Full Disclosure...

Explore The Results How It Works  |  Quiz Comments
PoliticsMatch Your Political Philosophy The below is a way of thinking about your political philosophy by dividing your PoliticsMatch answers into "personal" and "economic" questions.  It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt! Personal Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers. Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.   Your Score You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:
Personal Score	48%
Economic Score	72%

Where You Fit In Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy.  Based on the above score, you are a Libertarian Conservative .
Personal Score This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's personal lives. Personal issues include health, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars. A high score (above 60%) means you believe in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A low score (below 40%) means you believe that your standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.  Economic Score This measures how much you believe government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.  A high score (above 60%) means you believe in personal responsibility for your financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government.  A low score (below 40%) means you believe that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. You believe that government's purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program. Examples The chart below indicates how four "hard-core" political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how you fit in with each philosophy.  Your answers are on the left. A "hard-core liberal" would answer personal questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention. A "hard-core libertarian" would answer both personal and economic questions to minimize government involvement. A "hard-core conservative" would answer personal questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement. A "hard-core populist" would answer both personal and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Personal Issues	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Abortion Is a Woman's Right
Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law
Teach Family Values in Public Schools
Death Penalty
Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
Drug Use Is Immoral: Enforce Laws Against It
Allow Churches To Provide Welfare Services
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Economic Issues	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Require Companies To Hire More Women/Minorities
More Federal Funding For Health Coverage
Privatize Social Security
Replace coal and oil with alternatives
Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
Support and Expand Free Trade
Replace US troops with UN in Iraq
	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Issues Not Counted In Philosophy	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
Absolute Right To Gun Ownership
Parents Choose Schools Via Vouchers
More Spending On Armed Forces
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
	You	Hard-core Liberal	Hard-core Libertarian	Hard-Core Conservative	Hard-Core Populist
= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose
Final Notes To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by "support", and half the time by "oppose." Hence, each of the "hard core" philosophers would choose "support" for 3 or 4 of the Personal questions and for 3 or 4 of the Economic questions. There are four questions which are not counted in your political philosophy. Those questions do not fit this theory -- for example, Democrats typically oppose unrestricted gun ownership, while a 'hard core liberal' would support it on grounds of the government not intervening in a personal issue. These omissions ensure that the theoretical definitions match with current-day politics. Many of these statements cross over the line between personal issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a "Personal" issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way you think about government activities in these two broad scales. Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.
Explore The Results How It Works  |  Quiz Comments

Pre-Convention Prediction...

At the risk of seeming really foolish - here are my predictions for the November elections in 2008.

 

Popular Vote

• McCain - 53%
• Obama - 44%
• Independent / Other - 3%

I predict Obama to carry Illinois and New York but no other states of consequence.  

 

Why?  Well, dear reader(s), it stems from the simple fact that the nation would rather stand with the known and experienced than the unknown and inexperienced.  I respect Senator Obama's capability to be a good president.  But that's me.  Multiply any personal uncertainty by the population of voters and you have a smoothing effect which places the advantage squarely in McCain's court.    Short of selecting Vladimir Putin as VP, I think the Arizona senator is on the ascendant.

 

Wedge issues are not in play here.  Gun control was taken off the table by the Supreme Court.  The Iraq war is transitioning well.  There is a real risk the economy will improve, as it tends to do in the fourth quarter.  Finally, the behavior of Russia in Georgia will underscore the real threats existent in the world and the role of the United States as the ONLY real bulwark against unchecked aggression, although I am disappointed at our "public" response.

 

So, mark your calendars and place your wagers.  I have been known to make wild bets and lose them gloriously.  As a good friend of mine advised, go big or go home.

 

Stratfor is on target...

The analytical piece by Stratfor's George Friedman is right on the money in regard to Russia's actions and motivations.

Now, what are we going to do about it?

Europe must make a decision as to how they are going to react to the Russian move. I suspect there are plenty of heads of states who are thinking about voters and rising natural gas prices.

