Most ridiculous new item of the day....

Today was a doozy for ridiculous news stories. For example, there is the story about the conservative group lobbying the FBI to investigate hotels that offer porn Pay-Per-View for possible violations of community decency standards. Then, there is the body part recall (note to self: check the liver serial number). Not to be overlooked, Tom Cruise's release from Paramount.

What trumps all of these? The Presidential reading challenge.

Yep. The President has challenged Karl Rove to a reading challenge, or more specifically, who can read more books this year. According to the White House press office, Mr. President has read 60 books this year. Here is a partial list.

Now, let's look at this logically. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that each book averages 250 pages. Divide the total number of pages by 7 months (210 days). That is a staggering 70 pages per day. Not impossible, but as a college student, I have trouble getting through 50 pages of required reading each day. I think that he may have slightly more important things to give him time to.

Of course, this could simply be a punlic relations piece designed to distract those who criticize his apparent lack of intellectual curiosity. If it is not, then I would like to politely ask the President to stop reading on taxpayer time and focus more on his job: serving the American people.

Funny thing about a cease fire

I should preface my thoughts here by saying that I am always happy when two sides agree to stop beating the hell out of each other. That said...

There is something funny about the new cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Don't most parties involved with this view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Aren't cease fires negotiated? Despite our harsh rhetoric, did we just negotiate with terrorists? Very interesting that a non-state terrorist entity can get a negotiated cease fire agreement through the United Nations.

I think that this could be very bad long term for the interests of both Israel and the United States in the region. Israel made a serious strategic error in thinking that they could just bomb Hezbollah into submission. In the beginning, they had the support of almost every country in the region, but as the air campaign wore on and Hezbollah showed no signs of weakening, public support began to move to the side of Hezbollah. Furthermore, Hezbollah was able to do something that no Arab nation has ever been able to do: Fight Israel to a standstill. I think this has less to do with the capabilities and fortitude of Hezbollah and everything to do with Israel's strategic blunder. Seems to be a bunch of that going around lately.

Now, Hezbollah has shown the Arab world that they are capable of standing up to the "Zionist aggresor". The public adores them. So far, they have been Johnny-on-the-spot in the destroyed areas with cleanup and humanitarian aid. This would be like the Republican party rolling into New Orleans and funding the cleanup and reconstruction out of their private bank account. The public is only going to love Hezbollah more. Remember that Lebanon is a democratic republic, and that chances will increase of Hezbollah obtaining additional power in the government.

Also of interest today was the fact that President Bush called Lebanon the third front in the war on terror. Someone should have told him that the world brokered a treaty with a terrorist organization and the war is over, at least for now.

This could have possibly set a precedent. I wonder if someday the United Nations will broker a cease fire between the United States and the Iraqi insurgency.

They hate us for our freedom....

I am going to puke if I hear this one more time. It is a wholly inaccurate statement that too many people who don't know any better have bought into. No disrespect here, but it amounts to nothing less than Bubba patriotism.

Let's just think about that statement for a second. Can you think of anyone who truly likes to live under the rule of dictatorship? I can just imagine a group of Arabs, sitting around drinking chai and puffing on a hookah: Damn those Americans!!!! They are free, get to drink alcohol, and their women walk around in skimpy clothes. They get to make choices for themselves and wear blue jeans. All we get is women in burkas, a police state, and a religion that requires us to pray 15 times a day. Fuck it, let's kill 'em.

For some reason, I find this unrealistic.

The truth is far more complicated than any sound bite could ever articulate. The most simple explanation is that they hate us because we have been meddling in their affairs for the last 60 years. After WWII, the Western Imperial powers redrew all of the politcal boundries of the region, forcing tribal groups that hate each other to now function as a single nation. As part of this "redistricting" effort, they carved out a little spot for Israel.

Then, the Western nations adopted a policy of standing up monarchs and dictators in these countries that would bend over backwards to help Western companies extract their only natural resources. In this scenerio, the people in power got rich and the remaining populace was relegated to poverty.

Eventually, our pet governments began to fall and the new governments had ideas other than allowing the status quo to continue at their countries' expense. The Western powers punished these new, uncooperative governments with economic sanctions and trade embargos. We supported neighboring countries in wars with these uncooperative countries.

