do, at least directly, with U.S. strength... In fact, many of the ideas and proposals embraced by Gorbachev had their origins in liberal-leaning Western NGOs and research institutes and were transmitted to the Soviet leader through transnational channels rather than through government-to-government communication...

So...protests DO work. Activism works. All that marching, protesting, demanding accountability...WORKS. Not only does it work to end unjust policies, it works to encourage just policy. So to all of you working to end the occupation of Iraq and the tide of "friendly fascism" here at home, be of good cheer. It will work. Know that you are doing the right thing, and in a way that will actually accomplish something good.

Diplomacy, and the Coming War with Iran

2008-04-12T16:52:00.000-07:00

(Updated)

And now, events begin to accelerate...

I've been reading some interesting analysis from the US Navy, in particular this. While the document itself is a look at the Reagan-era Cold War, the part I'm excerpting is a general look at diplomatic theory, that, to me, seems particulary relelvant to our ongoing war of nerves with Iran:

This research suggests that a purely hard-line strategy aimed at forcing the other state out of existence is unlikely to be successful...Coercive diplomacy is a strategy that employs threats, especially military threats, to pressure a target state to change its behavior. Research...finds that the strategy fails much more often than it succeeds...Coercion is especially unlikely to succeed when the other side would threaten its survival by giving in to the demands placed on it...
In contrast to coercive diplomacy, which seeks to stop or change a course of action already underway, deterrence seeks to prevent an action from being initiated by threatening to impose costs on the target state if it takes that action...the most powerful threat the deterrer can issue is the threat to eliminate the ruling regime in the other state.

So...coercive diplomacy is threatening them to change their behavior, and deterrence is threatening them if they change their behavior.

For this deterrent... to work, the target state must have assurance that, as long as it does not take the action being deterred, it will not suffer the threatened punishment...If the deterrer announces plans to try to change the regime in the other state whether or not it acts aggressively, then the other side has no incentive to be deterred. Without the assurance that the regime will be permitted to survive if it behaves itself, the target state might as well take a chance on obtaining the benefits of aggression... an expressed intent of forcing the other side's collapse undermines the chances that coercive diplomacy will lead to behavior modification. Without an assurance that a change in behavior will result in the lifting of the coercive pressure, why would any state give in? In contrast, coercive diplomacy is more likely to succeed when it is accompanied by positive incentives...The net benefits of changing its behavior are made greater if, in addition to the lifting of coercive pressure, the target state can also obtain new, positive rewards. This also provides a degree of face saving for the other side, which can claim it accepted a bargain and did not simply cave in to outside pressure. Coercion is most likely to be effective, therefore, if it seeks to change the other side's behavior without seeking to cause the other side's collapse and it includes the promise of positive benefits...

So. A stick and a carrot. The classic tools of conditioning. Let's look at this a little more closely. And any effort to coerce is more likely to succeed if accompanied by an opportunity.

For this deterrent threat to work, the target state must have assurance that, as long as it does not take the action being deterred, it will not suffer the threatened punishment.

Therefore, if we were truly trying to change Iran's behavior, we would be offering some positive re-inforcement, negotiations, perhaps the groundwork for some sort of diplomatic reconciliation, or something else-but something. We are not. Not only that...one thing the invasion of Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein proves is that neither nations nor individuals must always be guilty, or if guilty, not of the stated charges.

If the deterrer announces plans to try to change the regime in the other state whether or not it acts aggressively, then the other side has no incentive to be deterred.

This was the whole point of Iran's inclusion on the "Axis of Evil" target list, and is considered policy by no less than General William Odom, in his testimony to the Senate..."If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force... " Another thing the Iraqi tragedy demonstrates is the willingness of the US to use a pretext to effect a regime change, which in Saddam's case has been sought since 1991. Iran and the US have been engaged in hostilities since 1979. Hence, Iran would be wise to assume that any excuse would do for the US, and they thus have very little to gain by cooperating.

Without the assurance that the regime will be permitted to survive if it behaves itself, the target state might as well take a chance on obtaining the benefits of aggression.
Therefore, the motive exists for an Iranian first-strike, possibly in southern Iraq, possibly in the Gulf or Straits of Hormuz, probably through its assymetrical surrogates like Hezbollah and Hamas. It seems that a goal of diplomacy, any diplomacy, should be toward reducing incentives for a first-strike, instead of provoking one. Therefore...what would a policy designed to be provocative towards Iran look like? It would threaten military action, and therefore demand a ready Iranian hair-trigger response; and it would have a covert-action component, gathering intelligence, marking targets, and probably running operations inside Iran, trying to provoke that response. It makes me wonder about this.

Research...on...attempted coercive diplomacy finds that the strategy fails much more often than it succeeds.

Simply stated, the likelihood of "success" in this impending misadventure is small. Why pursue it? Who benefits?

So. The whole point of the campaign against Iran is regime change, just as it has been since 1979 (except when Reagan was selling them weapons). There are frequent comparisons of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad to Adolf Hitler in the US media. US naval forces are massing in the region.