They better get their pipline built - and a few main battle tanks wouldn't hurt.

The game continues.

How to help Georgia...

Photo Reuters - Civilians Flee Homes

The Russians continue to show their brutal, thuggish approach to geopolitics. On one hand, they settle a decades old conflict with the People's Republic of China by solidifying their border with the only remaining communist superpower. On the other hand, they plunge into a pro-western, neighboring state with the equivalent strength of a mechanized division. The mismatch between Russia and Georgia is laughable. Georgia has no combat airpower, no naval presence to speak of on the Black Sea and a standing army of some 26,000. Russia has invaded with six times the total number of main battle tanks as are in the Georgian inventory. Georgia has been involved in a battle for the retention of two critical regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Both regions border Russia with the latter bordering the Black Sea as well. Georgia's southern neighbor, Turkey, would hardly welcome a Russian proxy state on its northern border or thousands of refugees from yet another war torn region.

Georgia had been moving towards a very successful Westernization and conversion from the old, corrupt Soviet system. The two pronged invasion by Russian forces sends a chilling message to Ukraine and other nation states. Europe is absolutely apoplectic with fear. Had Georgia's membership in NATO been secured six months ago, this event would likely have never occurred. An attack like this would have brought a response along these lines;

1) United States nuclear attack submarines would penetrate the Black Sea and neutralize Russian Naval assets through interdiction or sinking.
2) NATO air assets from Italy, Turkey and other bases would provide air cover for Georgian forces.
3) GPS weaponry would be employed to execute SEAD missions (suppression of enemy air defense)
4) NATO SOF teams would be inserted to conduct fire missions against any Russian forces.
5) Ground forces from NATO would be mobilized as a stabilizing force against Russian forces
6) A possible declaration of war would follow against Russia by NATO

After that - it could get messy.

Vladimir Putin, the real power behind the Russian government remains a thuggish threat to anti-corruption, free market nations. It is clearly his planned and executed operation which unleashed these forces against an essentially helpless civilian population. There are commentators who make ridiculous comparisons to our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The absurdity and post-modern relativism applied in this argument is repugnant. The run up to each of these military actions was well known, communicated and executed in a legal fashion (as legal as war can get).

Russia retains all of its historical bullying and disregard for the rule of law as it ever has. It is partly the fault of nations in Europe who have failed to challenge their largest neighbor for its reprehensible behavior.

Latest: News on Georgia

How the internet is changing the rules...

Joss Whedon created Buffy the Vampire Slayer and my favorite, gritty SciFi series, Firefly. Here he presents the very funny Neal Patrick Harris in a delightful online only video.

Military Rules...

Provided me by a good friend and USMC brat. They generally seem to apply, and I am in a humorous mood today.

Military Rules

Marine Corps Rules:

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

3. Have a plan.

4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.

5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start
with a '4.'

7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life
is expensive.

8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral &
diagonal preferred.)

9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

10... Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

11... Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you
lose.

12... In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance,
or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

13... If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your
intention to shoot.


Navy SEAL's Rules:

1. Look very cool in sunglasses.

2. Kill every living thing within view.

3. Adjust Speedo.

4. Check hair in mirror.


US Army Rangers Rules:

1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound rucksack while starving.

2. Locate individuals requiring killing.

3. Request permission via radio from 'Higher' to perform killing.

4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.

5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.


US Army Rules:

1. Curse bitterly when receiving operational order.

2. Make sure there is extra ammo and extra coffee.

3. Curse bitterly.

4. Curse bitterly.

5. Do not listen to 2nd LTs; it can get you killed.

6. Curse bitterly.


US Air Force Rules:

1. Have a cocktail.

2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.

3. See what's on HBO.

4. Ask 'What is a gunfight?'

5. Request more funding from Congress with a 'killer' Power Point
presentation.

6. Wine & dine ''key' Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry
executives.

7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.

8. Declare the assets 'strategic' and never deploy them operationally.

9. Hurry to make 13:45 tee-time.

10. Make sure the base is as far as possible from the conflict but close
enough to have tax exemption.



US Navy Rules:

1. Go to Sea.

2. Drink Coffee.

3. Deploy Marines

Go Navy !

