Sarah Palin

I gave this several days to settle my thoughts before i posted.
Two days after the announcement, i continue to believe that this is a brilliant pick on McCain's part.

1. The republican base are totally excited. She has all the right marks (reformer, gun toting hunter, pro-life, family oriented, and conservative) to appeal to the conservative base more so than McCain does. Reading the internet boards, many who would not have voted for McCain are now actually excited and even donating money to his campaign (supposedly 6 million dollars within 24 hours of her announcement). For many Reps, she (along with Glenn Steel and Bobby Jindal) represent the future for the Reps. She energizes his base to donate and vote for him.

2. She has lots of appeal to independent. She is a working mom from a middle class family, and have made a success out of herself in the frontiers of Alaska. She is also not a lawyer, ivy league educated, or a professional politician. Other than being a working "hockey mom" her sex has nothing to do with her selection and no, i do not believe she will likely convert many hardcore Hillaristas to the Reps. She doesn't need to. If she can motivate independent working moms to vote for McCain/Palin and reminds the Hillaristas of how Hillary was cast aside, this will be enough. Every time the Obama team criticizes her ability to juggle work and motherhood, they will alienate another Hillarista. She has lots of appeal for independent.

3. Her experience and readiness on first glance appears to be a weakness, but politically a strength for McCain. Firstly, she is joining McCain's team, thus his strength will become her strength; she doesn't have to recruit or build an advising team. She will likely be brought up to speed by McCain's team on her weak areas regarding foreign policy and diplomacy. And her fresh eyes in these areas would be a plus as well. Secondly she does have executive experience that not Obama, Biden, or even McCain have. This means she has made decisions to make things happen as Governor and her judgment appears to have been excellent thus. She has good character. Thirdly while some Reps might bemoan her lack of experience, they will likely vote for McCain anyway. Compared to Obama she is certainly no worse. Finally, every time the Dems brings up the issue of her lack of experience, Obama's lack of experience will be considered as well. She is running for VPotUS, he is running for PotUS. It is a bait and a trap for Obama's team that they will fall into again and again. She reminds everyone of Obama's weakness.

4. She has a track record of fighting for reform against the establishment. This demonstrate ability, willingness, and integrity to enact change; Obama has only talked about change. Politically, this is a huge strength to counter one of Obama's platform of promised changed (she has already enacted change!). Secondly, her ability to have enacted reforms will make her a formidable opponent against Biden without the baggage Pawlenty, Huckabee or Romney bring. Yet she will likely be underestimated by Biden, regardless of how much warning Biden receives not to do so. She undermines Obama's message of change, his perceived strength.

5. With her on the ticket, it makes it a bit harder for Obama to level the charge of "4 more years of the same as Bush" against McCain. She is from the hinterland after all, both geographically and political establishment/DC beltway wise. In addition, he is no longer just another "old rich white republican guy running for office." His historical precedence is being countered. She provides a shield for McCain against Obama.

In summary, a brilliant political pick by McCain, which in itself improves his standing.

Links:
McCain choosing Palin.
Palin commands Alaska Missile defense units.
Palin quotes regarding foreign affairs.
Hillaristas comment on Palin.

Georgia vs Russia

It should be accepted that Russia will not withdraw from South Ossetia or Abkhazia. This matter little. Georgia did not have substantive control of these regions before the war anyway. Regarding defensive position against Russia, the Georgians can still cut off the Russians by taking out the Roki tunnel, as well as applying the choke at the pass across the Caucasian mountains when needed. These actions can be accomplished in my opinion without requiring air control if they are appropriately armed with missiles and or unmanned drones. Meanwhile, the Georgians and still infiltrate and destabilize both regions (as will the Russian attempt the same against Georgia)

What to do if Russians do not withdraw from Georgia proper? I believe this will be a significant tactical and strategic error on their part. If they wanted Georgia, they should have taken it before international support came to Georgia. Now with the US airlift, the Georgian could be re-armed as well as upgraded for an irregular war against Russians. Unlike Chechnya, who were not supported by the West, Georgia has a direct support line and defensive mountainous terrain, making them more like Afghanistan in their struggle against Russia.

Russia has nothing to gain by staying in Georgia. Whether they are smart enough to acknowledge this remains to be seen.