And then there are those bitterly cynical political questions re attacking Iran: benefits? risks? opportunities?
Americans will simultaneously rally around the flag and denounce the attack, splitting the country into a bitter division that politically benefits reactionary conservatives by disillusioning and demoralizing the young and newly-idealistic. The Straits of Hormuz may be closed, sending oil into a price spike, with the resultant unemployment and inflation echoing through the economy. Spiking prices means spiking profits. Hmmm. The opportunity to further extend military control over the oil resources of the Middle East, although this would require declaring victory in Iraq and sending that Army into Iran.
I think I am somewhat measured in my take of most things. However, I believe that a cold reading of the theory, juxtaposed, with the reality of our actions, lead to a conclusion: our intentions are either to start a war with Iran, provoke Iran into starting one with us, or create the climate where a mistake or accident that can be claimed as just cause will occur. I am not an alarmist...but it sure looks to me, for the first time, like Bush might really do it. If so, my current prediction is: new moon, first week of August. Knock the Democratic Convention right off the TV. Secondary prediction: new moon, 29th October. An "October Surprise" to help elect John McCain, make all of the Democrats Iraq arguments irrelevant, and put opponents neatly back into that "support the troops" trap, which no tactician has yet learned how to effectively counter. A divided and disillusioned electorate stays home in November, further helping McCain...
I reserve the right to change my mind, and I pray to the powers that I am wrong, but as I write this, I really think Bush may go for it.

God help us all. I'd like to wake up now, please.

In Case You Missed These, Part 3...

2008-04-03T18:13:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone.
Well, it's that time again. Time to make sure some things don't get lost in the shuffle...first of all, If you are new to the site, welcome and thank you, and I hope you consider the time well spent. To you regulars, as always, thank you more...
Anyway, here are some earlier posts you may have missed...

Dien Bien Phu, Iraq
How to Start a Nuclear War by Accident
An Iran-Contra Reflection
What's a Little Espionage Between Friends?
Wrong Then, Wrong Now
First the Surrender, Then the Alliance
The Shape of the Beast
A Surge of Misunderstanding
An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton
In Case You Missed These, Part 2...

Thanks again all, and enjoy!

John McCain's Secret Identity-REVEALED!!

2008-04-03T15:07:00.001-07:00

Ever wondered why John McCain seems so creepy, aside from the bizarre policy positions and the repudiation of all the things for which he once seemed so honorable? Man in the Street can now reveal the truth behind John McCain's secret identity:

John McCain can no longer deny it. He is The Nemesis. Once one recognizes this, suddenly, the answers to many questions become clear.

/snark

(Thanks to FDL for the McCain pic, and ResidentGamer4 for the Nemesis)

Lieberspheric Cosmology

2008-04-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

(Credit to Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake for the title. This post is an edited form of a comment I originally left at her place.)

Lieberspheric Cosmology: The Universe as Seen Through a Veil of Utter Contempt for Joe Lieberman.

13.8 billion years ago, Joe Lieberman exploded from a point the size of a proton at many times the speed of light, an process known as “cosmic Joflation”. At this point, the natural laws of the Joniverse stabilized, light assumed its characteristic velocity, and the spirit of Joe interacted with the Higgs field to produce matter and energy. As Joe condensed into form, the shameless treachery levels and incredible density produced a warping effect on space-time-henceforth known as black JoHoles-that would suck in any positive aspect of anything and destroy it with such force that not even the light of good ideas an escape. These JoHoles sometimes form the core of entire galaxies of stupidity. The incredible energy levels generated by the collision of good sense and honor particles with the body of the Joniverse continue to fuel and accelerate the cosmic Jospansion-and Lieberspheric cosmologists predict, using new data from the W-JOE satellite, that the Joniverse will expand into infinity, as there is not enough attraction to honor and truth in the whole freakin’ Joe Lieberman Universe to cause Joe to collapse back down into a Democrat.

Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008: A Star Extinguished

2008-03-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

I will keep this short, but I cannot really relate how I feel about the passing of famed author and futurist Arthur C. Clarke, without a brief explanation.

The year was 1975, and I had just discovered a book in my school library: The Lost Worlds of 2001, by Arthur C. Clarke. It was a memoir of the writing and filming of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and included the short story The Sentinel, which had provided the initial root that would later grow into 2001.

Well...as they say, that was all she wrote. I devoured Lost Worlds, then moved to Odyssey, and Childhood's End, Rendezvous with Rama...and on, and on, through the catalog, alternately spellbound by the visions of possible futures glimpsed as well as by the towering intellect of the author and the sheer audacity with which he would apply that intellect to problems and situations both futuristic and universal.

And it didn't stop at his fiction. The more I read, the more I learned of his early work on radar, the communication satellite, and the real-world science and engineering that undergirded all of his work, and lent both his fiction and non-fiction their credibility and air of authority. My world would never be quite the same after reading Clarke's work, and of people I never met personally, none have exerted as much influence on my life as he.

In the end, what Clarke did was nothing less than offer humanity one possible immortality. An immortality based on leaving Earth and spreading outward, to the planets, then the stars, beyond the reach of any single catastrophe that might depopulate a single planet. He did not offer a hope of salvation based on magic, but a solid future based on science, intellect, and the embrace of all as one human family. Should humanity find a way to survive, and escape this planetary cradle, no one will deserve more of the credit than he.

Fare thee well, Sir Arthur. May you sail beyond the sunset, and fall between the stars, like dust.

