Good riddance, Saddam

As I sit here watching Fox News, it's 10:05PM EDT in the U.S. All eyes are on Iraq, waiting for news of the execution of Saddam Hussein. For someone who presided over one of the most cruel regimes in history, to me, this seems too little too late. This guy is wacked. He never admitted guilt, showed remorse, or did anything to even pretend to care. So why should we care about him?

I don't.

It's not news that I did not agree with the U.S. invasion. I thought it was ill-conceived. Many, many reasons not to do it, and certainly not to do it the way we did it.

Well, it's now 10:08 EDT. The news just reported Saddam Hussein is dead by hanging. Executed by his own people.

For all the things I disagreed with our government about the war. For all the missteps, and mistakes. This may end up being the one thing that can be claimed to be right...and truly just.

Nuff said. Good riddance, Saddam.

It's Xmas season

I can tell it is now officially the Christmas season...Why? Cause my mailbox is filling up with all those ridiculous catalogs and other junk mail! I can't believe it when I think of all the money these companies are spending shot-gunning this tripe out to everybody and anybody. Given how poorly they are targetting me (most of this junk I could care less about), they are grossly wasting their marketing dollars. Sure the traditional hit rate on direct mail is 1%, so a 99% failure rate is I guess acceptable. But when you think about it, our entire society is essentially collaborating to create an industry or sub-culture dedicated to wasting 99% of the money involved in the process!

Think about it. Local optimization run amok. In the big picture view, it's stupid. We all know it. Yet it continues.

My opinion is: let's avoid the middle-man. Simply send all my catalogs directly to my land-fill, please.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Supported

Yes, there is a strong debate around when "life begins" which continues to overshadow many topics in US policy and politics, including abortion, and more recently, the debate around "embryonic stem cell research". Honest people with serious, considered opinions will debate this basic issue for years to come.

I believe there is, however, a sub-issue that can be peeled off of this larger issue. The issue of government support of human embryonic stem cell research under specific, controlled conditions. Those conditions are: ONLY when the human embryos under consideration would otherwise be destroyed. My opinion is that, if destruction is not under debate (the embryos would be destroyed anyways), there should be no issue here. Anyone who thinks otherwise really is not subscribing to the premise. Sorry but it's that simple to me.

Unfortunately, politicians and others who have philisophical and other axes to grind sometimes will not see an issue no matter how clear it gets. That to me is the only reason this particular sub-topic continues to draw debate. No one wants the other side to "win". And that, to me, is one of the saddest truths of all.

We should continue to debate large issues like "when does life begin". But for things which are more clear, can't we simply get on with it? Before we decide on these big issues, in the meantime, the US government should vigorously support human embryonic stem cell research with embryos instead of allowing their senseless destruction.

Those Poor Democrats

I'm an independent. I don't believe any one politcal party has it right, further they probably never will, due to certain 'structural' issues. Thus it is difficult for me to align completely with any one party.

I think we were wrong to go into Iraq. I think we were right to go into Afganistan. I think embryonic stem cell research should be supported by our government. I think the Republican tax cuts should be made permanent.I think you get my drift.

Having said all that, I can't help feeling sorry for the Democrats; they seem to keep sticking their feet into it. John Kerry's recent 'stuck in Iraq' comment is an excellent example.

John Kerry is an incredibly intelligent man. Unfortunately that is not enough (nor is it perhaps the most important thing) to be successful in US politics today. Mr. Kerry can make very compelling arguments, and has recently, on many subjects. And then, with one ill-considered comment, it all gets blown away. By the Republicans. By the media. By everyone.

Kerry's problem is: he 'knows' he's correct, and it is that very knowledge that gets him into trouble. For, especially in US politics, being 'right' is not necessarily the most important thing. How things appear is really the only thing that matters in politics. That's called "optics", and optics is the most important thing when it comes to getting votes. Don't make any provacative statements, don't take a stand, don't alienate your base, or any one else for that matter. And, if you make a mistake, like Kerry did, you'll get ripped to shreds.

This is not about what he said. Let's face it, is anybody really going to stand up and make a case that the average intelligence level of a US soldier is higher than their non-military peers? Come on. The problem is, you can't curry favor with the voting population by saying the people defending you are essentially stupid. That's what Kerry said. And, it may even be factually "correct". But, in the purest political sense, it was dead wrong.

The "smartest" thing he did was apologize. He did it within 48 hrs, which for politicians is light speed, but still was criticized for not doing it soon enough (big surprise there).