Georgia 2

While things remain on simmer in Georgia, i am skeptical much more will happen.
As it stand, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been lost by Georgia to Russia. I do not believe any peace agreement will change this. While a ceasefire is being negotiated, this is not the same as a peace agreement. This might seem a win for Russia, but i think if this is all Russia gets, this will likely mean Russia lost over all. They already had defacto control of these regions before the shooting started. Since the invasion, Russia has been viewed as much more threatening by the West than previously. This will likely mean a gradual shift of Europe from economic activities with Russia. Eastern Europe, long wary of Russia, will militarily strengthen themselves against possible strike by Russia. The other Caucasian states and the Central Asian states will similarly act. Likely same with Turkey.

Had Russia blitzed Georgia completely, they might have won more than they lost with the current arragement. They could have then directly affected the Caucasian oil pipeline. They could have directly threatened the Middle East.

So why did they stop?
1. Russia underestimated global, Western Europe, and US response for Georgia.
2. They could not pin the Georgian military down for a quick destruction in South Ossetia or Gori, thus putting themselves at risk for a protracted war in the Caucasus they could not easily win.
3. They never planned for more than what they did. They might have lacked the resource for more, and or this was a punative strike against Georgia rather than a true invasion/war.
These three are not exclusive of each other. I believe likely #1 and #2, but also possibly #3.
Time will tell.

Georgia

Russia has invaded Georgia. This is a premeditated action as i have suggested before.
A summary review of the time line from La Russophobe should be reviewed.

At 7:00 P.M. local time on August 7, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili spoke live on national television, announcing a unilateral ceasefire and asking the other side also to cease hostilities. In highly conciliatory words, Saakashvili called for talks “in any format”; reaffirmed the long-standing offer of full autonomy for South Ossetia; proposed that Russia should guarantee that solution; offered a general amnesty; and pleaded for international intercession to stop the hostilities (Rustavi-2 TV, August 7).

Following Saakashvili’s address, attacks on Georgian villages intensified. The village of Avnevi was almost completely destroyed, Tamarasheni and Prisi shelled, and the police station in Kurta, seat of the Sanakoyev administration, smashed by artillery fire. Civilians began fleeing the villages.

These attacks forced Tbilisi to take defensive action. By 10:30 P.M. local time on August 7 the Georgians returned fire. During the night, Georgian forces including armored columns began advancing toward Tskhinvali, the secessionist authorities’ administrative center.

I am not advocating that we enter the war directly with guns blazing. I am advocating that we assist the Georgians in their resistance against the Russian with intelligence information, military and humanitarian supplies, and perhaps a few unmanned planes to take out the Roki tunnel.

South Ossetia

Whether it was smart for Georgia to militarily reclaim this break away region or not is no longer significant. As an ally who have supported our efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan and Iraq) the US should now reciprocate. We should provide them with all the necessary intelligence to defend their territorial integrity and autonomy, as well as hardware and supplies. Our conduct here will have repercussion elsewhere now, as well as in the future. The world, our friends and would be friends, our enemies and would be enemies must never doubt that they have no better friends than the US, and no worse enemy.


Update: the more i think of it, the more i think this is conflict was not an accidental escalation. Russia was clear poised to act militarily in South Ossetia. Their readiness and rapid response is much faster than it should be for the state of readiness the Russian arm forces have been in.

Crimson Tide

It is now nearly uniformly accepted we have turned the tide in Iraq. From the changing emphasis of the New Iraqi Army as noted by DJ Elliot to the reconsidering the great achievement made possible by the steadfastness of GW Bush as noted at the Belmont Club.
But every time i see this video i feel even more for the unheralded sentiment expressed for our men and women in uniform who made this victory possible.

Withdraw

My question in light of what the Obama man is shifting toward of late, is how serious was he when he put forth his plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Was it all for political expediency to appease the left?

Your Children 2: SCOTUS

Regarding the SCOTUS decision banning the death penalty for child rapist, i think this is just another rather misguided judgement from our Supreme Court. I shudder to think what their decision will be today regarding the DC ban against gun ownership.

Your Children 1: Political Ads

in response to the MoveOn add.

Silly Seals

Seems like something for high school wannabees.

