Don’t know about you, but I came for the atmosphere.

The Bush Administration’s record on the environment is abysmal; now we’re gonna start paying for it.

What the fuck are they doing? Are they TRYING to screw-up our planet on purpose? Or is there something they’re not telling us?

This winter is going to be harsh on a lot of folks, but don’t you worry, the President will be warm and cozy at home in the Oval Office.

Stay safe, keep warm, and vote for your lives.

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush

In mid-2003 the average American had grown isolated from the global community. A common attitude in many parts of the United States could be summarized thusly: “If someone doesn’t like America, fuck them. Fuck the French, fuck the U.N. and fuck those hippie scumbag protesters out in the streets.”

The Bush Administration’s policy of continuous war for continuous profit was criticized by many constituencies, but the “opposition” party fielded no fewer than nine candidates for the election in 2004. The Democratic party was plagued in the early primary season by the inability to organize the bulk of their membership behind a single candidate. This problem was solved by one candidate’s swift adoption of the Internet as a legitimate medium for serious political debate.

During that summer of odd weather, momentous discoveries, and strange occurrences few people noticed the subtle games being played in the nation’s places of power.

The news had been flooded for months with stories of war and weapons of mass destruction. Every office in America had suddenly spawned pundits in the fields of International Law, Military Science, and Politics in general. The populace was numb with talk of precision strikes, the forced exile of foreign leaders, and the role of the American military around the globe.

In the lingering glow of Baghdad’s destruction, the United States made itself ready to lead the world into the greatest period of weapons proliferation ever recorded.

The United States had pioneered use of high-precision weaponry during the first Gulf War in 1993. Guided missiles were used to great effect in destroying specific buildings in a crowded city, and leveling bridges with a single shot. Forever gone were the days of carpet bombing.

After swift success in annihilating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with judicious use of precision weapons and special forces operations, the Bush Administration set its sights on the so-called “Axis of Evil.” According to George W. Bush, three nations comprised this axis: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. While Iran and North Korea were well-known to be engaged in nuclear research with the goal of producing a weapon, it is now generally agreed that Iraq had no such program following the destruction of its fledgling nuclear research facility by Israel in 1993.

President Bush, armed with doctored intelligence reports and a determination to go to war, falsely argued that Iraq not only had a nuclear weapons program, but also vast, uncounted stores of chemical and biological weapons. He erroneously claimed these weapons could be used against the United States if the Iraqi government sold them. To this day no such weapons have yet been found.

Gulf War II saw the first use of a super bomb known as a MOAB or Big Blue in combat. At that time, it was the largest, most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever conceived. Video of a test of the MOAB was distributed to the international media before the war. No public outcry beyond a growing global anti-war movement was generated by news that the weapon would likely be used in the war. Experimental thermobaric weapons used months earlier in Afghanistan similarly drew little public criticism.

The trend of public apathy towards U.S. production and use of weapons of mass destruction was also apparent in the lack of media coverage and public outcry concerning Agent Orange and Napalm; two weapons of mass destruction which once commanded extremely high buzz-factor in the United States only a decade earlier.

The stage was set for the U.S. Department of Defense and its industry partners to re-kindle America’s love affair with nuclear weapons. With public outrage no-longer a factor in the United States nuclear policy, all that stood in the way was a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing declared in 1992. That moratorium was debated at the now historic Offutt Conference in August 2003 on the anniversaries of the first and – until that point – only uses of nuclear weapons in combat; the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America.

The argument was made that the casualties of the second Gulf War could have been avoided had the first surgical strike of the war, known as the “decapitation” strategy, been successful. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, and his top advisers had been tracked to a specific building in Baghdad. The building was destroy by precision bombs and missiles. Saddam and his inner circle escaped with there lives. Had the bombs and missiles been low-yield nuclear “bunker busters” instead of conventional weapons, the Generals claimed, the Iraqi regime would have crumbled instantly.

Their theories were tested in the next war. But that’s a different story for a different time.

Labels: bloggers, blogging, iraq, MOAB, Offutt Conference, thermobaric weapons

I was doing some research tonight and tried to find a particular link that I know I had blogged at one point. That archive of posts is getting pretty deep. My high hopes that a search for "rapid dissent" and the object of my research on google were dashed instantly. I was going to have to this the old fashioned way: I had to go back and read my own blog. It was unusual. Like reading old term papers.

