Zimbabwe surprises me only in that it continues to get worse, long past the point that I'd thought it had bottomed out. I have pretty much given up on Afghanistan as you may have noticed, and I'm not alone, but I think there is a case to be made for going in hard into Zimbabwe and taking out the trash.
There is no longer even a pretense of a democratic process there, and the African countries have no interest in sorting this mess out, so perhaps it's time to get "neo-colonialist" on their asses.
It wouldn't be colonialist, as I have no intention of planting colonists nor exploiting the place for advantageous trade arrangements. A bit of Regime Change is, however, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Mugabe keeps trotting out his "war veterans", but there are lot of the old Rhodesian Army alumni around who could be cadre-d with western forces to kick Mugabe's ass, destroy his powerbase, and provide some muscle for a new government centred around the MDC. They did, after all WIN the election despite widespread manipulation of the results, so I think they represent the legitimate will of the majority.
Under competent management Zimbabwe could again be the breadbasket of southern Africa, and unlike Afghanistan (and perhaps Iraq, etc.) it is not such a basket case that it can't be put back on its' feet. The neighbours can't/won't do the job, but we can, and it would be a worthwhile thing to do with a reasonable timeline and obvious exit strategy.
"In and out clever" was the old term (I think I've used it here before), and is my pragmatic approach. High intensity, medium-risk operations with clear and attainable objectives. Fix things that CAN be fixed, and/or damage our enemies badly enough to set them back. Nobody is rushing to help Zimbabwe because of a lack of pressing geopolitical reasons, overstretch in various Asian quagmires and any number of logistical and political hurdles, but it doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do.
If the support of South Africa can be secured for the logistics of an operation (in their interest, after all) it can be done. By whom and with what I have no idea at present, but I use this as an example of what we can do if we feel the need to do this sort of thing. The locals are not inherently antagonistic to us and our way of life, making the place a good candidate for nation re-building. The same cannot be said for a lot of other parts of the world.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Carbon Feet of Clay
I must be feeling a bit better, as my outrage at patent stupidity is returning to near-normal levels, restoring the sense of purpose which led to me start this blog in the first place. I have had a lot of stuff on here about the Global Warming hoax/panic, and the political set are jockeying to punish us financially just as many (myself included) predicted.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Lessons Learned; now perhaps some recess?
I'm still not back in peak form for this sort of thing, but I just can't leave my poor blog to languish for too long if I can physically access it and have time to do so. Those two criteria being met, just a short post about Afghanistan and stuff.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
Monday, 26 May 2008
A bit of a break, maybe.
I have noticed that my writing isn't up to my usual standards. As this is an outlet for my rants, that might not be critical to others, it bothers me.
Accordingly, (if anyone is still looking here) I'm going to wait for things in my life to get back to the point where I can concentrate on my vanity projects before I embarrass myself further. I am however pretty sure I'll be back.
Accordingly, (if anyone is still looking here) I'm going to wait for things in my life to get back to the point where I can concentrate on my vanity projects before I embarrass myself further. I am however pretty sure I'll be back.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Slippery Rollercoaster
I'm not even sure how I feel about this, but it's dangerous territory for debate. Naturally, I want to stir that up a bit...
British MPs ... blocked a bill which would have banned the creation of inter-species embryos by a vote of 336 to 176.
One thing I am categorically opposed to is raising another child for the sole reason of providing a tissue or organ bank for a sibling. It's one thing to know that you were a surprise or an accident, but there are pleasant surprises and happy accidents, so that's not the end of it all. Being put up for adoption because you weren't part of the plan is a selfish act by your parents OR in your best interest, depending on the circumstances, so again a hard thing to generalize about.
I cannot see how a child who was born just for that purpose would feel about it. The first thing that I think is that it seems the well-being of the first child is more important to you than that of the "saviour" one. The term "saviour" is a bit loaded too; coming from a Christian-based culture it suggests suffering for the greater good. Maybe I'm reading to much into that, but it fits pretty well.
In all of this a line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me personally an embryo is just a bunch of cells until it's formed into something that at least looks like a person, and even then until it's capable of surviving on its' own it's not really child to me either. Those are my (blurry) lines, and others can feel free to have their own.
Based on that, pretty much anything you want to do to a bunch of cells is fine with me as long as that is as far as those cells will develop. The slope for me appears with how far along you allow the development of these hybrids to develop. Science has no morality of its' own, and coupled with capitalism, if left unfettered anything can and will happen.
