Comments or complaints?
Lay 'em on me:
lawrencehaws-at-yahoo.com

Mission Statement:
So long as there shall exist, by reason of stupidity or naivete, a leftist condemnation, which, in the face of critical thought, irrationally propagates blame and vilifies a benevolent nation with sanctimonious commentary; so long as the three problems of the age - the degradation of morality by Chomsky, the ruin of patriotism by Sontag and the dwarfing of intellect by Michael Moore and Berkeley, California - are not solved; so long as, in certain circles, political asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as The New York Times and The Guardian remain online, blogs like this cannot be useless.




FAMILIAR SHORES

A Dog's Life
Andrew Olmsted
Big Stupid Tommy
Bo Cowgill
Cut on the Bias
Daily Pundit
Dissecting Leftism
Doubleplusgood   Infotainment;
Dr. Weevil
Forest for the Trees
Fresh Bilge
Goes Without Saying
Gooseneck
Hey Listen
Horologium
Instapundit
James Lileks
La Shawn Barber
Lynxx Pherrett
Mark Steyn
Midwest Conservative   Journal;
National Center Blog
No Watermelons
Noxturne
Off Wing Opinion
On the Third Hand
Opinion Journal
OutdoorsPro
Over Fed Mind
Patio Pundit
Pontifex Ex Machina
Primary Main Objective
Ramblings' Journal
Rantburg
Ryne McClaren
Scrofula
Sine Qua Non Pundit
Sociopathocracy
Talking Dog
Tex the Pontificator"
The Corner
Therapy Sessions
Thought Minion
Tim Blair
Tonecluster
Turf's Eye View
Twisted Spinster
USS Clueless
Viking Pundit
Volokh Conspiracy

SUPERFLUOUS INFO

About Me
What's a Hawspipe?
Gift Shop




XML Site Feed

 
Fix bayonets

Mark Steyn lays out a plan for restoring self-rule to Iraq, advancing something called "asymmetrical federalism."

[It's] a Canadian term, but don't let that put you off. What it means is that the province of Quebec has certain powers -- its own immigration policy, for example -- that the province of Ontario doesn't.

Obviously, any self-respecting American would regard it as an abomination if the state of Vermont had a completely different level of sovereignty from the state of New Hampshire. But not all nations are as harmoniously constituted as the USA. I'm not just talking your average banana-republic basket case. Take America's closest ally: the four parts of the United Kingdom -- England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales -- are governed completely differently, three of the four having ''national'' parliaments with widely varying degrees of power, and the fourth (England) having no parliament at all. Scotland has revenue-raising powers, Wales doesn't. There's no constitutional logic to it: It's merely the central government's utilitarian response to different local conditions.

Something of the sort is already happening on the ground in Iraq. There are some 8,000 towns and villages in the country. How many do you hear about on the news? For a week, it's all Fallujah all the time. Then it's Najaf, and nada for anywhere else. Currently, 90 percent of Iraqi coverage is about one lousy building: Abu Ghraib. So what's going on in the other 7,997 dots on the map? In the Shia province of Dhi Qar, a couple hundred miles southeast of Baghdad, 16 of the biggest 20 cities plus many smaller towns will have elected councils by June. These were the first free elections in Dhi Qar's history and ''in almost every case, secular independents and representatives of nonreligious parties did better than the Islamists.'' That assessment is from the anti-war anti-Bush anti-Blair Euro-lefties at the Guardian, by the way.

That policy of ad hoc, incremental, rolling devolution needs to be accelerated. Towns and provinces should have as much sovereignty as they can handle, on the obvious principle that the constituent parts of ramshackle federations rarely progress at the same pace. In the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia is now an advanced Western economy, Kosovo is a U.N. slum housing project. If one were to cast the situation in rough British terms, the Kurdish areas are broadly analogous to Scotland, Dhi Qar and other Shia provinces are Wales, and the Sunni Triangle is Northern Ireland.

Sounds sensible to me and I hope we have something like that in the works. Whether you agreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq or not, we're in it now and it would be a disaster -- not only for Iraq, but for the US as well -- if we were to lose the fight against Muqtada al-Sadr's militia thugs and the foreign terrorists in Iraq. The only way that can happen is if we lose our nerve at home. Saddam's out of power and he ain't never coming back. All that matters now is winning.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/24/2004    |

 
Kerry-McCain?

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius makes the case for a Kerry-McCain ticket, claiming that the logic behind it "isn't to win an election but to provide leadership for a divided country at war." Ignatius writes that of all the potential VP candidates, only McCain's maverick style would be able to reach out across party lines and bring Red and Blue America together again (to defeat George Bush, of course).

In accounting McCain's bona fides as a symbol of bipartisanship, Ignatius offers this example:

He demanded accountability for abuse at Abu Ghraib by bluntly telling the secretary of defense, "No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question."

Wow, that reads like Rummy was trying to worm his way out of his responsibilty by ducking the question. Was he? That's the implication Ignatius gives without revealing what the Senator's question was, so for the context we go to the New York Times:

MAY 7 - A chastened Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered his personal apology today for the abuses inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners by their American military jailers, saying that the wrongdoings were "fundamentally un-American."

"I take full responsibility," Mr. Rumsfeld told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, some of whom pressed him with hostile questions. "I offer my deepest apology." Later, he delivered virtually the same remarks to the House Armed Services Committee.

In appearances widely seen as crucial to his prospects of remaining as Pentagon chief, Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that he was responsible for what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad because the events occurred "on my watch."

"I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "They're human beings." [...]

As for his own future, Mr. Rumsfeld told the senators, "I'd resign in a minute" if he concluded that he could no longer lead the Defense Department effectively. [...]