The law is a good thing...

>

It is a wafer thin barrier between humanity and its most basic and feral instincts.  Someone cut you off in traffic?  You may experience that primal urge to accelerate your Smart Car into the side of that Hummer H2 in a rage blind act of retaliation.  But you don’t.  It could be because of the state trooper you notice at the side of the road, the thought of a substantial hike in your insurance rate or some other mitigating reason.  Rarely is it because the simple weight ration between the offending behemoth and your egalitarian chariot would result in near instantaneous squishiness.

 

And so it is laws and covenants which keep us from behaving in a totally self interested manner.  Failing the existence of credible laws we would be seeking only to give succor to our individual basic instincts.  With proper societal pressures in place we defer this urge and cooperate.  It is in times of stress and extreme conditions that the barriers stretch and “crimes” occur.  We all have heard the phrase “crime of passion” in which one individual responds to their instinctive reflex and acts in a criminal manner.  It is hard to conceive of a world in which laws are an unnecessary legacy.  Even today, laws exist which are holdover from times in which they were used to control or oppress a population.  Iran still stones “adulterers”, India prosecutes homosexuals, China imprisons dissidents and counties in the United States forbid the sale of alcohol on Sunday.

 

We are thus enfolded by laws, rules and regulations.  Many of which we are blissfully unaware.

 

            “Excuse me guvnor, you aware that your article of clothing is in violation of article three section one paragraph A, prohibiting disrespectful display of her Royal Majesty?”

 

Right, off to jail then.

 

But there are crimes for which we are keenly aware.  These tend to be very big events.  They are murder, assault, rape and the like.  These crimes, which when committed by a civilian, are terrible; and yet when committed by the soldiery of a nation are completely detestable.  Why is that?  At one point in our existence it was considered a spoil of war for attacking bands to take whatever they wanted.  Vikings were renowned for their warlike deeds of rape and pillage.  Soldiers appropriated property, enslaved populaces and generally did as they pleased.  These violations enter into the realm of war crimes.  There is a good BBC News Article on the topic.

 

With the handover and arrest, I can not call it a capture, of Radovan Karadzic by Bosnian Serb authorities, the topic of war crimes is resurrected again.  He was one of three active architects responsible for the hell that Yugoslavia devolved into in the 1990s.  Like most international issues, it is complex and not easily understood.  A group of passionate advocates on the left routinely call for the indictment and prosecution of the current President and administration of the United States of America under the aegis of war crimes.  They are misled in their accusations and have been (as Marx noted so correctly) useful idiots.

 

In 1863, with the issuance of the Lieber Code by Union forces of the United States, the first written protection of innocents and civilians in conflict was defined.  It was not until 1899 that the world began serious discussions on the behavior of armed forces in times of war.  Previously the only international rule was an unstated acknowledgement to chivalric code, in which innocents should not be harmed.  The operative word here is “should”.  The Napoleonic conflict and countless wars in the 19^th century reminded the world of the ability of humanity to inflict suffering upon one another.  In World War I, the widespread use of chemical weapons, aerial bombardment and other modern inventions earned the conflict the moniker “the war to end all wars”.  Sadly, this was only wishful thinking.    

 

Nevertheless, the world forged ahead.  It worked hard, especially after World War II to refine and strengthen the laws of conflict.  The UN was established in the wake of the fading League of Nations.  And yet acceptable conduct from belligerents has been elusive.  The United Kingdom waged a brutal conflict on the northern edge of the emerald isle for decades.  In Cambodia, Pol Pot slaughtered millions.  In Rwanda civilians were incited to take up arms against their own brethren in an orgy of violent tribalism.  And still the world trudged onwards, working to establish clear codes of conduct and behavior for governments when diplomacy turned from the point of a pen to the end of a sword.

