Choices

Captain Ed has a post up about choices - specifically about choosing the "lesser of two evils".

The phrase "lesser of two evils" gets a lot of use in politics, but it gets taken too literally in order to make an excuse for inaction. In the literal sense, it almost never applies anyway. Not many political figures in American history have been downright evil. We have had incompetents, malcontents, benighted fools, the hopelessly naive, and Jimmy Carter, but thankfully only a handful of outright crooks and genuinely evil men and women. The odds of having two choices in an election where both are evil are very, very slim. Perhaps if David Duke ran against Tom Metzger for Congress, that would excuse the district from voting for either one. Even then, I would argue that in that rare case, the responsible action would be to vote for a third party candidate to ensure neither got the seat.

I think that pretty well hits it on the head. It's not really the lesser of two evils. As Captain Ed says it's not evils - it's mediocrities. Which gets to the point of this post. All too often these days, I end up voting for the "least worst" candidate. But, and this is vital, I always vote, every time, no exceptions. So should every, single American citizen, no matter what. It is vital to this nation that we not "sit this one out".

His Name

Is Daniel Wultz. He is was an American Citizen. He is was 16 years old. He lives lived in Florida. He wants wanted to be a Rabbi. He went out to eat dinner at a restaurant in Israel.

And now he's dead. May God have mercy on his soul.

Explain to me the just cause of the Palestinian people that makes this okay.

Better yet. Explain it to his parents.

Mother’s Day

Today, of course, was Mother's Day. I have been remiss not to have mentioned it before. Happy Mother's Day to any moms who read this blog. All the best from the Crabitat.

About Mother's Day around here. My wife slept in since, for once, she had no kids to run around (which is not at all normal given the kid's many activities). I saved the kid's lives by buying a card and a gift for her from them. I gave her my own card and a gift as well. She spent a lot of time watching funny movies, then suddenly announced that she wanted to go shopping.

At Bass Pro Shops.

So we all packed into the car and toddled off to shop. We bought all sorts of equipment for my youngest daughter who is going to compete in a Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), some archery gloves for my youngest boy and some shotgun shells for daughter. My wife actually didn't buy a thing for herself other than a drink at the in-store Starbucks. On the way home she asked if there was, by any chance, a twelve step program for Bass Pro Shop-aholics.

Did I marry the most wonderful woman in the world or what?

101st Blog Of The Day

Keeping up with my project to visit one member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists each day, today I visited Musing Minds. There is a very interesting question being asked there: Will the media be open to lawsuits if their published leaks lead to American deaths?

Interesting question. What if they are not quite as protected by the first amendment as they like to believe? What if they actually have exposure on this?

Even if they aren't exposed legally, will the media outlet that published leaks survive the backlash if it turns out they caused an attack? Or even contributed to it?

Oh, and my sentence to this meme: "But maybe it is when you think about it some more." From Elmore Leonard's When the Women Come Out to Dance.

Yet Another Poll. Yet Another Result

USA Today has it's poll on the NSA program it published the leaks about. The trumpeting headline is that 51% of Americans disapprove of the program. Buried in the poll data is an interesting tidbit or two.

7. If you knew that the federal government had your telephone records, how concerned would you be — very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not concerned at all?

Very concerned     22

Somewhat concerned     13

Not too concerned     20

Not concerned at all     44

No opinion     1

11. Do you think the news media should — or should not — report information it obtains about the secret methods the government is using to fight terrorism?

Yes, should     47

No, should not     49

No opinion     3

Which leads us to believe there is a major problem with the polling in this case. Supposedly 51% disapprove, but  64% aren't real concerned about the government having phone records. A slim majority disapprove of leaking - or the publishing of leaks, as the case may be.

But this does give us an opportunity to present an artist's conception of what USA Today's logo could become.

Just a thought.

UPDATE: Riehl World View on the poll. Wizbang as well.

On Useful Idiots

There is an unsigned piece in the Times of London today that is absolutely devastating. It describes the latest wave of celebrity endorsements of Hugo Chavez and puts it in the perspective it deserves.

When the Cuban novelist Reinaldo Arenas managed to escape to the US in 1980, after years of persecution by the Cuban government for being openly homosexual and a dissident, he said: “The difference between the communist and capitalist systems is that, although both give you a kick in the ass, in the communist system you have to applaud, while in the capitalist system you can scream. And I came here to scream.”

One of the most vexing things for artists and intellectuals who live under the compulsion to applaud dictators is the spectacle of colleagues from more open societies applauding of their own free will. It adds a peculiarly nasty insult to injury.

It does not get easier on the left from there.

The left has a proud tradition of defending political freedoms, at home and abroad. But this tradition is in danger of being lost when western intellectuals indulge in power worship. Applause for autocrats undermines the morale of people who insist on fighting for their freedoms Leftists were largely sympathetic, and rightly so, to critics of Berlusconi and Thaksin, even though neither was a dictator. Both did, of course, support American foreign policy. But when democracy is endangered, the left should be equally hard on rulers who oppose the US. Failure to do so encourages authoritarianism everywhere, including in the West itself, where the frivolous behaviour of a dogmatic left has already allowed neoconservatives to steal all the best lines. 