Still, it would've been a lot smarter to not have said it at all. If the Dems want to win big, they simply cannot keep making mistakes like that.

Why can't politicians answer questions SIMPLY?

OK, I get it. It's election season. And this election, despite the apparent low stakes, actually is quite bitter and heated. Possibly because the Republicans know they're in trouble over the war. Possibly because the Democrats are scared that, despite this advantage, they may not be able to fully capitalize on it. For whatever reason, prepare yourself for a few blogs on the frustating nature of our political system.

Here is one of my biggest pet peeves:

Why can't politicians answer a simple question simply?

My answer (simply):

It is (somewhat) because they don't want to, and (mostly) because we don't make them.

Get two politicians from opposing parties/points of view/pinnacles of power together, and you can observe this phenomenon for yourself. A simple question is asked, and then the politician (it doesn't matter which one) launches into a diatribe which rapidly transitions from the substance of the question into either 1) the politican's key messages of the day, or 2) an attack on their opponent. It usually ends with some dribble about the "intelligence of the American people" or some other meanlingless pandering. It does not matter what the question is, the answer is always the same.

And we wonder why many people cannot stand to listen to politicians. The problem is, this is our country these goof-balls are messing with. No matter, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the politicians are merely doing what works. The media is also to blame, because in their quest for ratings, they are scared to alienate influential and popular (ie good rating-getters) politicians by tough questioning lest their shows get black-balled for the Sunday talk circuit. So they all act tough, asking a "tough question" but then setting for the crappy, misdirection-laden, non-answers described above.

But I guess most of the blame must lie with all of us, the American People. We let this continue. Perhaps we have no choice. Anyone who tries to answer tough questions honestly gets ripped to shreds and destroyed in the media (by other politicians, attack ads, media personalities, etc.). There is really very little incentive for things to change.

Still, things must change. Our problems are not getting any easier in this world. We simply cannnot afford to condone sound-bite-laden lip-service as a fact of life in our policital system. We have too much at stake.

US Nuclear Policy - we cannot affort to blow this one.

The US should declare, concisely, our position and response to Nuclear attack by any means. We simply cannot afford to be ambiguous about this one.

Now that North Korea is in the Nuclear club, with Iran possibly close behind, we need to be very specific about our actions. When it comes to nuclear bombs, "close" is not nearly close enough.

It may actually not be possible for the US to stop countries from building nuclear devices. We may not be able to stop them from blowing up nuclear devices. However, that does not preclude the US from declaring openly what our response will be if and when a nuclear device is exploded on US soil.

I do realize that the threat of anniliation may not deter someone who is willing to die for his cause, but we absolutely need to find a way to motivate people in the proper direction. It seems to me that, unless everybody involved in the design,creation, and support of nuclear weapon trafficing is nuts, we should be able to at least partially deter this threat with such a "nuclear response doctrine".

Therefore I strongly urge the US government to declare something like the "doctrine of unilaterally-assured destruction" before the unthinkable actually does occur. The doctrine should go something like:

"The policy of the United States of America shall be one of immediate and full retaliatory military response towards any and all foreign governments that enable, engage, provide support for, harbor, or otherwise support any nuclear-based attack on US citizens, properties, or interests."

This may do nothing. But regardless, I'd rather have stated this policy before something happens, rather than wait until we get the nuclear equivalent of 9-11. I hope we never do.

Global Warming....be very afraid.

Just got back from the MIT Emerging Technologies Conference - Very Cool.

I'll post a blog about the highlights when I get time, but the most SCARY talk was the one about Global Warming. I have to admit I have not followed this much, and basically thought it was all a bunch of hooey, but not now. Now I simply want to run and hide under a rock. A rock at least 100' above sea level, that is.

Here is the Reader's Digest version of the Global Warming argument, for those of you like me with ADHD:

1. Carbon particles take 3000 years to get out of the atmosphere once they get into it.

2. Once you get past 500ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, you reach a "tipping point" beyond which it will take thousands of years to recover no matter what you do.

3. At current rates of carbon production, the world will reach 500ppm in the next 20 years.

4. If we did everything we know how to do regarding conservation, and got the whole world on board, and sacrificed mightily, we still might not make enough of a difference to avert the tipping point, all the while throwing the entire world into economic chaos for the next 20 years.

That's it...we are basically screwed. Have a nice weekend.