 

This was not an easy path to navigate.  Even as late as 1996, the International Court of Justice had difficulty forming an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons.  I think it is safe to say that the use of such devices is generally considered bad.  And to use them in an unprovoked manner, would be the definition of a criminal act.  Action in response to such an attack, however, is not so clear.

 

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,

It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of International Law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

IN FAVOUR: PRESIDENT Bedjaoui, JUDGE Renjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereschetin, Ferrari Bravo;
AGAINST: VICE-PRESIDENT Schwebel; JUDGES: Oda. Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma Higgins.

F. Unanimously,

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

            Reference - International law links

 

Where are we now? 

 

The United States, for reasons of its own, is not one of the one hundred and seven signatories to the Rome Statute, convening the International Criminal Court.  They, along with eighty-nine other nations, have not endorsed the court’s broad powers.  If acceptance by 54% of the world’s nations (only by count not population as Russia, India and China also remain unsigned) is endorsement, then it is a slim one indeed.  Almost all of these agreements, treaties, resolutions and other high-minded documents are exclusively applicable to nation states.  To date, there is very little governing the behavior of non-state actors (i.e. Al-Qaeda, etc.).  Their actions tend to fall into garden variety criminal acts and thus not subject to the same rules of behavior as nations.

 

How do we, as a nation, respond?  My JAG officer would chide me and remind me that it doesn’t matter whether they are playing fair, we have rules to follow.  I was amazed at this friend of mine’s workload in the 5^th Fleet Area of Operational Responsibility.  He was a Navy Commander and served as the combatant commander’s (COCOM) JAG.  Eighteen hour days were short ones and routinely he spent nights at the command center preparing analysis, briefs and responding to crises.

 

On his door was a poster, it showed a carrier battle group deploying towards the horizon.  Below it was the phrase “don’t go to war without your lawyer”.  It reminded us all that we act as a nation.  And as a nation we have a set of laws to uphold and abide.  After all, it is to the Constitution to which the military swears its allegiance – not the government.

 

I just wonder what poster our opponents have on their wall.

The Great Supplement Swindle...

I work on a regulated industry.  My civilian career is governed by organizations like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and others too numerous to mention.  Routinely my facility is inspected, scrutinized and I have even had to submit information to congressional committees.  This, I believe, is a good thing.  Someone needs to watch over the firms providing public services.  It is reasonable to check on airlines, food producers and others who possibly could affect the health and welfare of the public at large.  There is a lot of pressure to take short cuts to preserve profits, maintain competitiveness and sustain one's business.  VLC's (Very Large Corporations) are under intense scrutiny to comply.  They represent deep pockets and consumers routinely target them with litigation, complaints and queries. 

 

The sheer size and scale of the modern corporation is such that it presents a monolithic appearance to the outside world.  It can appear impersonal and intimidating.  Past performance of some firms in the 1970s and earlier has been less than perfect in the stewardship of their constituency.  Even today, scandals rocking the financial world engender a deep distrust of corporate entities.  Without sounding too much like a spokesperson for the entire corporate culture, let me offer some observations from inside.

 

Earlier in my career I worked for a multi-national which got involved in a consumer safety issue.  Unlike Johnson and Johnson's handling of the Tylenol crisis, this firm took a far more hands off approach to a real threat to its integrity.  As such, the market punished this firm ruthlessly (more than half its market share evaporated overnight) and it was acquired by another firm which collected the remains of a once dominant company.  This occurred almost two decades ago, long before the instantaneous transmission of information via the internet and the twenty-four hour news cycle. 

 

In the 21st century, corporations are being held to increasingly strict standards of behavior.  Consumers are better equipped than ever and information is only a keystroke away.  And yet there exists a remaining realm of shadowy uncertainty.  Within the United States, nutritional supplements are a realm of para-regulated products which may (or may not) be helpful to the public.  Websites promising fantastic results tread the line between deception and marketing.  Each of these products is marketed with the standard disclaimer that the products' claims have not been evaluated by the FDA nor is their product designed to treat, cure or diagnose any disease.  As a consumer, I would stop and rethink my purchase based upon such a caveat.  And yet the supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. 