Anyway, I ran across this gem from April 3rd, 2003. The links still work. Not to shabby for a washed-up, armchair intel analyst if I do say so myself:

"When you sit down across from an opponent at chess, or tic-tac-toe for that matter, it’s not very difficult to play that opponent to a draw – even if they’re a “better” player than you. If you have no intention of winning from the start, you can turn the game into a very frustrating exercise for your adversary; Especially if instead of a single match, you play a series of long, slow matches. It’s obvious that the superior player will win in the end, but who’s counting the pawns?

In reading about what’s likely to become “The Siege of Baghdad,” I’ve had to ask myself, what is an acceptable end-game for Saddam Hussein at this point? He’s not in this battle to actually win – that option doesn’t exist for him. The best he can do is inflict as much damage to US forces as possible, and hope that world and US public opinion will eventually further hamstring the Pentagon’s efforts to fight this war the way they want and need to in order to minimize the loss of American lives. This is, of course, monstrous – but all’s fair.

In my mind, it’s logical to ask what the magic number is. That being the number of US casualties Saddam Hussein’s forces must inflict before his death for this entire operation to be considered a costly “failure” on the part of the United States. In other words, how many US lives will it take before history regards this war as Vietnam II, instead of Gulf War II?

Numerically, I think it’ll take far less than the number of lives lost in Vietnam. I also think it will take far less time. The stakes are much, much higher here. The US is using 21st century technology: a constellation of intelligence satellites, precision guided bombs, special forces, the best of the best of the best…against troops employing soviet era, rusting, dilapidated armaments.

So far, we know that the US troops on the ground have had some difficultly. It’s widely believed that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wanted to not only do this "on the cheap,” but also to show how much the US could do with so little effort. The plan was to show the entire Axis of Evil how easy it is for the US to cut through a nation like a hot knife through butter – just like Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are watching this unfold just as attentively as China was watching the first Gulf War. This is an international parade and review of the United States top weaponry and intelligence capabilities – every fuck-up and short-coming is being noted by military and diplomatic analysts world-wide. The precise outcome of this war will have serious long-term geo-political consequences.

So what’s the magic number? How many Americans need to die before the American public begins to loose confidence in its Discovery Channel education on the methods of modern warfare? 1,000? 2,500? 5,000? So far the count is at 78, and the siege of Baghdad has yet to begin.

Republican Guard forces have been steadily falling back to Baghdad. Behind them they’ve left skeleton crews and heavy armaments that have been “melting” away against the superior US offensive. These forces have not surrendered, nor have they been added to casualty lists. Where are they? A “standoff” in Baghdad appears eminent.

If the Bush administration pushes our troops into Baghdad, the odds of our “winning” this war in the history books get a whole lot worse. But what are the alternatives?

1. Decisive military victory: Saddam and his top officials get taken out one-by-one or en masse by special forces or surgical missile strikes before US regulars must enter the city limits. This is an on-going operation, and has thus far proven very difficult. This type of operation consumes vast amounts of intelligence resources, and risks high profile US casualties and POWs for the Iraqi regime to parade as propaganda – not to mention the potential of loss of sensitive materials (i.e. frequency lists, maps, etc.) or equipment carried by these personnel which could be later exploited by Iraqi forces should even one of the missions fail.

2. Siege, and diplomacy. The city is surrounded. Water, electricity, and food supplies are cut-off. Another ultimatum is issued calling for the head of Saddam and his top officials. Exile might also be put back on the table. At best this might result in an internal coup which has failed to materialize as of yet. This strategy commits US forces to entering the city eventually should the plan fail. It also has a time limit – the “humanitarian crisis” clock will begin ticking the moment the city’s water supplies are turned-off.

3. Shock and awe. Remember this old hat? Well it’s still an option. In fact – although I might be giving too much credit to the administration here – the battle plan up until this point, including the “setbacks,” may have all been part of a scheme to draw Saddam and his forces off-guard before the final implementation of this ambitious strategy. With several tens of thousands of US troops on the “threshold of the city,” shock and awe has a legitimate chance of striking fear and terror into troops stationed in Baghdad. A mass surrender at this point would scuttle any of Saddam’s plans. The problem is this: Do we have enough bombs left for shock and awe? Reports have been trickling out that the US forces are running out of costly precision missiles and bombs. Although it’s worth noting that we haven’t yet seen the use of the MOAB/“Big Blue” super bombs touted in the days before the initial strike of the war. Has the administration been saving them until this point? Will it matter if they have?