Today the music died

Maynard Furguson, legondary jazz trumpeter, died today at age 78. Read the details here. I was in high school, only about 16 years old, when I first heard Maynard Ferguson's awesome trumpet playing magic. I was with a group from my high school. We traveled to BGSU (Bowling Green State University) in Ohio to hear Maynard's band in concert. It was one of my first such experiences, and definitely one of the most powerful for me. I don't know if it was my impressionable age, or the pure talent of the man, but I still remember with awe the intense thrill of hearing those shrill high notes. Maynard was famous for being one of the few trumpeters who could hit a "double high-C" note, and he would do it with an oddly simplistic ease. It was in moments like this I learned at a very young age that a small number of people, working together in extreme precision, with a single-minded purpose, and being lead by an inspired soul, could achieve true perfection on earth. Seldom have I been so blessed since then. I still remember the electricity. I'm getting goosebumps writing these lines. Goodbye Maynard. You will be missed.

US Energy Policy is broken

OK, let's review the current situation: Oil >$70/barrel, SUVs/sports cars all over the road, everybody drives 'cause there is no mass transit to speak of, with few exceptions. The US is the largest oil consumer in the world.

We need to change this. It will not be easy or fast. We need to start now and keep up the pressure over a period of years.

Problem is: no one wants to do it. It's hard, and no one is going to step up to do something that hard for no good reason. So let's give them a good reason. Seems to me that our government exists first and foremost to protect our citizens. There is nothing that threatens our citizenry more than the threat of terrorism, and terrorism stems mainly from our Middle East policy. Our Middle East policy is driven primarily out of our lust for oil. Remove the dependency on oil, and our problems in the Middle East become much more manageable. This is a National Security issue.

Our government needs to seed and support the following actions:



Ethanol. Today, we add a paultry 10% ethanol to most gas mixtures. We should work to increase this to 25-30% ASAP. This would go a long way to stretch our oil needs out. Brazil has become energy independent by switching to fuel entirely consisting of ethanol. We may not be able to scale our country as completely, but I bet we could make a heck of a dent. We should give massive tax breaks to anyone who locally provides ethanol-based fuels and fuel additives.

Drilling: US offshore, Anwr, Canada. When you combine the potential sources of "local" oil, we have millions of barrels waiting to be procured. We should put tax subsidies in place to make drilling for this oil much more advantageous than buying Middle East oil.

Tax reform. All energy-related activities should be scrutenized from a standpoint of tax reform. That is, we should reward any activity that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil, and tax the heck out of activities that promote that dependence. Clearly we need to strike a balance that will not cripple our economy, but we should move aggressively in this direction.


Electric cars: Look at the Tesla roadster! For years, we thought electric cars were simply an oddity. They could not produce enough low-end torque. They did not have the range. Batteries were too bulky, heavy, dangerous, and ecologically messy. So tell me, if this is so, how come a bunch of geeks in CA were able to come up with a car like the Tesla roadster? Here is a vehicle that can go from 0-60 in 4 seconds, travel 250 miles between charges, and uses relatively clean Lithium-Ion batteries! All for a reasonable $100,000. If this is possible, then with some serious effort, big tax breaks, and a little time, we should be able to get something all of us could be driving in less than 5 years!

Yes, there may not be one "silver bullet" that we can use to solve this problem. But it seems to me there are more than enough "brass bullets" we can use to combine into an effective Energy-Independence Initiative. By combining leadership, government incentives, and technology, we CAN make this happen in less than 10 years!

All we need is the DESIRE!

Hyperbolic reactions to terror threats...because that's all we can do.

It is amazing that the British and American authorities were able to detect and thwart the plot to smuggle liquid compounds onto US Airliners in an attempt to create explosives. Truly an impressive piece of police work. The reaction of US Homeland security was, to say the least, not as impressive.

Call out the National Guard, and post armed guards at US domestic terminals (this happened in Boston). Ban all liquids from carry-on luggage. This includes, but is not limited to:

Bottled water (sealed or not)
Toothpaste
Eyedrops
Hair gel
Shampoo
Kid's juice boxes

These actions are clearly an example of extreme reactionary policy, intended to show action on the part of governmental officials who have no clue what to do. True, this is a very difficult situation and as someone who flys on business often, not at all savory. However, to see our government gyrating so violently with ineffective hystrionics both frustrates the rest of us, and more annoyingly, probably amuses the heck out of the terrorists.

Hopefully, soon cooler heads will prevail. Sure we need to take steps to reduce as much as possible the threat. But banning eyedrops? What's next? Will I be forced to evacuate my bladder before boarding the plane (actually I try to do this anyway)? What if the bomb was made out of the terrorists clothing? Will we all strip down and don white bathrobes for our flights? Let's be reasonable.

