Archive for October, 2004
Can this be for real?
I’m more than a little skeptical of Russian involvement, but I’d love to see pictures.
I’m much more willing to accept that the UN is l-y-i-n-g about the amount of explosives audited at one time.
I’m pretty sure that UN, CBS, and NYT attempts to directly affect an American presidential election should be horrifying to us all.
I’m 100% positive that 380 tons of explosives, even these kind of explosives, is not even a drop in the bucket. With all the millions of RPGs, artillery shells, and AK-47s lying around Iraq in ammo dumps, houses, schools, and mosques, I’m having trouble taking anyone really alarmed over this by this too seriously.
Anyone who has been following the campaign in Iraq knows that a lot of military sites and weapons caches have not been guarded sufficiently. And sites guarded by Iraqi forces are, of course, quite vulnerable to corruption of one kind or another. I do not mean to minimize the importance of these problems. I do mean to point out that hand-wringing over this particular incident, even if it’s true, is pointless. It’s a cheap political trick to play on those who rightly are concerned about the safety of our troops and the conduct of the war but don’t have a real understanding of weapons and warfare.
And if the Russians were really involved, I’ll be severely disappointed. Despite past differences and current problems in the big bear, I’ve been more than a little hopeful that we’d be standing on the same side of the line before this is all over.
I recall some Russian diplomat/adviser-types getting caught in the crossfire during the early days of the campaign in Iraq. I think they were heading for Syria, but I’m not really sure. Troubling.
Wizbang is covering the unravelling of this story.
UPDATE: Dean Esmay:
For some time now I’ve been of the belief that most of Saddam’s WMDs were probably moved to either Syria or Russia. I wanted to think Syria, because while we know the Russians were getting huge sums of money under the table from Saddam (hence their opposition to taking out his butcher-regime), I didn’t want to think the Russians had gone so far as to directly cover for Saddam and then lie about it for two years. Although I’ve never thought all that well of Vladimir Putin, I wanted to believe he and his government weren’t that treacherous.
He’s “wanted” to think the same things about the Russians I’ve “wanted” to think. Wishing real hard doesn’t make it so, though.
A close friend of mine who lived in Russia for several years explained the local reaction to the French ice skating judge like this (totally paraphrased from a conversation two years ago and if I’ve got it wrong please forgive me):
Everyone accepts cheating and lying as part of how government and the world in general works. Ripping people off and saying misleading things to get your way is just a standard way of life. The judge was wrong, but wrong for getting caught. Not for cheating. Cheating for pay or agreements for other cheating benefits are simply how everything everywhere works. If upping marks for Russian skaters would lead to better marks for French skaters from Russian judges later, it was the “right” thing to do.
He told me that most locals he had contact with (and he was a missionary) were simply mystified at world outrage to the scandal. They didn’t understand why anyone was surprised or upset at cheating. They just didn’t register such behavior as wrong or unexpected. (He expressed intense frustration at trying to spread the Word and the rules of the “straight and narrow” to people who saw the world like this.)
Now, I’m sure this doesn’t apply to 100.0% of all Russians. It’s a generalization and generalizations are generally unfair. But it represents a mindset that we should keep in mind when dealing with the Russians on the war and other international issues.
I’m very disappointed. I had hoped that we and the Russians would end up on the same side of the line before this was all over. But if these charges are true (and I’m more than a little skeptical) they might not be on the side of the “bad guys”, but they sure aren’t on our side.
And this generalization does not only apply to Russia, by the way.
Bitterly, bitterly disappointing.
Proposal 1 in Michigan is designed to let voters decide whether new gambling operations open up in the state or not. A statewide majority would have to approve any new games using “table games” or “player operated devices”. In addition, the city or township that the games would be located in would also have to approve them, regardless of statewide opinion.
Despite no personal reasons to want more gambling than is already available, I have no strong feelings about the issue of gaming. Tax on people poor at math, and all.
But a number of legislators, and Governor Jennifer Granholm, are speaking loud and strong against the measure.
Let’s see. If VOTERS don’t decide about gambling, who would? Hmmm. Oh, I know! Legislators and Governor Jennifer Granholm, that’s who. They know better than I do what’s best for my city, maybe?
There are two things that I almost always favor, no matter what or when or why. They are tax cuts and measures that put the decisions in the hands of voters.