 

Many supplements are manufactured by major pharmaceutical firms (Bayer, etc.).  Some are produced by large, standalone supplement companies such as Boiron.  These companies report expenditures to the financial markets in similar formats.  What is noted is the gap between R&D spending for the traditional pharmaceutical (also known as Big Pharma - oooh, can't you feel the evil!!) and supplement only companies.  In most cases, the sales and advertising dollars are disproportionately high among the supplement only companies.  Why is this?  Wouldn't you expect that these firms would be researching new products, providing benefits to their customers, on a regular basis?

 

The simple fact is often that there is no research because their is no good effect (typically there is no negative effect either).  The supplement only companies sell hope in a pill, elixir, tincture or powder.  Sometimes there is some basic research to support claims - the body needs vitamins, for example - but most often the claims are vague or even misstated.  These firms count on the public's ignorance of science and desire for self-improvement not involving traditional hard work (diet and exercise) or acknowledgement of a real medical issue (depression, etc.).  Whole industries have sprung up preying upon the public suspicions of traditional institutions.  In most cases these industries are loosely or un-regulated.  They are quick to fan the flames of doubt and dissatisfaction but even quicker to divert objective analysis of their own offerings.

 

Next time you go grocery shopping, walk down the supplement aisle.  Take some time and really peruse the labels of what is offered for sale.  Look at the manufacturer's claims and then apply a little of Occam's Razor to them. 

 

Remember, if it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.

It's a Cluster...

Not really, actually the new DoD policy on cluster munitions is reasonable and well stated.  Cluster munitions are very effective against TIO (troops in the open) which includes perched atop a roof in an urban environment.  What is of most interest in this commentary is the unmistakable involvement of the DoD JAG corps.  The extreme accountability proposed - which makes verification by any interested party simple - is a hallmark of a nation governed by the rule of law.  In the ban the US admits the use of cluster munitions, states reasons why we use them and acknowledges their risk to non-combatants.  It also points out the dilemma when enemy forces are "clustered" among civilians. 

 

So what is our response to the findings of the UN meeting in Dublin?  We will demilitarize non-compliant munitions (not a free process), we will upgrade our technology to provide surety of safety to non-combatants at the conclusion of hostilities and any use of these types of munitions must be approved by the combatant commander - this is typically a three star flag or general officer.  For the uninformed, this is a signature accountability for deployment of ordnance in the area of operations. 

 

In the brief time I spent in the Persian Gulf, part of my duties was to sign off on the command portion of time sensitive targeting (TST).  This meant that if we saw a bad guy in a house and needed to rock their world in a hurry, a host of players had to concur.  We looked at collateral damage, forces in the area, allies, legal and several other elements in order to insure there was no blue-on-blue (friendly fire) or civilian injury.  The process was detailed, precise and would not allow the weapon release without concurrence. 

 

Where in our adversaries' list of procedures does the same accountability and concern exist?  No where.  If the Peoples Liberation Army claims that they will no longer use cluster munitions, how would we know?  Part of the reason that the cold war never blossomed into an apocalypse was due to the ruthless checks, verifications and discussions which took place between the USA and USSR.  Reagan's oft quoted "trust but verify" comment was the safety which permitted each side to point instantaneous nuclear annihilation at one another and still carry out meaningful diplomacy.

 

Frankly, it feels good to know we play by the rules, even if no one else does and even if no one thinks we do.