If a bomb can be hidden in any everyday material, and is undetectable, and the person hiding it is willing to die, I submit we need to admit that to the public so we can all decide to stop getting on planes if we want to. We simply need to be upfront about the real risks, and let the public make their own decisions. Fact is, the risk of being killed in one of these incidents is probably somewhere around 1% or less. Good odds, unless of course you are one of the 1% :)

The smart guys need to keep fighting the terrorists on all fronts. We need to support and fund them as much as possible and praise their victories. We all need to be vigilant and help with our own observations, funding, and other support. Other than that, we need to trust that we've done our best and get on with our lives. Anything else is letting the bad guys win.

This time, we are the British

I was going to name this post "Between Iraq and a hard place" , but after Google'ing the phrase, it was obvious that it was neither new nor unique nor original, with usage dating back at least to a 2003 TV special. So much for original thought.

In the American Revolution, it was the British who were perplexed with "unconventional warfare". They were used to marching along in nice, neat columns. Stopping, fixing, kneeling, and firing in complete, formal order according to their squad leaders shouted commands. Then came along these weird colonists who didn't obey the "rules of war". They hid in the bushes, and fired from the brush and ran away before the mighty British army could kill them. How dare they!

Well now it's our turn. Middle-east terrorists, knowlingly or not, have taken a page from history and turned it against us. They don't obey our "rules of war". They don't have a country to attack or levy sanctions against. We cannot use diplomacy; they have no diplomats. We can lay waste to vast areas of land; killing hundreds, destroying people, buildings, land, and resources on a massive scale. This can be done, but at a phenominal cost to us which is very difficult to sustain. And yet, all it takes is ONE LONE PERSON to strap a home-made bomb (IED, or "improvised explosive device") to their body and walk into a populated area, and set it off. And they have won. At least according to the newspapers, who amplify everything the terrorists do a hundred-fold, while seemingly diluting the American military effect at the same time.

This activity is not sustainable. Over time, we will exhaust our vast resources, drain our reserves, and impoverish our own people. And, even then, all it will take is ONE LONE PERSON, with one IED, to put us all back in the losing column. Problem is: THEY KNOW THAT. They, the terrorists, feel that no matter what we do, they can always get ONE LONE PERSON to kill some civilians and then they can claim victory.

We need to alter this "asymmetric warfare" scenario. But how? Although a noble concept which I happen to agree with, the Bush effort to democratize the middle east seems at best horribly expensive and costly in terms of American lives and resources. We are essentially trying to make their country look like ours, so we can use our "rules" to win the contest. That's like going into a football game, and saying "you know, I don't much like football, how about we play basketball instead?" (Because I know I can win at basketball, and I really suck at football). Again, nice idea, but pretty difficult to achieve.

Can we learn from history? What did the British do? Although historical reference does not usually directly translate into modern-day strategies, let's consider it for one moment. The British expended tremendous resources, over many years, with essentially an occupation spanning much of what is now the North American east coast. They were essentially engaging in nation building, trying to get the colonists to act like they were back in England. But it did not work. And those folks CAME from England!!

So what happened in the end? The British LEFT.

This time, we are the British. Perhaps we should leave too. We can spend the same money and resources, but instead of occupation and nation building, we can spend it on homeland security, better intelligence, rebuilding America, strong border defence/interdiction, and new technologies that will make us energy independent.

Will it work? Who knows. But I'm not sure the result would be worse than what we have now.

Condolences for the latest Big Dig victim...and the rest of us.

Sadly, the endless series of blunders, budget overruns, and downright criminal activity have resulted in the ultimate injury - death. Earlier this week, a portion of the Ted William's tunnel came loose from its supports and collapsed, killing a female occupant of a passing car.

This is of course the worst possible tragedy, and nothing can be said to make it better. The only hope is that this serves as the final impetus for the hopelessly incompetent management of the Big Dig project to finally own up to what everybody in Boston has known for years: that the Big Dig is a fiasco. Not only has it served to scoop up billions in taxpayer dollars and shove them into the pockets of corrupt people all down the line, it has created an unnatural disaster unparalleled in our time. We will have to live with the ramifications of this testament to beaurocratic incompetence for decades. That is, if we are lucky. Some of us will not have to live with it...we'll simply be dead.

Forget Enron. Forget suing companies like Microsoft. It is the people who slither though life, adding absolutely no value, stealing people's money and, tragically, their very lives, that we need to finally cease to tolerate. The products of their actions are infamous. The largest benefit to society would accrue if we simply said "enough". We will no longer tolerate this. Spend what's left of our tax dollars not on bridges to knowwhere, not on subsidies to thriving business, but rather on enacting laws that stipulate the harshest possible penalties to be extracted on these unscroupulous vermen of our society.