"Let me be clear," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and the members of Congress."

That doesn't sound like someone who is trying to avoid accountability. Then what to make of McCain's harsh questioning? As the NYT reported, McCain "wanted to know what private contractors were in charge of questioning the prisoners and had authority over the guards" at Abu Ghraib. To which Rumsfeld explained, in his own "maverick" style, "That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken is determining."

I don't know whether or not Kerry will pick McCain as a running mate -- a pro-life hawk on the Democratic ticket? Do the Dems hate Bush that much? -- but for his part McCain has said, "I have totally ruled it out." For one possible reason (among many), he may still harbor his own aspirations to the presidency. He can run in 2008, but not if he's VP, and by 2012 he'll be too old at 76, which, at that age, would make him the oldest president ever elected; seven years older than Reagan when he began his first term. So, I doubt it.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/23/2004    |

 
'Stifle It,' Denny

I agree with this Dallas Morning News editorial.

Mr. Hastert snorted at Mr. McCain's Republican credentials, and lit into him over his opposition to Bush tax cuts, saying that if Mr. McCain wanted to learn something about sacrifice, he ought to visit wounded soldiers in military hospitals.

Let's get this straight: The House speaker, who ducked Vietnam service on a medical deferment, is telling a man who was beaten so badly by the Communists that he cannot lift his arms over his head, and who refused to leave prison ahead of his comrades, that he has something to learn about sacrifice for his country – all because the senator disagrees over spending?

A monumentally stupid thing to say, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, but Sen. McCain is right about the runaway spending going on in Congress.

(Via The Corner)

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/21/2004    |

 
A new photoblog

There are some changes afoot at Mark Nelson's Outdoors Pro. Armed with a new digital camera, the professional ski patrol and Alaskan rafting guide will now be posting photos of the spectacular views he enjoys daily as a benefit of the job. His blog gives an interesting look inside the adventure tourism and outdoor recreation industry, illustrating nicely the old axiom, "Find a job you love to do and you'll never have to work another day in your life."

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/19/2004    |

 
More blame America first

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Sue Ontiveros defends the media against criticism that it is overplaying the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos and underplaying the video pictures of Nick Berg's gruesome death to the benefit of our enemies.

Well, you know what? Maybe for once we, your everyday Americans, should accept our part in this whole mess. Since the moment that first plane smacked into the Twin Towers, I have wondered if our being so oblivious to the important happenings around us didn't play a role in the tragedy.

She's right. For years leading up to 9/11, Islamic terrorists were doing all they could to get our attention: the 1993 bombing of the WTC killing 6 civilians and injuring more than 1,000; the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers killing 19 servicemen and injuring hundreds more; the 1998 bombing of two US embassies in East Africa killing 224 civilians and injuring over 5,000; and the 1999 bombing of the USS Cole killing 17 sailors and injuring 30 more.

We should've been alert enough to have answered their call to war years earlier. Somehow, though, I doubt these are the "important happenings" Ms. Ontiveros meant.

Don't think that al-Qaida or anyone else who wants to take a poke at us hasn't noticed that way too often our citizenry has a tendency to act like bubbleheads. Sure, we get mad if someone does something to kill or hurt Americans, but we just can't concentrate long enough to figure out why it happened or what's the best way to address our problems.

There it is: "why it happened," A.K.A. the "root causes." As if the Islamofascists wouldn't be killing us if we hadn't wronged them. This is nonsense. Unless we want to submit to Sharia law, or at the very least abandon the rest of the world to it along with our foreign interests until the Islamists finally get around to us, they won't stop attacking. The best way to address "our problems," which are terrorist groups and nation states that align themselves with terrorism, is to defeat the enemy by taking the fight to them.

We can't be bothered to figure out how the heck we ended up in Iraq. That's too complicated for us.

No, it's too complicated for some. Many of us know very well that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. Concentrate, Sue. (More here, here, here and here.)

During the discussion on Berg, I actually heard someone on the radio blame Saddam Hussein for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Hey, remember Osama bin Laden? Maybe not. He hasn't been on television lately.

That may be because he's dead, but even if he's not he's on the run so much these days that he hasn't been able to mount another strike on US soil. We still have active operations in Afghanistan, and Iraq hasn't distracted from that.

I've actually heard people blame George W. Bush for the Iraq war. Hey, remember Saddam Hussein? His numerous violations of the 1991 ceasefire? His violation of 17 UN resolutions? His hostile refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors? His repeated firing on our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones? Maybe not.

Do we realize this is the second time, albeit in a different country, that an American who was Jewish has been beheaded in that part of the world? Do we really think that's a coincidence? What does it mean?

I know of no one who thinks that is a coincidence, and what it means is rather obvious, isn't it?

Can we be attentive long enough to consider that maybe some of the troops we've sent to Iraq have not been adequately trained? And how do we get a better-trained military? Is it through a military draft? Will the reported abuses at Abu Ghraib force that to happen?

The US has the best trained military in the world, bar none. What happened at Abu Ghraib -- which involved but a handful of reservists and is not at all indicative of the men and women in our armed forces -- was not due to a lack of training, but rather a breakdown in leadership and oversight by the chain of command in that unit. Nobody needs to be trained to know that sodomizing a prisoner with a chem light is wrong. Reinstating the draft would not result in a better-trained military, but would in fact have the opposite effect.

The sadists who perpetrated the crimes against prisoners at Abu Ghraib will face the justice they so richly deserve and the officers in their immediate chain of command have had their careers effectively ended by their negligence. That's as it should be. But it's hard to fault the Secretary of Defense for the failure of one general to maintain discipline within her command.