A History Teacher's Case for Obama

2008-03-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

These videos are the product of a History teacher friend of mine, and I strongly recommend them for your consideration. While Man in the Street has endorsed no candidate since the withdrawal of John Edwards from the race, Mr. Ruane makes a powerful case for Obama, based on the historical record and the current parallels. Check it out.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

2008-03-06T19:22:00.000-08:00

(be sure to see the Sick of it Day flyer)

Dear Senator Clinton:

We've been through a lot together, you and I. I first became aware of you in '92, when you said that thing about Tammy Wynette Standing By Her Man and baking cookies, and I have to tell you, I laughed like hell. It was wonderful to see you slap the little weasel down, and I instantly admired you.

After the inauguration, the knowledge that you would be chairing the universal healthcare plan development cheered me greatly, as your very obvious intelligence, energy, and committment to the idea struck me as the ideal combination of traits necessary for the task, and though it failed, it was a noble effort; but you must know it was ultimately crippled as much by its desire to preserve the insurance industry in a paradigm when they were no longer necessary as it was destroyed by the Republican PR effort, and their corporatist allies. My admiration grew.

Then it was off to the races, through the Scaife-financed campaigns to destroy your husband's Presidency, your marriage, your family, and all through it, you remained strong, committed, someone upon whom I could hang some hopes. My huge admiration now included a huge amount of sympathy, and respect, for your toughness as well as your capacity to forgive.

Your destruction of Rudy Giuliani in the run-up to your Senate election in 2000 was a joy, and gave us an unusually popular, powerful, Democratic Senator with a national constituency, such a natural choice for a Presidential campaign, it seemed to me you would hardly have to run a primary campaign.

Then there was that vote for war thing. Not so good-you've been studying politics for as long as I have and more, so you had to have been able to see as well as I did that the case for war was built on shadows. The not voting on the bankruptcy bill thing. In the first case, it looked like you were simply trying to avoid charges of weakness and soft-on-defense, and in the second, like you were refusing to stand up against the credit-card companies, at the expense of the poor and the people teetering on the last little edge of credit before financial ruin, to avoid making a powerful political enemy, and thus help preserve your future political viability.

Hardly a profile in courage, Senator.

The enormous store of goodwill you had built up with me carried us through these dark days, however, and I greeted your Presidential run with a mixture of hope, excitement, and impatience to be rid of the mad authoritarians who've seized our Executive Branch, and...sorry.
That's for another letter.

So now we're in the primaries, all inevitable, and nobody could ever have predicted they would use planes as...I mean, nobody could ever have predicted that that Obama guy would catch fire like that, huh? Freakin' nuts!

It must really frost you to have worked so hard, and been through so much, for so long, and be so close, and then to have that skinny upstart from Chicago just walk in and take it all away...and I'm sure you're pissed. You've done the time. You've paid your dues. You've earned the shot.
However, some of the things you seem willing to do to enforce that claim disturb me greatly, Senator. Two things, in particular.

First, the negative campaigning. Senator, this has got to stop. Now. Running a negative campaign against Obama now is simply doing opposition research for McCain and the Republicans. You know this-I'm sure you remember that it was Jerry Brown who first raised the allegations about Bill, you, and Rose Law in '92, not the Republicans. Running a negative campaign against another Democrat damages the party as a whole and our chances in November, and if you take the damage the Republicans have done to this country as seriously as I do, then you know that a Democratic victory in November is imperative to reversing the catastrophe of the Bush years. Therefore, every time you run an ad saying that you and McCain are qualified and Obama is not, you are endorsing McCain over Obama (just like Lieberman). If you would do that, not just once but repeatedly, you clearly do not understand that in this war for the future, it is more important-FAR MORE important- that the victor in November be a Democrat than that it be you. The issues and risks are bigger than any one person, and the cause far bigger-and this requires the sublimation of individual egos and senses of entitlement. For you to be willing to hamstring and destroy a fellow Democrat, who may yet be your party's nominee, for your personal benefit, is a reprehensible thing, and I implore you, please, to stop the negative campaigning. If the voters decide your ideas aren't as good as his, he deserves to win. You do no one any favors by waging a campaign of personal destruction against Obama.

All for one, and one for all.

Item number two is the small matter of the superdelegates. It was interesting hearing Tom Daschle on The Daily Show, talking about how the superdelegates were set up to be able to stop someone like Steven Colbert, who might fool enough people into voting for him to get the nomination-but that's not really true, is it, Senator? It's to stop another George McGovern from getting the nomination. Oh yeah, I remember the Anybody But McGovern movement at the Convention in Miami in '72. It was far less entertaining to hear you talking about the superdelegates on 3/5, to paraphrase:"I've raised a lot of new questions about my opponent in the last two months, and the superdelegates are available to make the decision that the voters would have made if they had had this information sooner."This sounds disturbingly like saying,"It's perfectly fine for the superdelegates to throw the nomination to me even if Obama gets more delegates, because everyone who voted for him wouldn't have if they knew what I was going to say about him." This is a fundamentally un-American system, where the party bosses, established pols, and incumbents can override the voter's choice and select the nominee themselves-it sounds a lot like what Hunter S. Thompson said about Mayor Daly: he saw nothing wrong with telling his son to go round up a bunch of thugs with bullhorns and kick the shit out of anyone who challenged his right to name the next Democratic candidate for President of the United States. I urge you not to allow this sort of sham to occur-it would be the worst possible thing, a frenzy of treachery and backstabbing, and street actions in Denver of a sort not seen here in many years.