For that reason, I will be voting ‘YES’ on Proposal 1.
Nothing anyone can say will convince me that I’m not the right person to decide if there should be gambling in my backyard.
The main arguments being raised against the proposal seem pretty flimsy to me.
The biggie is that Indian Casinos and the major gaming operations that already have casinos in Michigan have pumped most of the money into the proposal. So what? There’s not much we’re going to be able to do about Indian casinos, no matter what Michigan voters say. And it’s too late to do much about the existing casinos. So, since there are some in the state it’s wrong not to let more in? Not talking sense, there, cowboy.
This measure does not allow voters to control the three existing non-Indian casinos in Michigan already. I wish it did, to allow voters a say in expansion plans, for instance. But this is far, far better than nothing. If Jennifer Granholm said “Vote ‘NO’ on 1 because it isn’t strong enough. I will favor a proposal that gives voters EVEN MORE CONTROL over gambling. Shoot this one down and let’s do this thing right!“, I’d feel a bit differently. But she is saying nothing of the kind. She isn’t looking out for you. She doesn’t think you can do the job.
The big scare tactic (and no political campaign is complete without one of those) is that Proposal 1 would cut the money education currently gets from gambling in the state. But, um, there won’t even less gambling if voters want it. Right? If you can convince me that I’m better off with a casino in my neighborhood and the money that it will bring in, I will vote for it. Simple enough. Never mind that the scratch games and state lotto are not “table games” or “player operated devices”.
One of the anti-1 commercials points out that big casinos and Indian casinos support the measure so they can get a monopoly on gambling in the state. This ignores the fact that if people want more gambling, they’ll get more gambling because they will vote for it. Then the commercial says “Don’t forget–These people are professionals at taking other people’s money. Now you see it–Now you don’t.” Which is totally insane, as the alternative to voters deciding is politicians deciding. And politicians are the only people better at “Now you see it–Now you don’t” than major casinos.
They’re also not bad at monopolizing power, now that I think of it.
And the existing casinos are bad, since they take our money. But let them decide when and where to add more?
God, I hate politicians.
It really seems to me that this is a no-brainer. You want more gambling? You want less gambling? You want the same amount of gambling? You can have your say if you have a say. You get what someone else somewhere else chooses if you don’t have a say.
I always decide to decide. I will this time, too.
Supporters of the measure have a website. So do opponents.
Go read. Think. Vote.
UPDATE: Doug at 213 wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. Should have just googled before I wrote…
Bill Hobbs points out an article in the Weekly Standard about the relationship between litigation, legislation, and flu shots.
Vaccines are the one area of medicine where trial lawyers are almost completely responsible for the problem. No one can plausibly point a finger at insurance companies, drug companies, or doctors. Lawyers have won the vaccine game so completely that nobody wants to play.
and
All this is the result of a legal concept called “liability without fault” that emerged from the hothouse atmosphere of the law schools in the 1960s and became the law of the land. Under the old “negligence” regime, you had to prove a product manufacturer had done something wrong in order to hold it liable for damages. Under liability without fault, on the other hand, the manufacturer can be held responsible for harm from its products, whether blameworthy or not. Add to that the jackpot awards that come from pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, and you have a legal climate that no manufacturer wants to risk.In theory, prices might have been jacked up enough to make vaccine production profitable even with the lawsuit risk, but federal intervention made vaccines a low-margin business. Before 1993, manufacturers sold vaccines to doctors, doctors prescribed them to patients, and there was some markup. Then Congress adopted the Vaccine for Children Act, which made the government a monopoly buyer. The feds now purchase over half of all vaccines at a low fixed price and distribute them to doctors. This has essentially finished off the private market.
Hobbs writes
Government intervention could drive down the price by making government the sole buyer and at a very low price fixed by the government. But at such a low price the profit would be negligible and few if any vaccine makers would agree to produce the vaccine.If you’re without a flu shot this year, ask yourself which you’d rather have: flu shots that cost $50 and are plentiful, or a flu shots that cost $20 or even $10 but aren’t available. (emphasis mine)
No More Ships for the Russian Navy (10/27/04 entry)
Instead of building new ships, the Russians are going to focus on upgrading existing ones. The Red fleet is only a skeleton of its former self.