Alan Sullivan argues that it's not Rumsfeld who needs to go, but Colin Powell.

UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted has more on the ridiculous notion that reinstating the draft might give us a better-trained military.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/17/2004    |

 
Not the tune he was singing 33 years ago

Instapundit is giving John Kerry props for these remarks. What was Glenn expecting him to say, "I told you they were war criminals"?

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/5/2004    |

 
America in Red and Blue

Among voters who support John Kerry for President, fewer than half believe the United States is a generally fair and decent place, according to a recent survey.

Among Bush voters, 83% say that American society is generally fair and decent. Just 7% say it is basically unfair and discriminatory.

While Bush voters are united behind this perception, Kerry voters are divided--46% say fair and decent while 37% say unfair and discriminatory.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Bush voters also believe the world would be better if other nations were more like the United States. This view is shared by just 48% of Kerry voters.

Interesting.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 5/3/2004    |

 
Worse than Cheesegate

I didn't break my hiatus to comment on UNSCAM, which has to be the most underplayed story of the year, or Medalgate, perhaps the most overplayed flip in a long line of Kerry flip-flops, but some things are just too much to bear.

Now comes word that before his appearance on Meet the Press last weekend, Sen. John Kerry flew his French hairdresser from Washington, DC to Pittsburgh for a "touch-up" at an estimated cost of $1,000. If true, this is bad; worse than Cheesegate, SUV-gate, Communion-gate or any of Kerry's other mini-scandals. Taken alone, each may not amount to much, but when considered as part of the whole that is John Kerry, they paint a rather dismal picture of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. In 2002, Mark Steyn put it this way:

The reason Al Gore isn't in the White House today is because of the cultural disconnect between him and southern rural white males. Though officially running as a Tennessee farmer, he was perceived as an elite Massachusetts liberal. Replacing him with a real elite Massachusetts liberal seems unlikely to return Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia to the fold. ...

And this is where the hair comes in. A lot of solemn Democratic operatives have deplored the Beltway obsession with Mr. Kerry's $75 hair care: it's much nothing about a ''do,'' they say; just another of the media's Drudge-fueled descents into gossip and trivia. True, and that's good enough for me. But, if I have to come up with a highfalutin gloss to justify the story, I'd say it's this: The haircut catches the fancy because it seems to cut to the essence of the Kerry candidacy, whose problem as a whole is that it's over-styled. Platform-wise, every strand feels as if it's been exquisitely combed and parted to the finest calibration.

Not so finely calibrated however, that it could foresee the obvious: the bad PR stemming from the obscene waste in jetting around Kerry's personal hairdresser (did I mention that she's French?) for an emergency touch-up on the candidate. Just another glimpse at the man behind the hair (and Botox).

UPDATE: For some reason the link to the Boston Herald article on Kerry's fib about his SUV ownership suddenly pointed to an unrelated baseball story. I have no idea why, as yesterday it pointed to the SUV story (I had checked it). At any rate, I've changed the link to a Tim Blair post on the matter that provides an excerpt from the original article, wherever it now may be.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 4/28/2004    |

 
Sitrep

Sorry, folks. I've been busy lately, but should resume my normal schedule of irregular blogging by next week.

Side note: I don't know if I should read anything into this or not, but this week I somehow moved up in the TTLB Ecosystem from Adorable Little Rodent to Marauding Marsupial even though I haven't posted anything since last Thursday. Could it be the more I shut up, the more popular I get?

UPDATE: (4/27) Still busy, back soon.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 4/16/2004    |

 
What is Kerry thinking?

On Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told National Public Radio that US coalition authorities were wrong to shut down imam Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper, describing the Shiite leader of the thugs who have killed nearly 20 American servicemen in recent days as "a legitimate voice" in Iraq.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

Al-Sadr opposes the plan for a democratic government in Iraq, calling instead for the creation of an Islamic Republic. In January, an Iraqi judge issued a warrent for al-Sadr's arrest for the murder of a rival cleric. Kerry quickly backtracked:

Well, let me ... change the term "legitimate." It belongs to a voice --
because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment.

Sort of? I can only assume from Kerry's complaining of the decision to shut down al-Sadr's newspaper that he would have also opposed the shut-down of RTLM, the infamous Rwandan national radio station that greatly contibuted to the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis by broadcasting lists of people to be killed, revealing where they could be found and cheering on the butchery.

According to the PBS Frontline documentary The Triumph of Evil, Clinton-era lawyers in the Pentagon advised against jamming the station's signal at the height of the slaughter because it would "be contrary to the US constitutional protection of freedom of the press and freedom of speech." Two employees of the radio station were later found guilty of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. One was sentenced to life imprisonment and the other was given 35 years.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 4/8/2004    |

 
Will the Blue Helmets be coming?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson says the United Nations should consider sanctioning the United States for its invasion of Iraq, which he called "a crime against humanity." (Link via Ramblings' Journal.)

A U.N. investigation into the Iraq war is warranted, he said, because the United States is acting as "our own referee, judge and jury in this action."

"I'm not sure the U.N. has the power to act against us in a miltary way, but they have a right to make a moral judgment," he said.

Act against us in a military way? Michael King has the proper response to that bizarre and laughable notion. The UN has even less military capability than it has moral authority, and it has virtually none of that.