I realize this letter is running a little long, Senator, so I'll summarize:

NO MORE negative campaigning, and the superdelegates vote with their citizens. Okay? All can still be salvaged, and forgiven, but you've got to work with us.

Oh-
Tell Bill to stay the hell off the Rush Limbaugh Show. Rush is the most hateful, vile, vituperative, and successful demagogue of the last thirty years, which you most certainly know-your husband, you, your daughter, for pity's sake, were and are targets for this repulsive thug, and for Bill Clinton to go on his show to appeal to Republicans to cross open primary lines and vote for you against another Democrat is a disgrace. Think about that. Your husband doing a get-out-the-Republican-vote effort on the Rush Limbaugh program, for you, after what he said and did, and is doing, to you, your family, and the nation, to this day. I am most suspicious of Rush's preferred candidates. He would gladly see you and Bill in prison, (and tried to help put you there) yet you accept his help and Bill inflates his ratings.

It is almost dazzling.

Senator, will you denounce AND reject Rush Limbaugh?

Come back towards the light, Senator. Come back to us. There's STILL TIME!!!

Oh, and please tell Monsanto to go Cheney itself. Immediately. You know the reason why.

All of my best wishes to you and yours,
RonD

Sick of it Day

2008-02-24T20:30:00.000-08:00

Croissant, Coffee, and Blood

2008-02-09T11:36:00.003-08:00

(This post is a reprint of an article that appeared in Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader (1998) I would like to thank all at the Bathroom Reader's Institute for their gracious permission to reprint, and I encourage all to check out their site, as well as the entire series of Bathroom Readers. They are incredibly informative as well as entertaining, and are a rich source of important bits of forgotten history-such as the following.)

Croissant, Coffee, and Blood

This article was contributed by BRI member Jeff Cheek. It's a good example of the role serendipity plays in history (and our diet). At the very least, it should make ordering a cup of coffee and a croissant more interesting.

ON THE ROPES

From July 17 until September 12, 1683, the Austrian capital of Vienna was beseiged by a Moslem army commanded by the Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa. Historians note this as the high-water mark of Islamic influence in Europe. If the Moslems had succeeded here, it's likely they would have taken all of Europe.
After Vienna was encircled, a Polish mercenary named Kulczyski volunteered to go for help. Disguised as a Turk, he made his way through enemy lines. He was discovered, but his linguistic ability made his cover story believeable. He escaped, made his way to Bavaria, and led an 80,000-man army back to Vienna.
The Viennese people had no way of knowing this-they were completely isolated as they beat back repeated Turkish assaults on their walled city. Their outer defenses were lost, but the beseiged city held out.

ROLL TO VICTORY

In the early morning hours of September 12, a Viennese baker was preparing his dough for the next day's bread. He noticed that a tray of delicate breakfast rolls were vibrating. Why? They were acting as a seismograph, transmitting vibrations made by Turkish pickaxes. The Turks, it turned out, had decided to tunnel up to Vienna's walls, then launch a final assault. The baker sent his son to warn the city fathers, and the Austrians rushed to the ramparts just in time to repel the Grand Vizier's forces.

Kulczyski and the Bavarian army arrived a few hours later, sealing the Moslem defeat. After a bloody, 15-hour battle, the Turkish army fled, abandoning their tents and stores of food. The latter included thousands of sacks of hard, black beans, which the Austrians began to burn, because they believed the beans had no value.

A NEW TWIST

When the heroic baker was told to name his own reward, he asked to become chief baker in the royal palace. The request was granted. To impress his new masters, and to commemorate their narrow escape from the Moslems, he created a new breakfast roll. The star and crescent had long been a symbol of Islamic faith, so instead of making ordinary round or oblong rolls, he rolled the dough out, then cut it into six-inch triangles. He rolled these from the top corner, creating a humpbacked center, with tapering horns. Just before baking, he twisted these horns down, forming a crescent.

Eighty-five years later, in 1770, a tactless Austrian princess named Marie Antoinette married Louis XVI of France. To ensure her supply of crescent rolls, she brought her own bakers from Vienna. The Royal French bakers were furious at this insult, but didn't dare protest. Instead, they fought back by creating a new and better breakfast roll. They retained the crescent shape to appease Her Majesty, but used pastry dough. Thus, the noble croissant was born.

BACK TO 1683

Meanwhile, back in 1683, Kulczyski was asked what reward he wanted for saving Vienna. His request was surprisingly modest: all he asked for was the sacks of black beans that the Austrians were destroying...and permission to open a business in Vienna.

Both were immediately granted.

It turns out that while making his way through the surrounding Moslem Army, Kulczyski had been served a sweet, black beverage, which seemed to restore his energy. It was coffee-virtually unknown in Europe at that time, but a staple for the Turks.

Kulczyski collected all the Turks' unburned sacks of coffee beans and opened the first coffee house in Eastern Europe. Soon all of Europe was drinking Viennese coffee, and Kulczyski became a wealthy and respected citizen of his adopted homeland.

( For me, since I first read this nearly ten years ago, breakfast has never been the same. Again, please be sure to stop by the BRI, and say hi from Man in the Street.)