We have laws for this reason, and so far Britain is being fairly progressive but not in "The Island of Dr. Moreau" territory just yet. Parting one kid out for your other kid(s) will remain repugnant for me whatever they say. There are other things that can be done which don't (I feel) necessarily push things over the edge.
The creation of life is a crapshoot, and loading the dice a bit in your favour isn't out of the question as far as I'm concerned. For that reason I have no fundamental objection to a bit of genetic engineering, but I really don't know if we can figure out what you can safely take out/put in without a lot of experimentation. It is the human results of that experimentation that I would not be prepared to face, as I couldn't justify what I had done on the basis of necessity.
What is necessity? Your only child will die unless they get an exact tissue match? At this point you should ask yourself why you're having children in the first place, and I won't even try to answer that for you. There is a certain amount of risk in life; the Nanny State would like to remove as much of it as possible but I think this separates us too much from whatever laws of nature govern our reproduction and survival.
While on that note, I think there are far too many of us. Unlike some people I don't propose to fix that myself, but I strongly feel that something will eventually arrive to cut us back. Yes I just finished re-reading "The Stand" but that is merely co-incidental. There are enough influenzas, Ebolas, etc. of various sorts to do the job without some sort of man-made disaster stemming from genetic engineering, so I don't worry about that as an existential threat.
Not too coherent but I'm not being marked on it, I'm just venting. Whatever the UK government comes up with now, that won't be the end of it even if somebody spawns the Queen of the Harpies out of this animal embryo thing. Buggered if I know all the hidden laws and the balance of Nature, so I'll just go with my gut and play the hand that's dealt me as best I can. I will however think about it as I do so.
British MPs ... blocked a bill which would have banned the creation of inter-species embryos by a vote of 336 to 176.
Critics had argued that creating human-animal embryos would be a "step too far" and ethically questionable -- some going so far as to brand the technique "Frankenstein science."
But Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a British newspaper that such cutting edge research could "bring new cures and treatments to millions of people."
I am in favour of most forms of actual progress (as opposed to plain "development" or expansion), but this stuff is a big can of worms. The inconsistencies in my personality are revealed very effectively by my responses on this topic.
Being non-religious (technical term for my position is "agnostic") my morality is my own, not out of anyone's books. That does not, for the record make things simpler but rather more complex since I have no assurance that I'm right past what my gut tells me. My gut is by far the smartest part of me, and even it has problems here.One thing I am categorically opposed to is raising another child for the sole reason of providing a tissue or organ bank for a sibling. It's one thing to know that you were a surprise or an accident, but there are pleasant surprises and happy accidents, so that's not the end of it all. Being put up for adoption because you weren't part of the plan is a selfish act by your parents OR in your best interest, depending on the circumstances, so again a hard thing to generalize about.
I cannot see how a child who was born just for that purpose would feel about it. The first thing that I think is that it seems the well-being of the first child is more important to you than that of the "saviour" one. The term "saviour" is a bit loaded too; coming from a Christian-based culture it suggests suffering for the greater good. Maybe I'm reading to much into that, but it fits pretty well.
In all of this a line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me personally an embryo is just a bunch of cells until it's formed into something that at least looks like a person, and even then until it's capable of surviving on its' own it's not really child to me either. Those are my (blurry) lines, and others can feel free to have their own.
Based on that, pretty much anything you want to do to a bunch of cells is fine with me as long as that is as far as those cells will develop. The slope for me appears with how far along you allow the development of these hybrids to develop. Science has no morality of its' own, and coupled with capitalism, if left unfettered anything can and will happen.
We have laws for this reason, and so far Britain is being fairly progressive but not in "The Island of Dr. Moreau" territory just yet. Parting one kid out for your other kid(s) will remain repugnant for me whatever they say. There are other things that can be done which don't (I feel) necessarily push things over the edge.
The creation of life is a crapshoot, and loading the dice a bit in your favour isn't out of the question as far as I'm concerned. For that reason I have no fundamental objection to a bit of genetic engineering, but I really don't know if we can figure out what you can safely take out/put in without a lot of experimentation. It is the human results of that experimentation that I would not be prepared to face, as I couldn't justify what I had done on the basis of necessity.