Keeping the crazy train rolling, Jackson also called for a Congressional inquiry into whether Bush should be impeached for the case he made for going to war. But according to Jackson, the then Democratic-led Senate, which voted by a wide margin (77-23) to authorize the war, as did the Republican-led House (296-133), should not be held responsible because they merely gave Bush "the ability" to pursue military action. "Congress gave him the option. It was his judgment."

posted by Lawrence Haws at 4/6/2004    |

 
Felon bashes Bush

John Dean, the disgraced former Nixon White House counsel who served time in prison for his role as a Watergate co-conspirator, has authored a new book in which he claims the Bush Administration is running the most corrupt, unethical and undemocratic White House in history.

Asked if he thought his felony convictions for conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the government might hurt his credibility, Dean replied, "Who needs credibility? I hate Bush and we're marketing to Democrats."

posted by Lawrence Haws at 4/5/2004    |

 
Bad timing

So, I'm watching the Iowa State-Rutgers game earlier tonight and my alma mater (ISU) is trailing by three points with 9 seconds remaining in overtime. The winner advances to the NIT championship game on Thursday. The Cyclones are coming out of a time out and preparing to inbound the ball when what should happen but my phone rings. I try ignoring it, but finally pick up on about the 10th ring.

"Yes?!"

It's the fricken ISU Alumni Association wanting to "update their records" and to ask if I might be interested in making a $1,000 donation, an amount so far above my donation history that I thought they had me confused for somebody else.

Before I could interrupt the speed talker on the other end to say "this isn't a good time," the ball was inbounded and a last-second game-tying three-point shot was tried and missed. The game was lost. At this point I'm annoyed about a few things: 1) the loss; 2) being called to the phone at the worst possible moment in the game; 3) that I ever picked up the phone in the first place; 4) that it was Iowa State calling; 5) that I didn't hang up immediately; and 6) that they chose this moment to ask me for money.

What the hell are they thinking calling people up at home during the game? After all, this wasn't some stupid swim meet, this was the NIT Final Four. This was like two swim meets, maybe three. Didn't it occur to them that alumni donors -- a loyal bunch at least somewhat likely to follow the mens basketball team -- might be watching it? Don't they think about this kind of stuff?

So I sez to the guy, "Look, I was watching the game when you called...."

"Are we winning?" he interrupted.

"We just lost."

"Well, there's always next year," he replied.

Now I don't know if it was his tone, his failure to grasp the poor timing of his call, or if, as a Cubs fan, I'm just plain sick and tired of hearing that line or what, but this set me off.

"Not for you, you bastards! Thanks a lot for calling me up at almost 9 o'clock at night making me miss the final seconds of the Cyclones' first-ever final four appearance in the NIT. If my membership for this year wasn't already paid, I wouldn't renew it. And I'm not giving you squat. This year or next."

Actually, I just told him I wasn't interested and said good-bye. But that's what I thought about saying to him after I hung up. The bastard.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/30/2004    |

 
Slouching toward dhimmitude

Kathy Kinsley wonders if political correctness about Islam is finally dying out. Not hardly, as evidenced by a recent decision of city councillors in England to scrap plans to restore the historic Florentine Boar statue to the Derby Arboretum "for fear of offending Muslims, whose religion considers pigs to be 'unclean'."

The Florentine Boar statue stood from 1840 until 1942 when it was beheaded by a German bomb. But it was last week branded 'offensive' during a meeting of Derby Council's minority ethnic communities advisory committee.

Local historian Christopher Harris told The Mail on Sunday: 'We are living in a multicultural society and I hope that would include English culture.

Ha ha. Dream on, Mr. Harris. Dream on.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/29/2004    |

 
It takes two to come together

Washington Post columnist and Sine Qua Non favorite Richard Cohen (bring back The Scourge, Charles) gives President Bush a failing grade for promise-keeping.

He promised to reduce taxes, rebuild the military, institute a missile defense system and impose education standards - all of which he has done. Still, he gets a failing grade.

For it was at Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 14, 1999, that Bush declared himself "a uniter, not a divider" - maybe his most important promise and the one he has clearly not kept. He prefaced that vow by saying, "I reject the ugly politics of division." Instead, he has reveled in it, pursuing policies and appointments that sometimes seem designed to do nothing more than energize the President's conservative base and drive everyone else up the wall.

If the Medicare Bill and the Temporary Worker/Amnesty Program were designed to energize Bush's conservative base they sure missed the mark. But he did oppose the Kyoto Protocol, which, if you recall, was narrowly rejected by the Senate in 1997 by a vote of 95-0, and he refused to sign the fundamentally flawed treaty on the International Criminal Court, so I guess he hit the bullseye with those if his aim was to drive liberal internationalists up the wall.

Cohen attributes the Left's animosity toward Bush to "perceived smugness," the war in Iraq, his general unpopularity abroad and his being a "hard-edged conservative" President who is nominating "true right-wing reactionary" judges. Never does it occur to Cohen that Bush might be closer to the actual middle than he is, or that today's polarized political atmosphere might have something to do with the Left's refusal to "move on" from the 2000 election (Cohen manages to bring it up four times in this column alone) and the bitter partisanship that has consumed them ever since. No, he comes to a different conclusion.

I am constantly surprised at the animosity toward Bush. When, for instance, I said in a recent column that he had handled himself "admirably" in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, I was barraged by dissenting e-mails. I thought I had said something unremarkable, but clearly Bush has become so divisive a figure that some people cannot give him credit even for what, to be fair, he has earned credit for. He did, for a moment, unite a wounded nation. Pity he could not or would not make it last.