A Surge of Misunderstanding

2008-02-09T11:36:00.002-08:00

Well, it seems there is no way to avoid wading into the "Surge" argument: on one side, as troops remain bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, critics of the war and occupation point to the quagmire and say "the Surge has failed." On the other hand, war supporters and those with a vested interest in defending their position of advocacy point to the reductions in American combat deaths, civilian casualties, and IED encounters, and say, "the Surge is working."

Both are missing the point, one through a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between strategy and tactics in Iraq, and one deliberately, for political gain.

Contrary to what John McCain says, the surge is not a strategy. The surge is a tactic-an action designed to produce a tangible result-one tactic, within the larger framework of an integrated conceptual plan, comprised of multiple, scaffolded operations, all designed to accomplish a strategic goal-a strategy. In World War 2, Eisenhower's instructions were to "undertake operations directed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces." This is a strategic goal-how Ike chose to accomplish this-his tactics-were largely up to him, and it is important to note that a shift in tactics does not necessarily indicate a shift in strategy. The corresponding strategic goal in Iraq could be written as: "undertake operations designed to defuse the risk of an Iraqi civil war and create political reconciliation between the warring factions." The actual strategy would be the body of integrated operations (tactics), each built upon the success of the last, that accomplishes the strategic goal.

So, the tactics:

A surge in troop strength, along with a redeployment of forces from large concentrations into smaller, foward-operating bases, where American forces can react flexibly to local, fluid, conditions. Increased use of airpower to minimize US troop exposure. Making contact with Sunni insurgent groups and assuring them that they will be protected from a Shia-conducted genocide, and cementing the committment by supplying these same insurgent groups-so recently bombing, shooting, and killing Americans-with both money and weapons, in return for their cooperation. Using political pressure on the Shia-dominated Maliki government to reconcile with the Sunnis and the Kurds: the primary sticking points here being allocation of Iraq's oil wealth for the benefit of all Iraq, and protection of political rights for the Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

What has happened here is this: The combination of troop-strength increases and bribery has indeed improved security. US casualties, Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside-bombing, and IED incidents are all sharply down. What has failed is the reconciliation effort, easily seen in the absence of passage of any oil law and the lack of political rapproachment,-and, in the same way a tripod will collapse if a leg is removed, the US strategy in Iraq collapses, though two legs may stand tall.

On a political, Presidential-election level, the danger is this: by incorrectly lumping the entire strategy under the label "the Surge", the Democrats give John McCain and the Republicans the ability to say things like this:

"Post-surge troop strength levels have improved security. Since improved security was the goal of the surge, the surge is a success. Since we agree that the surge is the strategy in Iraq, our strategy in Iraq is therefore a success."
"What, you Democrats-you liberals-say? The Surge has failed? You are blind to reality by your own partisan bile. If the Surge has failed, how do you account for the reductions in casualties? You simply wish to raise the white flag of surrender. You are obviously dishonest, inept in international relations, and are clearly unqualified to be President."

To the layperson, this sounds convincing, and protestations to the contrary sound like the whining technicalities of someone caught in the act. Of course, the argument is predicated on the acceptance of "the Surge" as "the Strategy". No Democrat or war opponent should ever refer to the "Surge strategy". If the Democrats fall into that semantic trap, they lose the argument...and, quite possibly, the election.

No; the surge-and-bribery tactic has been a success, for now. It is the strategy that has failed.

It Hadda Be Playin' on a Jukebox

2008-02-09T11:36:00.001-08:00

(I am re-posting this from below, for those who may have missed it).
This is a poem entitled It Hadda be Playin' on a Jukebox, written by Allen Ginsberg in 1975. Performance by Rage Against the Machine.

It had to be flashin’ like the daily double.
It had to be playin’ on TV.
It had to be loud mouthed on the comedy hour

It had to be announced over loud speakers

The CIA and the Mafia are in cahoots

It had to be said in old ladies’ language
It had to be said in American headlines

Kennedy stretched and smiled and got double-crossed by lowlife goons and agents

Rich bankers with criminal connections

Dope pushers in CIA working with dope pushers from Cuba working with a big time syndicate from Tampa, Florida
And it had to be said with a big mouth

It had to be moaned over factory foghorns

It had to be chattered on car radio news broadcasts

It had to be screamed in the kitchen

It had to be yelled in the basement where uncles were fighting
It had to be howled on the streets by newsboys to bus conductors

It had to be foghorned into New York harbor

It had to echo onto hard hats

It had to turn up the volume in university ballrooms
It had to be written in library books, footnoted

It had to be in the headlines of the Times and Le Monde

It had to be barked on TV

It had to be heard in alleys through ballroom doors
It had to be played on wire services

It had to be bells ringing

Comedians stopped dead in the middle of a joke in Las Vegas

It had to be FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Frank Costello syndicate mouthpiece meeting in Central Park, New York weekends, reported Time magazine

It had to be the Mafia and the CIA together starting war on Cuba, Bay of Pigs and poison assassination headlines

It had to be dope cops in the Mafia who sold all their heroin in America
It had to be the FBI and organized crime working together in cahoots against the commies
It had to be ringing on multinational cash registers

A world-wide laundry for organized criminal money

It had to be the CIA and the Mafia and the FBI together

They were bigger than Nixon

And they were bigger than war

It had to be a large room full of murder

It had to be a mounted ass- a solid mass of rage

A red hot head

A scream in the back of the throat

It had to be in Kissinger’s brain

It had to be in Rockefellers’ mouth

It had to be central intelligence, the family, all of this, the agency Mafia

It had to be organized crime
One big set of gangs working together in cahoots

Hitmen

Murderers everywhere

The secret

The drunk

The brutal

The dirty and rich
On top of a slag heap of prisons
Industrial cancer
Plutonium smog
Garbage cities
Grandmas’ bedsores, fathers’ resentment

It had to be the rulers
They wanted law and order

And they got rich on wanting protection for the status quo
They wanted junkies.