We can all live with that.

Will we never learn?

I guess it's human nature...someone "gets in your face" and then you feel the need to "show them who's boss". Call it Sabre Rattling, or what you want. We don't ever seem to learn that this stuff will always occur when people interact. Get enough people, put them together, and you inevitably get conflict. That's exactly what's happening with North Korea right now. From our point of view, the leader of N. Korea is crazy, evil, etc., and we are... "righteous". Perhaps so, but I can't help thinking that characterizing our enemy/opponent on the world stage as nuts makes it all too easy. I suspect reality is somewhere in between. For whenever we start painting with a broad brush our opposition, essentially making them 2-dimensional, we sow the seeds of an impasse. Let's face it, if we are righteous, and he is nuts, where do we go from there?

One of the main problems the United States has with foreign policy is that our positions/viewpoints are debated on the world stage for all to see. That is also one of our greatest strengths. In a case like this, however, we have to acknowledge the negative side effects of this reality. Consider the analogy to a hostage situation. The "bad guys" have people held hostage in a bank, and we send in our crack negotiator to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bad guy has the room bugged where our negotiator discusses and debates all his strategies and tactics with us. So the bad guys know what we know, but we don't really know what they know. We are at a disadvantage from an intelligence point of view. This was the problem in Iraq and Afganistan, and now North Korea.

What we need to do is simply acknowledge that this is the case and try to use it to our advantage. I'm sure our government is trying, but it seems from my point of view that we can still use some more improvement. Publically saying things like "This guy is crazy" or "He is basically acting like a spoiled child and should be treated as such" may in fact be true, but will hardly be effective strategies if 1) we publicize we feel this way and 2) Kim Jong Il hears it on CNN. We may feel this way. It may in fact be true. Doesn't matter. We simply can't say it and then expect to act on it effectively. The bad guys have our room bugged.

So what do we do? If I knew that, I would not be blogging; I'd be doing something more productive. For what it's worth, here are my recommendations:

1. Make US policy crystal clear. If we or any of our allies gets attacked, spell out exactly what will happen, automatically, without negotiation. If we are clear, consistent, and credible, our enemies and our allies will heed our positions. IF not, then they are crazy and deserve what they get. This is something we can do for free. It costs nothing, and will save lives and money in the long run if we do it properly. There is no excuse for being ambiguous about the U.S. response to a specific type of attack.

2. Make our allies take a stand. Naturally, we need to do #1 above in order to have any chance of making our allies be clear and credible. Lead by example. Then expect our allies to follow. We need put checks in place to verify their actions and hold them accountable. And by the way, they should be doing the same thing to us.

3. Make other countries get off the fence. This includes our "special friends" like China and Russia, who seem to enjoy unique status because they have nukes. Dont' we get it? It is this unique, special treatment that we endow China and Russia with that the other countries like North Korea WANT. They see them getting special treatment and want it too! We are training them to act in this manner. If you want other countries to stop pursuing nukes, you need to take away their appeal. Make it more dangerous to own nukes than to not own nukes.

---> These recommendations do not require troop movements, UN resolutions, or other significant investments of money, time, or human resources. They do, however, require thought, nonpartisan cooperation, clear convictions, and resolve. Perhaps that is why we never seem to go this route.

Goodbye Kenny

Ken Lay - could not have happened to a nicer guy. My only regret is that he seemed to go to his grave insisting he did nothing wrong. That's the problem with very successful people. Many of them have huge egos. These egos propel them into the limelight. They give them confidence to keep going when everybody else tells them to quit. They make them appear "larger than life", and give others confidence in them. Unfortunately, it is this same quality, possesed in abundance by many powerful people, that makes them refuse introspection to a fatal measure; insisting they are right when simpler minds can see the truth through the haze of marketing spin. When rational, cold, factual analysis indicates otherwise. This quality, or curse, of the huge ego brings them down as fast as their meteoric rise. Because of all the things they can imagine; of all the great future potential they can envision, they can not and will not see the possibility...that they are just plain wrong.

My first Blogger Post --> Yippee!

This is a test post in the Blogger blogspace. I'd like to see how easy and/or fast it is to enter my own blog using this tool. The key thing you need with a blogging tool is the ability to quickly and easily enter your thoughts without getting bogged down in the specifics of the tool. After all, the blog is about the content, isn't it? (sometimes I wonder).