See, even when the Left is being obviously unfair to Bush the fault is his. He made them do it. If liberals don't think he's trying hard enough now to close the divide, wait until his second term when he has little to risk and is fed up with being unable to win for losing with these people. They keep it up and he just may take the compassion out of his conservatism altogether.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/28/2004    |

 
Red Bull Charging

My former company, A 1-168 Infantry BN, has shipped out for a one-year tour in Afghanistan to conduct combat operations, security assignments and to help build-up the nation's infrastructure. A front-page story in the Des Moines Register tells of the Iowa National Guard's decision to split up a few of my former fellow guardsmen.

Mike, Scott and Tony Schon are members of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry of Carroll.

National Guard officials said they wanted to avoid a tragedy similar to that of the five Sullivan brothers in World War II. The Sullivans, sailors from Waterloo (Iowa), all died in November 1942 when the USS Juneau was sunk by a Japanese submarine.

"You don't want three Schon brothers sitting in the same Humvee when it gets hit by a rocket-propelled grenade," said Maj. Gregory Hapgood, Iowa National Guard public affairs officer.

The Department of Defense has no official policy prohibiting relatives from serving in the same combat zone, but ever since the Sullivan tragedy that has been the unofficial policy of all branches of the Armed Services. The Schon's aren't happy about the judgment call made by their task force commander because, as they say with not a small amount of probity, they've spent years training together and enlisted believing that if they were called to war they would serve alongside each other or at least with other members of their own community.

However, there are valid considerations the Guard must consider beyond that of just a public relations disaster.

"You don't want to put those guys in leadership positions where they have to make very critical decisions that may include each other," he said. One of those decisions could involve ordering an infantryman to serve at the point of a combat patrol where he could be in particular danger.

"Do you want to be remembered for putting your brother on point and he gets killed? So you have quite varied thought processes involved here in deciding what is best for these brothers," Hapgood said.

I sympathize with the Schons, but in the end it's not about fairness, it's about what's best for the military, and we know that when we serve we serve at its convenience. A truth perhaps known all too well by The Grunt's Wife who is blogging her husband's tour with Bravo Company.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/26/2004    |

 
Giese Goes to Utah

[Editor's note: The following is another installment from Hawspipe contributor H. Giese in what will be a weekly feature on this blog.]

This week I was going to give a rehash of John Kerry's dismal voting record on gun rights, but will instead focus on my recent trip to Salt Lake City where I attended a professional meeting of the American Society of Testing and Materials. I will say, however, that Kerry should watch what he says about special interests since, in my opinion, Teresa Heinz-Kerry must have needed help from special interests in order to get her multi-colored ketchup line approved by the FDA. That stuff just ain't right.

So, here is a wrap up of my travel with observations, experiences, and a few things I thought I would see but didn't.

I stayed in the finest hotel room I have ever been in; a suite with 2 TVs, marble bathroom, glass shower, mini-bar, 2 rooms and the most comfortable hotel robe I have ever had the pleasure to wear. If you are ever in SLC I recommend the Grand America, but doubt you will get the special meeting rate that I did. My only regret is that the room was not all that enjoyable without my wonderful wife there with me.

I had the pleasure of viewing magnificent geology from the airplane. I saw what appeared to be a monocline with many faults on the horizontal limb right outside SLC. I picked out a few anticlines and synclines as we flew over Wyoming and got a great view of the South Dakota Badlands. I couldn't pick out Wall Drug below though.

I sat next to a young lady on the plane who I will call my study buddy. She spent almost the entire flight reading an introductory sociology book while I was reading a few technical papers on water movement with temperature flux in soil as well as an Edward Abbey book ( I like Ed, though I don't agree with all of his ideology. He does spark in me excitement at the thought of watching a billboard burn in an Iowa cornfield along interstate 80, no matter how ironic the situation may be).

I had to admire her for her diligence, and she only drifted to sleep in the last leg of the flight. As she was seated next to the window, I hope that my gaping and drooling over the previously mentioned geology was not confused with some sort of lust. The only words we shared were when I told her that she lasted much longer than I would've reading her text. To which she replied, "I tried the sociology major thing. It didn't work."

I saw smog and haze caused by the air pollution from SLC interfering with wonderful vistas of the surrounding mountains. It was very disappointing, especially when I caught that polluted stench a few times while walking around the city, a smell normally only found in major dirty metro areas such as Bangkok. The mountains around SLC reduce winds and hold in the pollutions to some extent. All in all the city was rather clean, and these few negative aspects probably just show the future that lies ahead.

I visited a tavern called the Desert Lounge, where I received my Utah liquor education. My intent was to have a shot of Jim Beam and a beer, watch a bit of ESPN and then retire to my room for a wonderful slumber that I seldom get the night before I have an early appointment, in this case my flight back to Iowa. I had seen the Desert Lounge and felt it necessary to visit a so-named establishment when in the state of Utah. I walked in and asked for a shot of Jim from the barkeep, Marga, I believe, who informed me the DL was a beer tavern and if I wanted liquor I need to go up the street. So I did while telling her I would be back for the Desert Lounge experience.

So I went to this other place and asked for my portion of Jim. The young keep there asked me if I was a member and I chuckled thinking he was joking as this did not look like the type of establishment for which a membership would be required. He then informed me it was Utah state law that one needs to be a member to drink liquor in an establishment such as his and that this involved filling out paperwork and paying a $4 temporary membership fee, which is good for 3 weeks. Needless to say I promptly returned to the Desert Lounge and drank a few watered down beers, which only proceeded to give me a stomach ache at 2 am, though I did not miss my early flight the next day. Another plug for the Desert Lounge, Marga rolled me a fine cigarette.