Jihadists and AL Qaeda

Within a few minutes of Noman Benotman's arrival at the Kandahar guest house, Osama bin Laden came to welcome him. The journey from Kabul had been hard, 17 hours in a Toyota pickup truck bumping along what passed as the main highway to southern Afghanistan. It was the summer of 2000, and Benotman, then a leader of a group trying to overthrow the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, had been invited by bin Laden to a conference of jihadists from around the Arab world, the first of its kind since Al Qaeda had moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Benotman, the scion of an aristocratic family marginalized by Qaddafi, had known bin Laden from their days fighting the Afghan communist government in the early '90s, a period when Benotman established himself as a leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The night of Benotman's arrival, bin Laden threw a lavish banquet in the main hall of his compound, an unusual extravagance for the frugal Al Qaeda leader. As bin Laden circulated, making small talk, large dishes of rice and platters of whole roasted lamb were served to some 200 jihadists, many of whom had come from around the Middle East. "It was one big reunification," Benotman recalls. "The leaders of most of the jihadist groups in the Arab world were there and almost everybody within Al Qaeda."

Bin Laden was trying to win over other militant groups to the global jihad he had announced against the United States in 1998. Over the next five days, bin Laden and his top aides, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, met with a dozen or so jihadist leaders. They sat on the floor in a circle with large cushions arrayed around them to discuss the future of their movement. "This was a big strategy meeting," Benotman told one of us late last year, in his first account of the meeting to a reporter. "We talked about everything, where are we going, what are the lessons of the past twenty years."

Despite the warm welcome, Benotman surprised his hosts with a bleak assessment of their prospects. "I told them that the jihadist movement had failed. That we had gone from one disaster to another, like in Algeria, because we had not mobilized the people," recalls Benotman, referring to the Algerian civil war launched by jihadists in the '90s that left more than 100,000 dead and destroyed whatever local support the militants had once enjoyed. Benotman also told bin Laden that the Al Qaeda leader's decision to target the United States would only sabotage attempts by groups like Benotman's to overthrow the secular dictatorships in the Arab world. "We made a clear-cut request for him to stop his campaign against the United States because it was going to lead to nowhere," Benotman recalls, "but they laughed when I told them that America would attack the whole region if they launched another attack against it."

* * * * *

Unsurprisingly, Al Qaeda's leaders have been thrown on the defensive. In December, bin Laden released a tape that stressed that "the Muslim victims who fall during the operations against the infidel Crusaders ... are not the intended targets." Bin Laden warned the former mujahedin now turning on Al Qaeda that, whatever their track records as jihadists, they had now committed one of the "nullifiers of Islam," which is helping the "infidels against the Muslims."

Kamal El Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London, believes that Al Qaeda's days may be numbered: "No government, no police force, is achieving what these [religious] scholars are achieving. To defeat terrorism, to convince the radicals ... you have to persuade them that theirs is not the path to paradise."

Read it all!

The more things change ...

the more things stay the same:

Want more George W. Bush foreign policy? Elect John McCain – or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.

None of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror. Each has called Mr. Bush tactically deficient. But the debate over the war on terror is over how, where and when. The candidates have all argued that they would do a better job of fighting it.

Administrations bequeath foreign policies to their successors that are then tweaked, but rarely transformed. The seeds of Ronald Reagan's Cold War strategy were sown in the defense buildup of the later Jimmy Carter years. President Bush's purported "obsession" with Baghdad began in the hawkish statecraft of Vice President Al Gore. In 1998, Bill Clinton made regime change official U.S. policy, and in 2003 Mr. Bush made it a reality.

The last great liberal hope to win the White House – Bill Clinton – committed more troops to more parts of the globe than any president since World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, America has undertaken at least nine military interventions overseas, under three presidents of both parties in two distinct historical eras (pre- and post-9/11). This history suggests that the next great liberal hope – Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton – would probably continue the trend.

Furthermore, the departure of Mr. Bush will hardly leave the nation's foreign relationships in tatters. Despite much American introspection, Euro-liberal sniping and Latin American leftist fantasizing, the quantity and quality of America's formal friendships have endured, if not actually increased, since 2001. Eighty-four governments, out of a world total of some 192, are formally allied with the U.S.

Foreign leaders such as France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel clearly see that their true interest resides in maintaining and renewing their relationships with the U.S. Few governments have prospered by severing such bonds. In Asia as well, nations are looking to strengthen their ties to America. China needs the U.S. market. India is moving toward America, not away.

The state and your children

The latest news item regarding the state and your children comes from Texas remains unsettled. Despite the best of intention, the state and its representatives, whether social workers or doctors, should think of their own fallibility before they act. Withness this story from the WSJ.