They wanted Attica

They wanted Kent State

They wanted war in Indochina
yeah
It had to be the CIA and the Mafia and the FBI
Multinational capitalists

Strong armed squads

Private detective agencies for the oh so very rich

And their armies and navies and their air force bombing planes
It had to be capitalism
The vortex of this rage

This competition

Man to man
The horses head in a capitalists’ bed

The Cuban turf

It rumbles in hitmen

And gang wars across oceans
Bombing Cambodia settled the score when Soviet pilots manned Egyptian fighter planes
Chile's red democracy

Bumped off with White House pots and pans
A warning to Mediterranean governments
The secret police have been embraced for decades
The NKVD and CIA keep each other’s secrets

The OGPU and DIA never hit their own

The KGB and the FBI are one mind
Brute force and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money.
It had to be rich and it had to be powerful.
They had to murder in Indonesia 500,000
They had to murder in Indochina 2,000,000
They had to murder in Czechoslovakia

They had to murder in Chile
They had to murder in Russia

And they had to murder in America.

Happy Birthday to Me

2008-02-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

Well, today is February ninth, and "Man in the Street" is one year old! (blows party horn)!!

I think this first year has been a very good year. While a low-traffic site, I am happy and proud to report that the site currently receives traffic from 51 countries:

Argentina-Australia-Belgium-Bermuda-Bolivia-Bosnia/Herzogovina-Brazil-Bulgaria-Cambodia-Canada-Chile-China-Denmark-England-France-Germany-Greece-Holland-Hungary-India-Indonesia-Ireland-Israel-Italy-Ivory Coast-Japan-Jordan-Lebanon-Lesotho-Malaysia-Mexico-Nigeria-Norway-Paraguay-Philipines-Poland-Portugal-Russia-Slovakia-Solomon Islands-South Africa-South Korea-Spain-Sweden-Switzerland-Thailand-Tonga-Turkey-United Arab Emirates-US-Vietnam

This is small potatoes for a big site, but for a one-man job, to me at least, this is thrilling. Thank you, all of you who have taken the time to read the site, and especially you regulars! I hope you consider the time well-spent. Another special thank you to all of my friends and fellow seekers at FireDogLake, who've been so kind, encouraging, funny, and committed. (blows party horn again!)

I am also happy to report the honor of some rather distinguished company. As regular readers of this site know, much of my work involves the intelligence community, military affairs, and their respective histories; therefore, I am happy and honored to report that distinguished visitors to Man in the Street include:

The Department of Justice
The Joint Forces Command
NASA
The USMC /San Diego
The Department of Defense / CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity)-Fort Revoir, Virginia
The USAF /Headquarters
Central Command/Iraq- Manassas, Virginia
DoD Network Information Center/CIFA-Columbus, Ohio
The Library of Congress
The US Navy Network Information Center

Thank you all. You cannot imagine how it feels for me, nobody special, just some guy sitting out here on the perimeter and wondering "why?" about a lot of things, to have had people in positions of authority over these matters take the time to read my thoughts. I thank you again. It is humbling and flattering, and I hope you, as well, consider the time spent here on the Street to have been well-spent.

(blows out birthday candles-all one of them).

Happy Birthday to Man in the Street. Thank you, all of you who've made the last year so much fun.

How to Start a Nuclear War by Accident

2008-01-28T20:25:00.000-08:00

(Hi all-great to be back, and thank you for your patience and support. I hope this post finds you well-)

The year was 1981, and the Cold War was heating up...again.

The Reagan Administration, inaugurated early that year, had abandoned the strategy of detente, of negotiated coexistence with the Soviet Union, in favor of a much more aggressive strategy of overt confrontation, building on the covert actions of the Carter Administration that had so successfully "drawn the Soviets into the Afghan trap." No longer would the US pursue peaceful reconciliation-the President had recently denounced the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire"-so henceforth, no matter where, the Soviets would find themselves confronted by covert operations or overt military force. This attitude was expressed in another way-psychological operations, or psyops. US bombers flying near their fail-safe points began breaking off and flying straight for Soviet territory, peeling off just before entering Soviet airspace, with the objective being to constantly test the Soviet air-defense network, observe the command structure in operation, and rattle the Soviet command authority. US naval maneuvers covertly approached Soviet naval bases, such as in the April-May '83 Pacific Fleet exercise where 3 US carrier battle groups comprising 40 ships, operating jointly with B-52's under AWACS control, came within 450 miles of a Soviet naval base in Kamchatka. The combination of rhetorical threat, increased military spending, and psyops apparently had the desired effect-the Soviets felt the danger of nuclear annihilation by a US first strike. Therefore, that year, the Soviets launched the largest peacetime intelligence operation in its history-Operation RYAN, the purpose of which was to determine whether the US was planning and preparing a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. From the CIA:

Three categories of targets were identified for priority collection. The first included US and NATO government, military, intelligence, and civil-defense installations that could be penetrated by agents or visually observed by Soviet intelligence officers...The second target category consisted of...consultations among the US and other NATO members. The third included US and NATO civilian and military "communications networks and systems." Rezidenturas were instructed to focus on...operations of US/NATO communications networks and in staffing levels. They also were ordered to obtain information on "the organization, location, and functioning mechanism of all forms of communications which are allocated by the adversary for controlling the process of preparing and waging a nuclear war"--that is, information on command-and-control networks."