While at the Desert Lounge I was approached by a women who asked me if I was a Mormon. I replied, "No, why do you ask?" She said, "You look like a Mormon." And walked away. Confused, I asked her friend, "So what does a Mormon look like?" She said, "You know, successful. Anybody you see in SLC that looks successful is usually a Mormon." So guys, if you wear khaki pants and a checkered button up shirt in Utah, even if it is not tucked in, you look like a Mormon or at least "successful." I doubt that many Mormons hang out in the Desert Lounge though. This should have been her first clue.

I met a grad student who had lived everywhere in the US and was happy to tell me about it. He was most proud of his time in WY and CO, which doesn't surprise me. He just left Minneapolis and did not have anything good to say about the Midwest. Hope he likes SLC. His lack of conviction in dealing with any important matters facing our country today made me feel for my ex-roomies (Hawspipe included) who had to deal with what I believe may have been similar ideals from myself when we all lived together. I did notice a similar age difference between myself and him as exists between the Hawspipe and myself.

Maybe the most memorable part of the trip took place on Monday. After attending all of our scheduled meetings, myself and three other gentlemen many years my senior had a working meeting in the lounge/lobby of the hotel. As we were discussing the details of radioactive and stable carbon isotopes a young lady came out and began playing a large harp, providing a bit of ambiance. I took notice of her skill after about an hour and also noticed a few people coming up to say hello or compliment her. As I looked closer she seemed familiar. A young girl, blonde, playing the harp, living in SLC. Hmm. Then it came to me, I bet that is Elizabeth Smart.

After our 2.5 hour meeting I informed my colleagues that Miss Smart had been serenading us and they hadn't noticed. I confirmed my thoughts with a quick visit to the concierge. She played very well and may not have known it but I was keeping a vigilant watch on those around for her sake. One fella looked a bit shifty and a bit over interested. I kept a close watch sizing him up for a quick chop to the throat if he did any thing funny, but no heroics were needed.

Things I thought I would see but didn't:

No polygamist families of 17 walking around the streets. No Utah Jazz basketball players. No cool tempatures (they averaged in the 70s while I was there). God didn't cause a large rift in the earth to swallow up the whole Mormon Temple for their false teachings. He has done similar in the past.

I thought SLC a pretty nice place, a much better impression than the last time I cruised through the state in 1998 with my then-adventurous, beautiful and intelligent girlfriend now my adventurous, beautiful and intelligent wife at 80 mph on I-80W bound for Cali and points in-between.

--Giese
posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/26/2004    |

 
Finally, an extra hand to pick up the slack around here

Please give a warm welcome to Giese, a former housemate and college friend of mine who will be guest blogging on Hawspipe from time to time. I see that Giese has already provided a brief description of himself below, so that saves me the trouble of trying and getting something wrong. Welcome aboard, Giese. Now, turn to.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/19/2004    |

 
Motivation, let your voice be heard

A quick intro of myself. I am Giese, 29, and I am addicted to my opinion. (All respond “Hi Giese”, you are in the same boat as me). I do enjoy the ranting of these blog pages and letting my arguments be heard in the comments section as well as hearing others to broaden my thought process on topics of interest. I have spawned 2 kids (9 months and 2.5 yrs), am married to the most wonderful woman in the world, and work at a land grant university. I believe in God, freedom, and quality farm-raised beef, cooked rare…. Haws has invited me to spout off about topics such as politics, parenting, guns or whatever I feel like. I believe censorship will be at a minimum but hope comments will be at a maximum.

Let's start off with something general yet dear to my heart. While we are all dedicated readers of such quality commentary such as Hawspipe, do we all put our beliefs into action? Lets take a test….

1. Do you vote in every election and even at special elections?
2. Do you or have you ever written to your local rep. or senator at any level of government?
3. Do you stand by while your freedoms are taken away or do you fire off a letter to the editor in you local periodical?
4. Do you feel like nobody cares about or agrees with your opinion?
5. Do you feel as if you don’t have much say in the way this whole government system works?
6. Do you support any organizations that have a common belief basis as yourself?
7. Do you practice what you believe so that others can see?

How did you do? Let me show you how I did…… it might not be pretty.

1. Yes, I vote in every election. Have I voted for the wrong guy in the past and had it nip me in the end? You bet, but then that is my problem for not seeing through the lies and next time that candidate won't get my vote. Part of my mission also is to sway others to what I believe is the right way of thinking, so I will try to get those I meet to not vote for the candidate. And that local option sales tax special election (Iowa), I voted no all 3 times. It was held every 6 months and took them a few tries but their perseverance did not catch me sleeping! Too bad it caught others and it passed on number 3. Nothing like a blank check for the school system to spend on anything but teachers!! I am lacking on school board elections. I gotta get better on that one. Now that they get another 1% of my spending I better hold them accountable.

2. I have written letters, but not enough. I think that email is great, send them a link to your favorite political blog page. My local rep. writes a column each week in our local paper and asks for emails, so they must mean something. Don’t underestimate the power of free (monetarily speaking) communication.

3. I lack in contributions to the editorial section, though that is the first page I open to each week. Some well thought out arguments are always refreshing in the small town I live in, sure hope I can think of some.

4. People care what you think, especially politicians. They know who pays their salary and how to get into office for the next term. Somebody out there agrees with you, Find them, I have.

5. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” (Abe) still rings true, make it happen. You know senators are made of the same blood and guts that you and I. Maybe you should be a senator?

6. My intentions are to join more, but I have not, though some make my Christmas list each year. What a great gift an NRA membership would make!

7. I do pretty good at this and try to pass these practices on to others, especially my kids. Examples: I own firearms, though not enough. If you live in an area of limited gun rights and want to feel like you are doing the right thing, please send contributions to Hawspipe for our armament fund. I pray in public. I put signs in my yard.