 

Cluster Munitions Policy Released
Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:57:00 -0500

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 577-08 July 09, 2008

---

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

On the Web: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/

Media Contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public Contact: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your User Profile Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please e-mail support@govdelivery.com.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 380 Jackson Street, Suite 550 · St. Paul, MN 55101 · 1-800-439-1420

Cluster Munitions Policy Released             Today the Department of Defense released a newly approved U.S. cluster munitions policy. The United States believes that the new policy will provide better protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure following a conflict, while allowing for the retention of a legitimate and useful weapon.             Recognizing the need to minimize the unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with unexploded ordnance from cluster munitions, the secretary of defense has approved a new policy on cluster munitions intended to reduce the collateral effects resulting from the use of cluster munitions in pursuit of legitimate military objectives.  The new policy is the result of a year-long Department of Defense review of cluster munitions.             Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat. They provide distinct advantages against a range of targets, where their use reduces risks to U.S. forces and can save U.S. lives. These weapons can also reduce unintended harm to civilians during combat, by producing less collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure than unitary weapons. Because future adversaries will likely use civilian shields for military targets – for example by locating a military target on the roof of an occupied building – use of unitary weapons could result in more civilian casualties and damage than cluster munitions. Blanket elimination of cluster munitions is therefore unacceptable due not only to negative military consequences but also due to potential negative consequences for civilians.              Post-combat, the impact of cluster munitions is limited in scope, scale and duration compared to other explosive remnants of war (ERW).  According to the Feb. 15, 2008, State Department white paper ("Putting the Impact of Cluster Munitions in Context with the Effects of All Explosive Remnants of War"), in 2006 fewer than 400 casualties were attributable to cluster munitions out of a global total of 5,759 reported for all ERW.             A key facet of the DoD policy establishes a new U.S. technical norm for cluster munitions, requiring that by the end of 2018, DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. Additionally, cluster munitions sold or transferred by DoD after 2018 must meet this standard. Any munitions in the current inventory that do not meet this standard will be unavailable for use after 2018. As soon as possible, military departments will initiate removal from active inventory cluster munitions that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. These excess munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity. Effective immediately through 2018, any U.S. use of cluster munitions that do not meet the one percent unexploded ordnance standard must be approved by the applicable combatant commander. Previous DoD policy required military departments to design and procure "future" (after 2005) submunitions to a 99 percent reliability rate, but did not address use and removal of current munitions.             The new policy is viewed as a viable alternative to a complete ban proposal generated by the Oslo Process in Dublin, Ireland, last month. The new policy serves as the basis for the U.S. position in negotiations toward an international agreement at the U.N. Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW) that began on July 7. The United States has called for the completion of a new cluster munitions protocol by the end of the year. The CCW, unlike the Oslo process, includes all of the nations that produce and use cluster munitions, making any agreement reached there much more practically effective.

The face of a nation...

It is often hard to sketch out a topic with some regularity for this blog.  Ostensibly it is a military blog with items of interest to the military community.  At times it is a political blog, a skeptic’s blog, a technology blog, a gaming blog, a personal journal and once in a while it is humorous.  It is many things, but most of all it is a collection of thoughts set out for consideration. 

 

It is a source of validation for my own sanity and reason.

 

It was my birthday Saturday before last.  It was also the day that Joseph Patrick Dwyer, an Army medic, died in Pinehurst, North Carolina.  Dwyer was thirty-one years old.  A marker I have long since passed.  He is notable for many things, but will be remembered as the image of American fighting forces in Iraq.  The picture of him running with a wounded Iraqi child was a perfect representation of our armed services. 

 

His battle clad form (complete with eye glasses) topped by a visage painted with concern for the well being of a child sprinted across a war zone – seeking safety and succor for the injured boy.  He joined the Army after the events of September 11^th.  His service was recognized with the award of the Combat Medical Badge (CMB).

 

What I find most compelling about the loss of this young man is the level of sacrifice he offered to his nation, his fellow soldiers and Iraqi citizens.  There are so many messages contained in this one life that it would be worthwhile to reflect upon it in relation to our own.    

 

I spent the fourth of July in the mountains of western North Carolina.  I sat on the street in Hendersonville and watched their small parade roll past me.  There were no marching bands and only a small color guard from the American Legion at the head of the parade.  The entire parade consisted of beauty queens in convertibles, car clubs, the Salvation Army disaster truck and a trailer full of Cub Scouts.  Ironically, for the whole of the one mile route – no one was on foot.  It was a pleasant, innocent scene.  The event was a striking contrast to operations which are no doubt underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Later while driving to lunch, we passed a collection of Women in Black – protesting the actions of our government in this conflict (actually any conflict).  They stood outside the old courthouse and held their signs.  In their hats and tailored black dresses, they could be any collection of mature women prepared for a solemn outing.  They stood with black placards waving to the odd automobile which passed them by.  Citizen Prime offered an encouraging wave.