What is necessity? Your only child will die unless they get an exact tissue match? At this point you should ask yourself why you're having children in the first place, and I won't even try to answer that for you. There is a certain amount of risk in life; the Nanny State would like to remove as much of it as possible but I think this separates us too much from whatever laws of nature govern our reproduction and survival.
While on that note, I think there are far too many of us. Unlike some people I don't propose to fix that myself, but I strongly feel that something will eventually arrive to cut us back. Yes I just finished re-reading "The Stand" but that is merely co-incidental. There are enough influenzas, Ebolas, etc. of various sorts to do the job without some sort of man-made disaster stemming from genetic engineering, so I don't worry about that as an existential threat.
Not too coherent but I'm not being marked on it, I'm just venting. Whatever the UK government comes up with now, that won't be the end of it even if somebody spawns the Queen of the Harpies out of this animal embryo thing. Buggered if I know all the hidden laws and the balance of Nature, so I'll just go with my gut and play the hand that's dealt me as best I can. I will however think about it as I do so.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
If it was obvious to me...
Another lost opportunity, quel surprise. That said, at least it was recognized in time by one of the major players, unfortunately not the one on the ground to do the job:
I really can't say much other than that. As I mentioned a week or so back (see: "Here We Go Again, Lebanon") this was a golden opportunity to further "Western" interests (including those of most of the Lebanese population), and I was not alone in thinking so.
The one scintilla of comfort I can take from this is that the Americans seem (again, unconfirmed reports and all) to have been prepared to back Israel while it did the dirty work it will eventually need to do anyway.
There has been a lot of talk about the future of Israel on its' 60th anniversary. To me, Israel only made it as far as it did by being prepared to put the smack-down on its' enemies, and this recent (last 10 years or so) softening of resolve doesn't bode well for another 60 years.
Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 18, 2008
Sunday night, May 11, the Israeli army was poised to strike Hizballah. The Shiite militia was winding up its takeover of West Beirut and battling pro-government forces in the North. When he opened the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, May 11, prime minister Ehud Olmert had already received the go-ahead from Washington for a military strike to halt the Hizballah advance. The message said that President George W. Bush would not call off his visit to Israel to attend its 60th anniversary celebrations and would arrive as planned Wednesday, May 14 - even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hizballah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.
American intelligence estimated that Hizballah was capable of retaliating against northern Israel at the rate of 600 missiles a day.
Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Lvini, the only ministers in the picture, decided not to intervene in Lebanon’s civil conflict. Iran’s surrogate army consequently waltzed unchecked to its second victory in two years over the United States and Israel.
I really can't say much other than that. As I mentioned a week or so back (see: "Here We Go Again, Lebanon") this was a golden opportunity to further "Western" interests (including those of most of the Lebanese population), and I was not alone in thinking so.
The one scintilla of comfort I can take from this is that the Americans seem (again, unconfirmed reports and all) to have been prepared to back Israel while it did the dirty work it will eventually need to do anyway.
There has been a lot of talk about the future of Israel on its' 60th anniversary. To me, Israel only made it as far as it did by being prepared to put the smack-down on its' enemies, and this recent (last 10 years or so) softening of resolve doesn't bode well for another 60 years.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
A drop in the ocean
The idea that China needs the 200-strong DART to help them out is quite frankly laughable, and a sign that whoever came up with that plan is really out of touch. China is not some failed third-world state; it is a powerful global economic and cultural force with massive armed forces.
DART could definitely help somewhere like Burma, but it's unlikely they will get the chance. That is no reason to try to cook up things for them to do elsewhere in the region; one country that doesn't want them should be enough for the moment. This story kicked up a lot of comments, but most if not all of them missed the fact that China has no interest in DART at all.
The head of the Chinese Canadian National Council can say whatever she wants, but China doesn't need us or want us so I can't see our government pushing it unless they've completely lost their collective mind.
I thought I had a lot more to say about that, but sometimes less is more I guess.
DART could definitely help somewhere like Burma, but it's unlikely they will get the chance. That is no reason to try to cook up things for them to do elsewhere in the region; one country that doesn't want them should be enough for the moment. This story kicked up a lot of comments, but most if not all of them missed the fact that China has no interest in DART at all.
The head of the Chinese Canadian National Council can say whatever she wants, but China doesn't need us or want us so I can't see our government pushing it unless they've completely lost their collective mind.
I thought I had a lot more to say about that, but sometimes less is more I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)