Then came Gulf War I. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.S. came to the rescue. At the request of the House of Saud, we placed troops in Saudi Arabia to prevent Iraq from invading, and then pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. In pushing back Iraq, the U.S. pelted southern Iraq with depleted uranium shells which has contributed to an exponential increase in cancer patients in the country. We then continued to have troops in several countries throughout the region, much to the dismay of the populace. No country likes to be occupied.

Of course, there is also the religious element to consider. I think that this aspect is over emphasized.

In summary, we have told them what there political boundries are, what country they belong to, we take their lone natural resource, we prop up repressive governments, we wage war against them when our favored governments fall, our troops occupy their countries, and our economic policies prevent them from entering the modern world. All things considered, I might hate us too.

Something else that scares the pants off of me is that our elected officials might actually believe that the statement is the truth. How many of our elected officials have spent time in the Middle East without a compliment of security and staff in tow? In the situations that surround there travel, they only get to see what they are shown, much like what happens when the company you work for hosts high profile visiters. If our elected officials are not aware of the history of the Middle East and are not aware of the culture, they are apt to create policy that will offend the people of that part of the world, not help.

Some thoughts on the latest "terror plot"

I can't help but be skeptical of the latest "terror plot" to be foiled and the timing of its announcement. In the past, everytime that the administration needed to deflect criticism away from itself, they would announce the foiling of some "plot" to destroy the US. Does anyone remember the guys who were going to destroy the Brooklyn bridge with cutting torches? How about those crack terrorists, the Miami 6?

My point is that yesterday was a referendum on the President's policies and the public voted for a change: Out with Presidential smoocher Lieberman, in with Lamont. In response, key members of the GOP machine trotted out their talking points: Well, if you support Lamont, then you are supporting another 9/11 and various other scary rhetoric. Oh, and today? Yeah, we caught terrorists trying to blow up airplanes. Go back to sleep America, the GOP has everything under control.

On to the plot itself...

It is being reported that the British government has arrested 21 men, mostly of Pakistani origin, that had planned to detonate liquid explosives on planes headed from Britain to the US while somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. Not all of the suspects are in custody, and raids are continuing.

What? Not everyone is in custody? Then why are you telling us? Because you just told them that we are looking for them, you idiot...

Mr. Chertoff, Head of Homeland Security, offer this bit of scary genius: "This is a direct threat to the United States."

Scary and effective statement, but not entirely accurate. This plot, if real, is certainly a threat to American citizens, but not a threat to the country itself. The plan was to be executed over the ocean. Murder, yes... Threat to the homeland, no....

What measures are being taken to protect us?

All domestic European flights out of London have been cancelled, and the overseas flights have been delayed. Does this seem backwards to anyone? I thought that the plot involved overseas flights...

Passengers will not be allowed to bring beverages onboard any flight, overseas or here in the US. Huh? First, isn't the plot based in Britain? Second, is it safe to assume that our existing security protocols of requiring passengers to take a drink of any beverage that they intend to bring through security and onto a plane are no longer suffiecient to prevent an explosive from slipping through? Have the terrorists devised a non-toxic explosive? Why not ban electronic devices instead? Surely the detonators must be electronic, and by preventing cell phones from being in the passenger compartment, you certainly are preventing a remote detonation of something stashed in the luggage compartment.

Not to be a Doubting Thomas here, but this whole thing seems assinine. At the very minimum, the actions taken on behalf of our safety seem to be for appearance only...

Now, let's put this in perspective of the Bush War on Terror Doctrine. Since the suspects are of Pakistani orgin, does this mean that it is time to declare war against Pakistan? I thought that President (or is it General? I get confused when it comes to "democratically elected", coup d'etat dictators... er, leaders) Musharraf was an ally in the war on terror. How could he let this happen? Um, wait... Doesn't he have nukes? Isn't Al-Qaida hiding in Pakistan in the mountains? Isn't that country on the verge of war with India because of extremist elements that the President cannot or will not control?

No, better attack Venezuela instead. They have oil, and the adminstration can claim to be tough on Socialism while offsetting the BP pipeline shutdown (British company, btw).