So, the progression begins. A new US Administration takes office, makes bellicose statements about war and nuclear war, and launches a new round of anti-Soviet propaganda. This is followed by ramped-up military operations by the naval and air forces of the United States, specifically designed to unsettle and scare the Soviet leadership. The Soviets react by treating these as genuine threats-for which they can perhaps be understood, in view of what happened the last time they ignored the signs of impending attack (1941, when the Nazi invasion of the USSR-Operation BARBAROSSA-marched all the way to the gates of Moscow before being blunted by the Russian winter and Zhukov's counterattack). Operation Ryan is launched to determine America's motives, and compiles a checklist of triggers by which to judge whether the US intends to strike.

Events now begin to accelerate.

Shortly after the April-May exercise, where "...the Navy had demonstrated that it could...elude the USSR's large and complex ocean surveillance systems...Defeat Soviet tactical warning systems...[and] penetrate air defense systems.", Reagan announced the inception of SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars). This was answered by an angry Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov, who accused the United States of preparing a first-strike attack on the Soviet Union and asserted that President Reagan was

"inventing new plans on how to unleash a nuclear war in the best way, with the hope of winning it."...[SDI], Andropov said,"would open the floodgates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real significance, the seamy side, so to say, of Washington's "defensive conception." ...The Soviet Union will never be caught defenseless by any threat.... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane....Washington's actions are putting the entire world in jeopardy..."

Three months later, in this tense atmospere, a Soviet fighter shot down KAL 007, an off-course civilian airliner which had twice violated their airspace, first by flying over Kamchatka, then Sakhalin Island. All 269 aboard were killed, and Reagan had this to say:

"...This was the Soviet Union against the world and the moral precepts which guide human relations among people everywhere. It was an act of barbarism, born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life and seeks constantly to expand and dominate other nations..."

As one might expect, Yuri Andropov had a different view:

The sophisticated provocation, organized by the US special services and using a South Korean airplane, is an example of extreme adventurism in policy. We have given the factual aspect of this action a detailed and authentic elucidation. The guilt of its organizers--no matter how they twist and turn or how many false stories they put out--have been proved.

The Soviet leadership has expressed regret in connection with the loss of human lives that was the result of this unprecedented act of criminal sabotage. It is on the conscience of those who would like to arrogate to themselves the right to disregard the sovereignty of states and the inviolability of their borders, who conceived of and carried out this provocation, who literally the next day hurried to push through Congress colossal military appropriations and now are rubbing their hands in satisfaction.

The stage is set. Tensions are high. American air and naval forces are constantly probing the Soviet defences. Pershing II missiles have been placed in Europe. The Soviets are feeling the threat. The civilians of KAL 007 are dead. US forces had invaded the island of Grenada, a member of the British Commonwealth, and the resultant spike in communications between Britain and the US concerning this had been noticed by the Soviets...who noted it on their checklist.
All that remained was to fill in the rest of the Operation RYAN checklist...and the US would oblige two months later.

"...on the night of November 8 or 9...KGB Center sent a flash cable to West European residencies advising them, incorrectly, that US forces in Europe had gone on alert and that troops at some bases were being mobilized. The cable speculated that the (nonexistent) alert might have been ordered in response to the then-recent bomb attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, or was related to impending US Army maneuvers, or was the beginning of a countdown to a surprise nuclear attack..."

This was the beginning of ABLE ARCHER 83, "a practice drill that took NATO forces through a full-scale simulated release of nuclear weapons." From wiki:

Able Archer 83 was a ten-day NATO Command post exercise starting on November 2, 1983 that spanned Western Europe, centred on SHAPE's Headquarters situated at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. The exercise simulated a period of Conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear release.[1] It incorporated a new, unique format of coded communication, radio silences, participation by heads of state, and a simulated DEFCON 1 nuclear alert.

You have to love that timing. From CNN:

"Able Archer" was designed to test NATO's nuclear-release procedures. It called for temporary radio silence and a shifting of NATO codes and frequencies as the pretend alerts changed from conventional to nuclear...But the Soviets apparently believed that "Able Archer" was merely cover for an imminent NATO attack. U.S. "elint," or electronic intelligence, observed at the time a number of nuclear-capable planes being placed on standby at East German bases. The original plans for "Able Archer" had called for the U.S. president, vice president and Joint Chiefs of Staff to take part. But Robert McFarlane, the U.S. national security adviser, thought the Soviets might consider such activities provocative -- and decided the top officials would not be included in the exercise.
"The sudden disappearance of such figures, the disruption of usual schedules and the swift movement of the military high command around Washington were precisely the signs the Soviet intelligence had been told to look for under RYAN...".