It is well worth taking the time to read.

On Dots And Templates

Mark Steyn, one of the truly great opinion writers, has (yet another) out of the park home run. To Connect The Dots, You Have To See The Dots. The whole thing is a must read. One point he makes, though, exactly explains the problem:

Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): "Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn't connect the dots."

Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): "Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37."

If there was ever a clearer illustration of the phrase 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', I have never seen it. There is literally no way the administration can not get criticized at this point. Criticism of the administration essentially has become a "have you stopped beating your wife" mentality.

And that's not good for the country. Not good at all.

Did You Ever Wonder

If there really is a God?

A plane carrying U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy from western Massachusetts to his home on the coast was struck by lightning Saturday and had to be diverted to New Haven, Conn., his spokeswoman said.

The eight-seat Cessna Citation 550 plane lost all electrical power, including communications, and the pilot had to fly the plane manually, according to spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner. No one was hurt.

Just asking.

Just asking.

Sandbox Project

One relatively new blogger out there who links to me fairly often is Craig over at the Sandbox. He's got an interesting little blog going with (I think) quite a lot of potential. He's active duty Air Force, but has not deployed to the Iraq theater yet. Today, Craig sent me a letter describing a project he is starting, one I think will be a very interesting one.

I am currently active duty Air Force, and stories of military personnel truly interest me.  I have few stories of great interest being in garrison and having yet to be deployed.  I am also transitioning from an enlisted communications troop to a commissioned navigator over the course of the next few months.  I’m excited about the opportunity to continue my service as a commissioned officer in the world’s premier Air Force.

The reason I am writing all of you is to see if any other blogs are willing to help with a weekly post I am trying to get going.  It’s called “Why I Fight.”

I am looking to have current and former military members write in and tell me their story.  I’d like to know what inspired them to join, as well as what their service means to them.  I recently posted the second in (hopefully) a long future series of inspiring stories.

I think that is a very worthwhile task he has set for himself and look forward to seeing it develop. By all means, stop by and visit him.

Alternate Fuels

The New York Times reports that the US Air Force is planning operational tests of an alternate to oil-based fuels. A B-52 will have two of it's engines powered by a fuel derived from natural gas. The long range plan is to derive the fuel from coal, which is plentiful and relatively inexpensive.

By late this summer, on the hard lake beds of the Mojave Desert, where the Air Force tests its most secret and high-performance aircraft, a lumbering B-52 is scheduled to take off in an experiment in which two of the giant bomber's engines will burn jet fuel produced not from crude oil but from natural gas. The plane's six other engines will burn traditional jet fuel — just in case.

The Air Force consumed 3.2 billion gallons of aviation fuel in fiscal year 2005, which was 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, Pentagon statistics show. The total Air Force bill for jet fuel last year topped $4.7 billion.

Although the share of national energy consumption by the federal government and the military is just 1.7 percent, every increase of $10 per barrel of oil drives up Air Force fuel costs by $600 million per year.

This sounds promising. The initiative to pursue alternate fuel supplies was put in place by Donald Rumsfeld.

Seen The Elephant

There's an article in the Washington Post today about soldiers returning from Iraq and what they have felt and experienced. It tells of the disconnect of most Americans from the war in Iraq and of how the returnees feel different. "You can't understand unless you were there". There is an almost surreal feeling for many of them; it's as if nothing has changed here at home, but they are so different inside. Adjustment can come slowly.

You can't understand unless you were there. That's as true a statement now as it has always been for the veterans returning from war. If you weren't there, there is no common ground to discuss the war. No context, as it were. There is a phrase that pops up from time to time during the wars America has fought that came into common usage during the Civil War. Seeing the elephant or going to see the elephant or having seen the elephant. Although the phrase appears to date from the 1830's, a lot of combat veterans from the Civil War used it to describe going into battle. "Today, we will see the elephant". Many more have used it in the years since.

No, unless you have seen the elephant, the best you can do is try your best to empathize, try your best to understand what you can, but you can never have that common vocabulary that soldiers who have seen the elephant share. There is a camaraderie that we who have not been there can never share. All we can do is help support the people who are returning. All we can do is let them know we care about them and respect what they have done for us. All we can do is honor the people who serve and protect all we hold dear.

All we can do is realize they have seen the elephant for all of us, and we must stand by them. By their sacrifice and service, they have kept us from having to see the elephant ourselves.

Please read the whole article, it is very well written.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Fuzzilicious Thinking and Carry On America for linking this post.

Why Bring This Up Now?

There are stories coming out of the Netherlands that some political opponents of Ayaan Hirsi Ali want her stripped of her Dutch citizenship, kicked out of Parliament or deported. Not necessarily in that order. Why? Because, apparently, she lied on her application for asylum in 1992. She acknowledged that fact in 2002 when she stood for election. So it's old news, but suddenly a big deal all over again.