I’m sure there are more options available to our military planners as our troops approach Baghdad. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head this morning. Time will tell in the end, but I sincerely hope that the current strategy of a “final battle inside the capital” is not what we will see unfold. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be like sending our troops into an urban warfare meat grinder, or perhaps even a chemical trap. All the while, Saddam and his forces will keep-on playing for a draw, and the rest of us will be left counting the pawns."

Labels: bloggers, blogging, iraq

In those heady days before the first bombs fell in Iraq, when worldwide protests and public outcry had a chance to change the course of world history (before the will of the people took a backseat to ideology in this country), a friend of mine hit me with the old “love it or leave it” argument.

His charge was something along the lines of “If you love Iraq so much, why don’t you go there and see for yourself what kinds of rights and freedoms you’ll enjoy under Saddam’s regime?” Despite my agreement that Saddam Hussein was indeed a colossal fuck-wad, my friend refused to see that my chief concern was not whether or not the man was fit to lead a nation, but whether or not the United States had the right to make that determination, and then act unilaterally against a sovereign government.

International law aside, many of us were also against the war on matters of principle. The Iraq-Al Qa’eda connection never existed. Not to the extent that Bush Administration claimed, and certainly not to extent of the well-known Saudi Arabia-Al Qa’ida connection. The call for war against Iraq simply made no sense to us, but no one would discuss or debate the issue. “Love or leave it,” was the mantra-like answer our questions received.

Some protesters felt very strongly – long before recent revelations - that the Bush Administration was trying to hoodwink the American public by using the War on Terrorism and the search for Bin Laden to generate support for a war against Iraq. These individuals knew then that the so-called “evidence” against Iraq was fabricated and massaged to fit the Bush Administration’s ideology of war-at-any-cost. One such individual was a retired schoolteacher: Faith Fippinger.

Fippinger was one of a score Americans who traveled to Iraq before the war began to act as a “human shield.” This group was joined by as many as 300 others from nations around the world. Their intent: To serve as a deterrent for an unjust war. Shortly after their presence was noted in the international media, it was made known that these peace-niks would enjoy no special consideration from the U.S. Military when the bullets began flying.

Despite this, many peace protesters stayed on in Iraq as long as they dared. Their efforts were in vain. The Bush Administration ignored the global demand for diplomacy, and sent the United States, Briton, and the “Coalition of the Willing” (comprised of countries most Americans can’t even locate on a map, much less pronounce) into war.

Adding insult to injury the Bush Administration, through the U.S. Treasury Department (a.k.a the U.S. Secret Service) has served Fippinger with fines totaling in excess of $10,000 for her trip to Iraq. They claim her actions were in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and that she can either pay-up or face up to 12 years in prison for the crimes of her insolence.

For her part, Fippinger has stated that she would not pay, declaring, "I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." To which officials responded with the threat of increased fines or the garnishing of her retirement pay, her Social Security check or her other assets.

It’s not as bad as living under Saddam yet, but we seem one step closer to tyranny nonetheless.

Labels: activism, al-Qa'eda, anti-war, Faith Fippinger, iraq, Secret Service

I’ve heard some interesting analysis of late concerning the Howard Dean campaign. A common theme permeates the recent media coverage of my favorite candidate: The opinion that anti-Bush voters in America won’t be enough to guarantee the general election for the former Governor of Vermont. Both liberals and conservatives alike have seized upon this idea in an attempt to stop the Dean “Tidal Wave.”

Some seem to believe Dean’s anti-war position is more a liability than an asset. (We’ll see what they think of this platform next November when – averaging a death-a-day between now and then – over 500 American lives will have been lost in Iraq.) They’re doing they’re damnedest to spin anti-war into anti-security. This is where I can see Dean’s opportunity to come in swinging.

Are Americans safer now than they were on September 11th, 2001? Do Americans have more or less confidence in the intelligence being used to protect our national security? Are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney trusted by the American people as competent policy makers?

We’ve seen what a flap was caused by the recent revelation that Colin Powell wouldn’t stay on for another Bush term. When taken with the rest of the Bush cast - to include Ashcroft, Ridge, Wolfowitz, etc. – Powell is generally viewed as the most “likeable” character of the bunch; The rest of them either send chills down people’s spines, or make their skin crawl.

George W. Bush doesn’t secure our nation alone. His group of highly visible, highly recognizable, and highly fallible cronies “help” him. Bush’s approval rating might be holding strength now, but if those same poll respondents were asked to consider Bush Administration as a whole we’d see a very different picture. The personalities of this Administration have polarized the American public far more than any President alone has done in over 100-years. This is a significant factor to consider.