After all, we don't want to be provocative when we're practicing for nuclear war, right? From wiki:

The Soviet Union, believing its only chance of surviving a NATO strike was to preempt it, readied its nuclear arsenal. The CIA reported activity in the Baltic Military District, in Czechoslovakia, and it determined that nuclear capable aircraft in Poland and East Germany were placed "on high alert status with readying of nuclear strike forces".[9][32] Former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry goes further, saying he suspects that the aircraft were merely the tip of the iceberg. He hypothesizes that — in accordance with Soviet military procedure and history — ICBM silos, easily readied and difficult for the United States to detect, were also prepared for a launch.

Was the danger real? From current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, again via wiki:

"Information about the peculiar and remarkably skewed frame of mind of the Soviet leaders during those times that has emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union makes me think there is a good chance — with all of the other events in 1983 — that they really felt a NATO attack was at least possible and that they took a number of measures to enhance their military readiness short of mobilization...I don't think the Soviets were crying wolf. They may not have believed a NATO attack was imminent in November 1983, but they did seem to believe that the situation was very dangerous. And US intelligence [SNIE 11-9-84 and SNIE 11-10-84] had failed to grasp the true extent of their anxiety.[38]

In other words, yes. The danger was real.

Within a few weeks after ...ABLE ARCHER 83, the London CIA station reported...that the Soviets had been alarmed about the real possibility that the United States was preparing a nuclear attack against them. [National Security Adviser Robert] McFarlane...discounted them as Soviet scare tactics...and told Reagan of his view in presenting them to the President. But a more extensive survey...in 1984 by CIA director William Casey...had a more sobering effect. Reagan seemed uncharacteristically grave after reading the report and asked McFarlane, "Do you suppose they really believe that? ...I don't see how they could believe that--but it's something to think about."

Reagan would reflect on this period later in his memoirs, again via wiki:

Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans. Perhaps this shouldn't have surprised me, but it did…

During my first years in Washington, I think many of us in the administration took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first strike against them. But the more experience I had with Soviet leaders and other heads of state who knew them, the more I began to realize that many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike…

Well, if that was the case, I was even more anxious to get a top Soviet leader in a room alone and try to convince him we had no designs on the Soviet Union and Russians had nothing to fear from us.[45]

The destruction of the world would have to wait for another day.

Checking In From the Ruins

2007-12-28T12:06:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone...I've been offline for several weeks now, after a good old-fashioned Central Florida-style lightning strike at my place went right through the surge suppressor and destroyed my TV, cable box, cable modem, and computer, as well as much of the cable itself. Interestingly, the DVD player escaped. Repairs and replacement are underway, and I hope to be back up to speed within a week or two. Until then, I encourage all to browse the archives, where there are such nuggets as the strange tale of Southern Airways Flight 49, an actual analysis of fascism beyond the level of a buzzword, a brief history of the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, and Eisenhower's personal opinion of Texas-oilman-style neoconservativism (though he didn't use that particular word). Some of my particular favorites can also be found here:

In Case You Missed These, and,

In Case You Missed These, Part 2.

In the meantime, thank you for your continued patronage and support, and I hope all of you are enjoying a wonderful holiday season no matter the holiday!

(Thanks to Glenda and Matt for the use of their computer, and so many other things as well.)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Executive Power

2007-12-10T14:24:00.000-08:00

By way of the efforts of the keeper of the Congressional Hearings schedule and frequent FDL stalwart Selise, we have, from former US Attorney and current Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, this very succinct exploration of the President's concept of his own authority, as claimed by Bush's Office of Legal Counsel:

Here's the second part:

This is what we're dealing with-the Beast continues to take shape.

Digital Life and Evolution?

2007-12-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

Several years ago, an article was published in Discover magazine about the Digital Life Laboratory, an ongoing project at Michigan State University. Simply put, the lab, now known as the Digital Evolution Laboratory(the "DevoLab") , studies digital "worlds" inhabited by digital organisms, whose code occasionally mutates. These mutations are sometimes beneficial, enabling the organism to process numbers more efficiently and thus reproduce more readily. Thus, all the mechanisms of natural selection are in place- and the scientist can then study the evolutionary process in detail and document every step of the process, including the evolution of complexity. From the article:

These are digital organisms-strings of commands-akin to computer viruses. Each organism can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within a matter of minutes. Unlike computer viruses, however, they are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same way DNA mutates.

The computer program that makes this possible is called Avida.

..."Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it,” Pennock says. “All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there.

The program has also dealt with such questions as Why Sex?, Why Are There More Than One Species?, and, of course, Complexity:

...The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000 generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times...In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program.

Oh, but wait, it gets even better...
In the original experiment, the organisms evolved the equals routine in 23 out of 50 trials. But when the experiment was run with a limited supply of numbers, all the trials produced organisms that could carry out the equals routine. What's more, they needed only a fifth of the time to do it. Ofria suspects that the difference comes from the fact that several species are now evolving in the experiment rather than just one. More species mean more opportunities for success.
This is an extremely exciting, and even somewhat disquieting, development. Read the article, and ponder well the implications, which are potentially staggering.

Digital Life that can evolve. Wow.

Fascism, Anyone?

2007-11-29T14:22:00.000-08:00

(Haaa! Ron has learned how to embed video!)

I first saw this video about two years ago, here. Happy to be able to present it here for your consideration.