Worse, maintenance has not been kept up, and ships have not spent much time at sea. Crews are poorly trained and morale is low.
I’m taking it to mean that maintenance, training, and morale are EVEN LOWER than in the “glory days” of the Soviet Fleet. Which means rock bottom, since those were pretty awful even back then.
Sanctions Prompt Cuba to Eliminate Dollar
A reader sends me this tip.
Seems Cuba, in response to tighter sanctions by the United States, is eliminating the US dollar.
Cuba is “protecting itself from external economic aggression,” Castro said in a statement he asked his top aide to read on state television Monday night. The 78-year-old Castro was also there, looking animated despite the blue sling supporting his broken right arm after a fall last week that also shattered his left kneecap.A local currency known as the convertible Cuban peso will be the only money accepted at most businesses across the island of 11.2 million people beginning Nov. 8, Castro’s statement said.
Remember when we nabbed Saddam in his spider hole? He had some cash down there with him.
That, apparently, isn’t the case with Fidel in his spider hole. For Fidel lives in one of the biggest spider hole on earth.
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher spoke with reporters last week about Fidel’s fall that left him with a broken knee and a broken arm:
QUESTION: Did you hear that Castro fell?BOUCHER: We heard that Castro fell. There are, I think, various reports that he broke a leg and arm, a foot and other things. And I guess you’d have to check with the Cubans to find out what’s broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what’s broken in Cuba.
QUESTION: Do you wish him a speedy recovery?
BOUCHER: No.
When the reporter pressed for Boucher to express his wish that the injuries had been more severe, Boucher declined. Barely, probably.
NBC Embed confirms material already gone in April, 2003
Debbye, who’s been back in action at Being American in T.O. for a little while now, is keeping a running update of the missing explosives story.
I meant to post on this when the story first broke, and I planned on comparing it to our inability to prevent the looting during and after the fall of Baghdad. I know it would have been nice to do a better job of it, but we were, you know, in the middle of a WAR.
Bizarrely, the story turned out to be much more like the looting stories than I ever imagined. Just like the 17,000 “missing” antiquities that disappeared during the looting, the 380 tons of special explosives was gone before US troops reached the scene.
Also, it appears that CBS News was hoping to break the story Sunday night on 60 Minutes (can you say “Crock-tober Surprise“?) but leaked it early out of fears of getting scooped. See Free Frank Warner for more on this shamefulness.
Be sure to tell your neighbors! The missing explosives were already gone! And John Kerry knows it!
Now, for a real kicker, maybe those 380 tons of explosives will turn up locked safely away somewhere like virtually all of the museum pieces did.
UPDATE: Well, maybe this isn’t as cut-and-dried as I thought. Although the 101st Airborne was there with an embedded NBC reporter and apparently didn’t find the explosives in question, the 3rd Infantry was there a week earlier. They found cases filled with vial of “white powder”. At the time, the site was declared unworthy of big attention once it was determined that no WMDs were present. I’ve even heard speculation that the white powder might be the explosives.
We’ll see. I’ll post more later if I can make heads or tails out of it. In the meantime, see Red State. I’m still skeptical of the idea that all these explosives just up and vanished under the eyes of first the 3ID and then the 101st, and I’m also skeptical about the importance of this particular 380 tons of explosives in the greater scheme of things, but I do want to know the facts.
I can’t wait until the election and the post-election chaos is over.
I’ve mentioned the issue of non-infantry serving as infantry not qualifying for the Combat Infantry Badge before. Strategy Page (10/26/04 entry) has a quick summary of the debate, though it doesn’t mention the Combat Armor Badge, which might be an option for the guys playing “dogface”, as the sage-like Andy Rooney might say.
Nice:
I met a communist at a party who said he hated money, but then refused to open his wallet and give me his. Why?He then said he didn’t need money because he could come to my house and steal food any time he wanted. I invited him to try, but advised him that I’m heavily armed and that I’m not likely to get many opportunities to shoot a communist.
Mike Robel has updated his great summary of the US Army.
In my inbox:
Hello,with the hopes that you are ok and doing fine, this message could be
strange but real if you pay some attention to it. I could have notified
you about it at least for the sake of your integrity. Please accept my
sincere apologies. I have to say that I have no intentions of causing
you any pains. As you read this, I do not want you to feel sorry for
me, because I believe everyone will die someday.