As the Dean is “soft-on-security because he is anti-war” cries grow in number and strength, his campaign may want to consider the following argument: Are George W. Bush and his Administration any better? National security is not only the President’s job. The Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security – and all their respective deputies – also have a large hand to play. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Ridge and Ashcroft are well-known and rightfully mistrusted by the American people. This Administration is not soft-on-security, it’s incompetent-on-security. Dean would do well to emphasize this in his criticisms of the Administration.

While Bush remains “charming” and “well-liked” amongst a significant number of American voters, that popularity will diminish rapidly as those same voters are forced to consider their feelings for the President’s staff, and their advice to the President regarding policy. Can America afford another four years of Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft?

Howard Dean can beat Bush, but he needs to expand his argument to encompass the entire Bush Administration if he wants to take command of the security issue. Security and the economy are the two largest issues in America. They will make or break the winning campaign in 2004. This so-called anti-security spin is exactly the opportunity Dean needs to neutralize his opponents, and take the Oval Office.

Labels: 2004 election, activism, anti-war, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, howard dean

Howard Dean. Former Governor of Vermont. Medical Doctor. You might have heard of him.

This week marks a historic moment in American history. It's a moment when a candidate for the highest office in the land has risen – against the will of Democratic Party “leadership” – from a grassroots campaign to the national media stage.

Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, CNN and others are all abuzz with Howard Dean, once termed “a second-tier candidate destined to be an ‘also-ran.’” This mainstream media attention – while lagging FAR behind independent, internet news and opinion sources – is right on the mark. Dean is, and will continue to be, the candidate to beat in the 2004 Presidential Election.

This goes not only for his fellow “Democrats” (widely considered “Bush-lites”), but also for the President himself. Bush’s approval ratings a sinking lower with each passing week of dismal news both on the “War on Terrorism” front, and on the “It’s the economy, stupid” front. What’s a “rank and file” non-Republican to do?

Well that depends on your news sources. If you read this piece from the New York Times (reg. req.), “Democrats Seeking Labor's Backing Call for More Health Benefits and Less Free Trade,” then you might not have even noticed that Gov. Dean was present at “a 90-minute forum sponsored by the A.F.L.-C.I.O” in Chicago. Howard Dean is barely mentioned until the last paragraph which states:

“For his part, Dr. Dean warned about efforts by the administration to restrict the ability of union workers to organize. "What we have to do is let the American people understand that if you want a strong economy, the right to organize is important because you have to make sure middle-class people have enough money in their pockets," he said.”

Other articles discussed Dean’s views as they were expressed at the forum in more detail. For instance an AP piece run on CNN.com, titled “AFL-CIO forum exposes divisions in Democratic field Cheers for Gephardt, boos for Lieberman,” stated:

“Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, cited the case of Larry Allen, a
Wal-Mart worker in the audience who was fired after he returned from a
United Food and Commercial Workers union convention.
"If you want to protect pensions, the way to do that is to organize," Dean said.
Other candidates weren't so blatant in their effort to court the politically powerful AFL-CIO.”

The divisions within the party mentioned in the title have been discussed a lot lately. Mainly, they come down to this: The Democratic Leadership Council (a.k.a. “Bush-lite”) vs. The-rest-of-us-who-hate-Bush. The point of contention? Does a contender for the Oval Office need to be so moderate and bland that they appeal to everyone, or can a “flinty,” critical candidate inspire a constituency into action vs. an increasingly unpopular president.

The powers that be – and here I’m referring to the 10 unions who've hastily signed-on to the Gephardt campaign – believed that an insider with name recognition had the best chance of unseating the current President. Of course, that was back when that president’s approval ratings were much, much higher. Today, as one recent headline puts it: “Bush's drop in polls forces Democrats to reassess crop of candidates.”

Given Howard Dean’s broad internet appeal, and fundraising momentum, the endorsement of a major labor organization such as the AFL-CIO would all but clinch the Democratic Party nomination for him. Fortunately, his people are quite aware of this fact, as is MSNBC's Tom Curry who offer’s this veiled assessment of Dean’s need for labor:

“The 13 million-member AFL-CIO labor confederation is not likely to
endorse a Democratic contender until October. And due to splits among the
member unions, the labor confederation may not issue an endorsement at all
until after the Democrats select their nominee next summer.
In an age of Internet fund-raising and the Meetup.com Web site that
allows a candidate’s supporters — principally Dean’s — to spontaneously
organize at the grass roots, who needs labor unions?
The answer: any Democrat who hopes to defeat George Bush.”