I like the libertarian saying “Don’t blame me, I voted libertarian.” Though I prefer to change it to “Don’t blame me, but you better work hard to stop me because I am busting my butt to get things changed!!!!” Or maybe this is better, a quote from a buddy of mine from Oklahoma, “Get’er done!!”
posted by H Giese at 3/19/2004    |

 
Allah is in the house

Allah to Spain: The truth is, you are Allah's bitch now. Go make Allah a sandwich, bitch.

I imagine Allah requiring a sandwich something along the magnitude of this one, without the bacon and sausages, of course.

(Hat tip to Michael King)

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/16/2004    |

 
International Coalition of the Swilling

Researchers at Stanford University and the University of Edinburgh have confirmed the theoretical findings of Australian researchers and long-held empirical suspicions of inquisitive beer drinkers worldwide: That carbonated bubbles in beer sometimes sink to the bottom of a glass rather than rise to the top, as common thinking would suggest.

''The answer turns out to be really very simple,'' Zare explained. ''It's based on the idea of what goes up has to come down. In this case, the bubbles go up more easily in the center of the beer glass than on the sides because of drag from the walls. As they go up, they raise the beer, and the beer has to spill back, and it does. It runs down the sides of the glass carrying the bubbles - particularly little bubbles - with it, downward. After a while it stops, but it's really quite dramatic and it's easy to demonstrate.''

Just to be sure, I'll be conducting my own experiments this evening, but lest any of you think this is just an excuse to imbibe or that these fine researchers are wasting their time and grant money:

Confirmation of the sinking-bubble phenomenon has relevance beyond settling barroom bets, according to the researchers. ''There's a certain aspect of bubbles that always make you think it's kids' play and relaxation, but it's serious stuff, too,'' Zare said, pointing to ongoing research on fluidized beds - the mixing of solid particles with liquids and gases - which have important industrial and engineering applications.

''It's just paying attention to the world around you and trying to figure out why things happen the way they do,'' Alexander added. ''In that case, anyone that goes into a pub and orders a pint of Guinness is a scientist.''

All in the interest of science.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/16/2004    |

 
Worst recruiting ad ever

The Japanese Navy sure has lost a step since the days of Admiral Yamamoto.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/13/2004    |

 
Democratic Smear Machine

Over at MSNBC.com, Glenn Reynolds cites Mort Kondracke on the symbiotic relationship between Democrats and the media:

The media seem to be uncritically accepting the Democratic charge that any criticism of Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., public record is "sliming" or "smearing." But for months now, Democrats have accused Bush of being a "liar" who "misled" or "deceived" the nation into the Iraq war; a "usurper" who "stole" the 2000 election in Florida; "a right-wing extremist" on tax, social and foreign policy; and a "menace to the nation's basic liberties," owing to his employment of Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Former Vice President Al Gore said Bush had "betrayed" the country in Iraq. No major Democrat said afterward that Gore had gone too far. Democrats claim that Republicans either have questioned or will question their patriotism in this campaign, but actually the only accusations of lacking patriotism have come from Democrats.

It's actually worse than that. Read the rest (both links).

UPDATE: The Talking Dog begs to differ.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/12/2004    |

 
I am not impugning the patriotism of John Kerry: Part IV*

In a radio address last Saturday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry criticized the Bush Administration for the short supply of body armor available to US troops serving in Iraq.

"If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support."

Kerry said tens of thousands of troops arrived in Iraq "to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them."

I think that's fair criticism, though it would be far more effectual coming from Kerry if he hadn't voted for the war in Iraq and then against the bill necessary to fund it. In fact, that spending bill, which eventually passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12, included an appropriation for the additional body armor needed by our troops in Iraq. So, Kerry actually voted against the very bill that was needed to correct the shortage of which he complains.

In addition, Kerry said, "We hear reports that - in dangerous parts of Iraq - our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile system."

Again, Kerry is undermined by his own actions. Not only has he voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending in the last decade, he has also voted against numerous anti-missile systems, including the Patriot missile defense system, the Navy's Aegis air-defense system and the National Missile Defense System.

It's nice that he's now worried about our fighting guys and gals having the best available technology, but it would be even better if he'd done more with his time in the Senate to ensure they had it.

* In the run-up to the November election I may occasionally point out Senator John F. Kerry's unfitness for the office of President of the United States. Contrary to the Senator's complaints, criticism of his congressional voting record is not an attack on John Kerry's Patriotism^TM.

More Kerry: Pt. I, Pt. II, Pt. III

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/9/2004    |

 
Treading on eggshells

There must be something more to this story than meets the eye.

Egyptian authorities deployed some 1,000 police around a southern town on Saturday to forestall any Muslim-Christian clashes after two Christian men were killed in a street brawl, security sources said.

The Christians were axed to death after a donkey being ridden by a Muslim man slipped on the wet roadway outside their house in the town of Salamoun, about 350 km (220 miles) south of Cairo, they said.

Please tell me that ain't it -- the article gives no more details. Please tell me that it takes more than a slip-footed mule to incite murder and religious strife among Muslims and Christians. Because if that's it, if that's all it takes, then my optimism for the future is greatly diminished.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/6/2004    |

 
Haiti: A legacy of Clinton foreign policy

Recently resigned Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide now claims that he was forced from power in a "coup d'etat" by the United States. As Haitian rebels were preparing to take Port-au-Prince, Mr. Aristide says he was "kidnapped" at gunpoint by American troops and flown out of the country against his will.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, responding to complaints earlier in the day from black U.S. lawmakers and activists, said Mr. Aristide "was not kidnapped. We did not force him on the airplane. He went on the plane willingly."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the accusations were "complete nonsense," and administration officials outlined a detailed chain of events that led to Mr. Aristide's weekend departure. "We took steps to protect Mr. Aristide, we took steps to protect his family, and they departed Haiti," he said. "It was Mr. Aristide's decision to resign."