Mrs. West found a new physician who examined Richard and concluded he was severely mentally retarded. The physician explained that Richard might learn to walk but would never talk. He would always have the mentality of a three-year-old and need 24-hour care. "It was a relief knowing it wasn't my imagination" or fault, says Mrs. West.

Soon pregnant again, Mrs. West became overwhelmed at the thought of caring for a newborn and a mentally disabled toddler, along with four older kids. The community offered no programs to help Richard. Having come from North Dakota, the Wests had no family nearby. "I didn't know what to do," says Mrs. West.

She asked her doctor. Gently, he told Mrs. West it would be better for Richard and everyone else if he was institutionalized. "You have to think of the other kids," she remembers the physician telling her.

* * * * *

None of the children pressed their parents to find out how Richard was doing, although privately they wondered. "Anytime the family was together at Christmas or Thanksgiving, I would think how we used to play around him on the floor," says his older brother Bob.

In the 1980s, the state informed the Wests that Richard was being moved a couple hundred miles east to another state facility. A few years later, the Wests received a letter saying Richard was being placed in a smaller residence. The letter didn't say where. The Wests felt they lacked standing to ask because their son was a ward of the state.

He had, in fact, been transferred to a group home in Baker City, about 300 miles away. There, workers wondered about Richard's family. "Do they know he exists? Do they care?" says caregiver Tracy Hylton. "Many families don't want to have contact, and when there isn't any contact, we have to assume that is the case."

The turning point came the evening that Jeff West saw the television interview with Mr. Daly, the Oregon man who had found his long-lost mentally disabled sister. Suddenly, Jeff West was struck with the desire to find Richard.

Other siblings, however, were apprehensive. "Do you really want to do that?" brother Larry remembers saying. "Are you going to bring up things that are hurtful?"

Debby Peery, the second-youngest, wondered what their responsibility might be and how others would react.

"I was a little nervous about what the caretakers would think of us suddenly showing up after 40 years," she says. "But I was also excited."

All worried about their parents. "I didn't know how much guilt they carried," says Jeff West. At that point, Jeff didn't know his parents had recently and unsuccessfully tried to find Richard so that he could receive Mr. West's pension.

When asked about tracking down his disabled son, the elderly Mr. West responded, "Go for it."

* * * * *

Weeks later, the family met with Richard for the first time in 40 years. His caregivers, Ms. Hylton and Carrie Baird, drove Richard to the home of a sibling. They worried whether the West family would take Richard away from his group home, where he was comfortable and loved. "It would have been hard for us if he left," says Ms. Hylton.

* * * * *

Over lunch and through the afternoon, the Wests listened to Ms. Hylton and Ms. Baird describe how Richard loves music, does his own laundry, washes dishes, mows the lawn and sets the table. He has a job refilling ink cartridges. And a girlfriend: On dates to McDonalds they eat apple pie. Always known to his family as Ricky, he now preferred to be called Richard.


* * * * *

At Fairview, Richard learned things his parents never thought possible. By 12, he could dress, feed himself, catch a ball, fold pajamas and fish. He had friends and foster grandparents who took him out for ice cream. At 16, Richard taught himself to whistle. He loved Volkswagens and was sometimes found sitting in one in the Fairview parking lot.

* * * * *

Mrs. West sends Richard towels and sweatshirts embroidered with his name. When getting dressed in the morning, Richard selects the same shirts repeatedly -- the ones his mother sent. "He knows it came from his family, and it means something," says Ms. Hylton.

.

Parents, never give up your children to the state without a fight!

Memorial Day

Yesterday was memorial day. It was a warm and beautiful day. We bought a grand old vintage faded US flag, as well as a pole and a pole mount. I promptly installed and mounted the pole on a fence post and flew the flag. Since it wasn't next to the house itself, the wind caught it as often as possible.

We worked in the yard and had a cook out.

As night fell I lowered the flag and folded it up, and in a nice safe clean place I laid it down.

Oil and Gas, the money

from Powerline:

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

U.S.S. Independence

The US navy first Littoral class ship is launched.

Kyoto Hypocrisy

From Willisms:

911: more conspiracies

from the WSJ:

CAIRO, Egypt -- Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

As seen below, the ONN has it dead on regarding AlQaeda's response to it being discredited for 911.

911 Debate on ONN

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Trigger Happy

From the WSJ

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.

Not quite clinging or bitter.