So who are the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO, what do they want, and who might they support in October?

First-off, we now know they don’t like Lieberman, who – as mentioned above – was booed at the AFL-CIO event in Chicago that drew a crowd of 2,000. Apparently that audience didn’t like the Senator’s school voucher program which is strongly opposed by several unions. Go figure.

Gephardt has a strong lead against his follow candidates in the union-courting race, but that momentum may now be shifting. There’s a strong indication that the so called rank-and-file of the AFL-CIO, and particularly the largest union in that organization, the 1.5 million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), are not so sure about Mr. Gephardt.

Dr. Dean on the other hand is another story. Health insurance and the right to organize are two issues he discussed with the group in Chicago. They loved it. There’s also some sentiment within the organization that the spending of billions of U.S. tax dollars abroad while our economy is hemorrhaging jobs at home might not be the best course of action at present. Dean agrees.

I said this was a historic moment in our nation. I meant it. I honestly believe that Howard Dean can win the support of the AFL-CIO, and with it have a very serious chance at taking the White House in 2004. The question is will the Democratic Leadership Council come to terms with this fact, or will they attempt to thwart the will of the people?

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, howard dean, media

Of all of my ideas...what are the odds this would show-up just a day after we talked about the possibility of genetically engineered power sources? Now it doesn't necessarily need a central nervous system. In my model, one would power the organism with raw waste, essentially feeding the thing garbage in exchange for its heat and bio-electricity. This research allows a different approach altogether. The organism could soak up raw nutrients (perhaps still derived from waste materials), but now all it has to do is "live enough" to produce glucose which is then used to generate power. All we need to do is figure out what type of "waste" we want this organic power plant to consume. No doubt, different "fuels" would produce energies of varying quantities and qualities. There would also be by-products.

Scientists foresee using this form of energy production to power devices imbedded in us. This is, of course, not nearly as creepy as it sounds to some. In fact, there are those who would like nothing more than to have all manner of gadgets and devices implanted in their bodies for various reasons. But the possibilities are greater than that.

Why create minuscule bits of machinery that can run off a large biological organism like ourselves when we can create large biological organisms that can power our machinery? Sure you'd probably need to have a Cthulhu looking mass of living "mouths" and "assholes" as big as a house to consume the raw waste of a small town, but if it pumped out enough energy to power all the town' s traffic lights, why not? Keep it at the dump. Use its waste as fertilizer.

These glucose-to-electricity-things will become more efficient with time. With a bit of waste processing, I bet scientists could eventually find a way to squeeze our shit and garbage into high-energy "power bars" for our fleshy minions. All the better to power the bio-mechanical bodies we could give them once the relative mass of their organic parts decreased enough in size to be economical. The first automatons would likely be dumb, giant-sized, lightweight, and efficient eating machines. Hollow-boned dinosaurs would be a good model for early prototypes.

As the technology advances, faster, stronger, smaller machines could be powered by less and less glucose-producing organic material. Conversely, advances in nanomachinery could also be utilized to direct and control walking, eating power plants that not only live and die, but also do as they are programmed.

This issue goes well beyond the debate of the moral propriety of mere cloning. But that's a different discussion.

It might also be interesting to note the fact that just previous to discussing genetically engineered energy sources, we were talking about Artificial Intelligence and the recent sea change in the realm of supercomputing. Advocates of supercomputers have won-out in a series of contract and grant proposals - especially with DARPA and the NSA - against their rivals: Proponents of cluster/grid processing.

A large enough database, particularly something like the Semantic Web project, combined with the correct approach to processing, could be the precursor to legitimate, advanced AI. An AI is after all just a large database, a powerful processor (or cluster), and a sophisticated querying client. The leap in this evolution will come when an AI achieves the capacity for original thought; when it is capable of identifying a desire or need of its own, and able to act on it. We wondered at what could motivate such a quickening.

The most logical impetus - I now believe - would be hunger. The need for self-preservation through the consumption of food, fuel, or energy might be enough to "inspire" the awakening of an AI. While this is difficult to imagine given the current form and function of AI, it becomes a more reasonable possibility when one considers the evolutionary potential of independent, self-powered, quasi-organic automatons endowed - by their creators - with memory.

Depending on which ways these technologies go, we could end up with either "Attack of the Man-Eating Nanobots!," "The Matrix," or maybe just "2001." Then again, maybe the near future will be beyond our present comprehension, and not entirely of our own making.

Labels: environmentalism, oil, technology