There's an easy way to settle this; offer to put him on the next commercial flight back to Port-au-Prince.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 3/2/2004    |

 
Those are the memories that make me a wealthy soul

Gooseneck has been rummaging through his photos and posting some of them on his blog, including a few of yours truly.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 2/28/2004    |

 
Not my monologue

When political correctness collides with political correctness.

(Link via the Daily Dish)

posted by Lawrence Haws at 2/19/2004    |

 
Talk about misleading

While on the road last night, I heard a MoveOn.org radio advertisement calling for President Bush to be censured by Congress for supposedly misleading the nation into war. Nothing that organization says or does should surprise me at this point, but I was still a little shocked by the egregious liberty this ad took with the truth.

It uses half-quote audio clips from George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address in such a dishonest and deceptive manner that it can only be described as outright lying. Ironic, since that's basically what MoveOn is accusing the President of doing. Here's a verbatim transcript of the ad:

Announcer: In speaking to the nation, George Bush said:

Bush's voice: Saddam Hussien has an advanced nuclear weapons development program.

Announcer: But that wasn't true. Bush also said:

Bush's voice: Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Announcer: That wasn't true either. And he said:

Bush's voice: Saddam Hussien aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

Announcer: There was no evidence that was true. President Bush has misled the American people and the Congress. When a President misleads a nation into fighting a war that has costs us over 500 American lives and untold billions of dollars there must be consequences.

Announcer: Call your representatives in Congress and your Senators today. Tell them, for the good of America it's the duty and obligation of Congress to censure George Bush. Tell them to censure President Bush now. Paid for by MoveOn.org.

Each of the above three clips of President Bush are half-quotes that MoveOn has deliberately cut to make it seem as though the President said something untrue. Let's take a look at the full quotes, denoting in bold the portions MoveOn left out. In the first clip, Bush actually said:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program.

MoveOn claims "that wasn't true," when in fact the IAEA said exactly what Bush said it did. Was the IAEA wrong about the "advanced" stage of Saddam's nuclear weapons development program in the 1990s? Perhaps, but if so only because for years Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors as he was required. In that light, should Bush have ignored the findings of the IAEA? Would that have been wise?

In regard to the second clip, here's what Bush really said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

That first part is important, which is why MoveOn cut it out, so they could claim "that wasn't true either." However, it is precisely what the British government told us. Should Bush have ignored the British intelligence? Maybe, but he didn't lie. The British government still stands by the claim, by the way.

In the third clip, Bush actually said:

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

MoveOn says "there was no evidence that was true," but there certainly was. MoveOn simply cut out the portion of the sentence stating the evidence. It's indisputable that Saddam both harbored and supported Palestinian terrorists. Evidence of an al-Qaeda connection is less definitive, but far from non-existent.

MoveOn.org is fully aware that most people hearing the ad won't know what the full quotes actually are and how their editing has abused the truth. Indeed, they're counting on that very fact to feed the popular myth among Bush haters that the President lied in making the case for war. But is that what really happened?

Consider these quotes, presented in their entirety, that you'll never hear in a MoveOn.org ad.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Remember these the next time you hear anything from MoveOn.org.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 2/18/2004    |

 
Smiling charming faces

Tapped's Tara McKelvey is incredulous at a first-hand account by a former detainee of the al-Qaeda and Taliban detention facility in Guantanamo Bay describing conditions there to be quite a bit better than its critics contend. (Here's another report of released detainees saying they were "well treated" at Gitmo.)

Nevertheless, assured that bad things are happening beneath the surface, McKelvey approvingly cites from a lecture given two weeks ago by British judge Lord Hope: Torture and our charming US allies.

We can assume whatever has been, and is being, done to the prisoners has been, and is being, done with the cold and ruthless efficiency that characterises the actions of officials who are determined to obtain results and whose actions are not subject to international inspection.

Since January 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross, with its own medical personnel and interpreters in tow, has regularly inspected the Guantanamo Bay facilities and met privately with each and every one of the al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees. While the ICRC does complain of the open-ended detentions, it has not reported finding any evidence of human rights abuses. None whatsoever.

But that doesn't stop McKelvey from drawing a comparison to a 1950s Chinese prison "where recalcitrant Americans eat their food off the floor with their hands chained behind their backs." She ends the post with this paragraph, attributed to herself, though perhaps by mistake as it's also from Lord Hope's argument:

We must not allow the smiling charming faces of our American allies to divert us from seeking to discover what is being done by their interrogators. How can we expect to eliminate torture elsewhere if there is no way of knowing whether or not it has been practised at Guantanamo Bay?

If eliminating torture where it exists is the goal, you can start by not imagining it in places where all evidence is to the contrary, like the terrorist detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, and direct attention toward places where it is most certainly occurring, like North Korea, for one. I've said it before, but I'll repeat, it reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Marge is trying to sell her mincemeat pies next to Homer's tomacco stand.

Marge: Can I interest you in a mincemeat pie? They're very--
Chief Wiggum: Does it have tomacco in it?
Marge: No. But I use only the--
Chief Wiggum: No thanks. [walks off]

Only in this case Marge is the United States, Chief Wiggum is the so-called "human rights" community, the tomacco represents perceived American wrongdoing and Koreans are the mincemeat in the foul pie that is North Korea.

posted by Lawrence Haws at 2/16/2004    |