 

I smiled to myself.  It is only through the actions of citizens like Mr. Dwyer that we can engage this open, often painful, discourse.  It is, in fact, this very sort of sacrifice which preserves the rights of the people to question and challenge their government. 

 

Mr. Dwyer’s actions were undertaken of his own free will.  They were born of a concern for his family and his nation.  His path led him to demonstrate to the world the breadth and depth of American compassion and resolve.  Ultimately, he made the final sacrifice.  Not on the battlefield of a foreign land – but at home in the realm of the mind.  It is possible for someone to give too much of themselves, until nothing remains to sustain them. 

 

I say to those who are going or have been in harm’s way – look to your own spirit and to that of your comrades.  As much as the flesh will bear, the mind carries wounds as well.  Do not let them fester.

 

For PFC Dwyer, his war is over.  He now stands in the sacred space of those who bear the burdensome tasks of this nation, willingly and with honor.

    

 

 

Put your money where your mouth is...

the quackometer: 10,000 GBP if you can show homeopathy works



As we have just been debating in a prior post, not the lack of clothing on one Birtney Spears, but the general lack of clothing covering much of modern media.

The publishing of a challenge by Ernst and Singh in the United Kingdom seeks to draw out definitive proof of the efficacy of homeopathy. As detailed in this post - it is a challenge made by James Randi (albeit in a higher quantity). What is most interesting is the description of a major homeopathic manufacturer's allocation of funds. As a billion dollar company, Boiron has no appeciable R&D funding and yet spends more than 9 times the ratio in advertising and marketing than "traditional" pharmacological firms.

What is equally interesting is that with a little historical research, one will find many of the top pharmaceutical firms had (at one time) produced homeopathic remedies - until, one may infer - they realized that they didn't work.

Britney Spears Naked...

Cheap and pathetic experiment to attract folks to the blog. Since I can't duplicate Sonic Frog's exceptional ability to draw the attention of the Instapundit crowd, I will resort to tabloid blogging.

After all, aren't my opinions and musings worthy of huge, adoring audiences?

Actually, probably not. As I have observed in the past, blogging is one of the most self indulgent activities of the modern age. It provides the unique feeling of self-righteous confidence with the ruthless editorial ability of a Chinese newspaper. If someone comments unfavorable - zap - deleteorama!

It is remarkably satisfying to me to foist my opinions out onto my site and occassionally in the comment areas of other blogs and news sites. I routinely receive synopsis e-mails from the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post (I can barely stand to look at this site), Forbes and others with a list of topical news and opinion stories.

A friedn of mine formerly worked for Bloomberg as a financial reporter. he is a serious journalist with some extensive experience in China and the Pacific Rim. He confides in me that the print media is in worse shape than is being reported, even by the "alternate media". There are wide spread contractions, layoffs and consolidations coming - the likes of which will alter forever our methods of seeing news and information.

Far from some vast global conspiracy to control all the news through a few easily manipulated media - we are devolving to a niche arena where good information will be provided at a high price while the rest of the world will have to contend with rumor, unsubstantiated gossip and Wikipedia.

I have nothing against Wikipedia, however, time and time again it has proven itself to be seriously flawed, subject to gross error and even outright lies. Long ago our world was linked by travelers who carried news, mail and stories from village to village. Fact was almost impossible to come by and tales evolved into myth as the stories distorted and changed over time.

It seems that we are returning to that time. The failure of a robust and reliable mass media is at hand. Lasting barely two hundred years, a free and objective press is collapsing to a network of dedicated fanaticists and the occassional "big story" discussion board.

Hmm.

Maybe there is hope for my site yet...