I won't try to second guess why she did what she did, but she appears to have been up front about it when running for office. That people would suddenly make this an issue says more about their humanity than it does about her actions.

Basically, her critics have no humanity at all in this. This is a sneaky backstab aimed at a very brave woman. It appears to be nothing less than an attempt to discredit her for political reasons. Shameful behavior is alleged to have occurred - I agree. But it's not Ayaan Hirsi Ali who did it.

(By the way, if you click the poll Expatica is running on this, support for Hirsi Ali is running at 98% - I think this one backfired on the people trying to pull it off.)

Logistics

Someone once said that armchair generals discuss strategy, professionals discuss logistics. The New York Times today has an article that talks about this issue - and why troop level reductions in an election year are problematic.

Discussions of when, how fast and how far to draw down American troops in Iraq will no doubt be influenced by the domestic political mood, with Congressional elections approaching in November. Yet those pushing for significant withdrawals will run into an undeniable law of military operations: the American combat troops who remain in Iraq, and the growing number of Iraqi security forces, will still require substantial numbers of supporting American forces to remain, too, to supply food, fuel and ammunition and otherwise support combat operations.

As the Bush administration considers how and when to draw down the nearly 133,000 American troops still in Iraq, those logistical factors, among many other pressures and counterpressures, will weigh heavily toward keeping a sizable force there, delivering supplies, gathering and analyzing intelligence and providing air support to Iraqi security forces.

People need to remember that while troop reductions might be a nice goal, if even one American soldier is put at risk because of a politically motivated withdrawal, that is an unacceptable situation. Almost daily there are some people saying we went in without enough troops and, at the same time, someone else saying we are over stressing the army and can't maintain these levels.

"General Casey is feeling the pressure. He knows how hard this is on the Army, but he's getting pulled in two directions," said a general who recently served in Iraq. Like some other officers and officials interviewed for this article, he was granted anonymity because he said he had been ordered not to discuss troop levels. Lt. Gen. Robert Fry, a British Royal Marine and the deputy ground commander in Iraq, said that insurgents have increased their attacks in an attempt to disrupt formation of a permanent Iraqi government for fear it could attract widespread support among Iraqis.

"We are about to enter a phase here which is likely to be decisive in terms of the political transformation of this country," he told Pentagon reporters in a video briefing from Iraq on Friday. "The opposition knows this just as well as we do."

Our media is not helping at the moment, either. The way they are presenting the news from Iraq is painting a picture for the terrorists. It isn't a pretty picture. Just like the media did in Vietnam, they are helping snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. By presenting an image of a nation that is in disarray, one that is not willing to support the troops, they endanger the troops. The terrorists are waiting for that last helicopter.

Let's not give it to them this time, please.

Not A Guess Anymore

Given the op-ed that's running today in the LA Times by Representative Pete Hoekstra, I believe my speculation from the other day is confirmed.

We suffered a setback Thursday when USA Today ran a front-page story alleging that the National Security Agency was collecting domestic phone records. This article hurt our efforts to protect Americans by giving the enemy valuable insights into the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which has been focused like a laser beam on Al Qaeda and its known associates.

President Bush's job is to defend our nation and prevent another terrorist attack. He has taken many vital steps to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Terrorist Surveillance Program does not target ordinary U.S. citizens. This is a valuable program that I strongly support because it is protecting American lives. Let me say a few things about this program.

Keeping in mind that Hoekstra is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, this is very clear, he knew about the program - and so did Democratic lawmakers.

Second, the program fully complies with the law and the Constitution. It has been reviewed by executive branch attorneys, and congressional leaders from both parties — including my friend and colleague Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) — have been regularly briefed. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have been aware of this program for several years yet never expressed any concerns until it was illegally leaked.

So the leaker(s) in an attempt to use this as a political weapon have endangered the entire program and potentially put people at risk and have warned our enemies. My, what wonderful patriots.

I regret that I see little sign of intolerance for unauthorized disclosures of intelligence to the media from some of my Democratic colleagues today. If an individual with knowledge of the Terrorist Surveillance Program thought it was wrong or illegal, he or she could have gone to the intelligence oversight committees under the procedures established by law. By going to the media, the leaker broke the law and the oath he or she swore to protect the nation's legitimate secrets.

This was a grave crime that helped Al Qaeda and its allies in the information war by providing an understanding of our defenses and vulnerabilities against terrorist attacks.

We are a nation at war. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information only help terrorists and our enemies — and put American lives at risk.

So, a politician has been willing to go on the record that this program passes legal muster - which I rather doubt he would do if the program did not. He's also given a glimpse of the buzz saw the Democrats will be likely to walk into if they want to try to push this issue hard enough.

Now, track down and punish the leaker(s), it's about time we took this stuff seriously. Using classified information for partisan political reasons is wrong and it hurts all of us. Period.