State of the Union

I guess the most notable thing I heard was "the challenge of global climate change." The words were actually spoken, this time without denial or qualifiers. Hmm.

Some of the topics were clear non-starters. That health insurance idea, for example. Higher fuel efficiency standards he's fought for years. Energy independence. I was surprised ANWR wasn't explicitly mentioned.

But then I was surprised New Orleans wasn't mentioned. Maybe we're just supposed to forget about it.

And then there were the ghosts from State of the Unions past. What about Mars? What about our glorious moonbase? Oops, down the memory hole.

Overall, the President seemed like ... like ... what's that quote, it's in the back of my mind ... oh yeah:

a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

That about sums it up. We've got our very own Macbeth, in the White House.

I don't know about you, but I find the idea of President Macbeth more than a little disturbing ....

It makes my spirit sore

The State of the Union speech. But the Democratic response, from Senator Webb, was a breath of fresh air from the reality-based community. Maybe I'll have more comments later.

Ok, I'm going to do it

I'm going to watch the State of the Union speech. I wasn't going to, but I will. Not that anyone cares, but still. It's not going to be live, but I'll watch and maybe comment later. I have the beer and nuts out and ready. Should be entertaining. I look forward to seeing the new Speaker of the House behind the President while he speaks.

That about sums it up

Patriotism is a lovely thing. In its name, some go dying by the side of an Iraqi road in twitching agony; others go shopping in oversized automobiles festooned with yellow ribbons. We all play our part—and nobody else's.

Read the whole piece

October Surprise Revisited (invoking Noonan's Law)

The widely expected October Surprise, a U.S. attack on Iran occurring on or around October 21, shortly after the Eisenhower carrier battle group arrived in the Persian Gulf, failed to materialize. Widely expected because the continuous drumbeat for war with Iran had been increasing since 2005, reaching a crescendo in late August and early September of 2006. And you know what I mean by drumbeat, from the media talking heads, pundits, politicians, and so-called experts.

Following almost exactly the same script as was used in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, as noted by numerous critics and commentators. You could look it up if you doubt me. Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons!

Leading, so the storyline went, to a Republican triumph in the November midterm elections as Americans patriotically united behind the president and the troops.

But the drumbeat abruptly stopped in September. Just stopped. Other important, newsworthy events occurred, of course, but the drumbeat never resumed. Think about that just for a moment.

Recall the lead-up to the attack on Iraq. The drumbeat never stopped. Never. Even when other important, newsworthy events occurred, the drumbeat continued. So there must be some reason why the drumbeat stopped this time, especially with the midterm elections and Democratic control of one or both houses of congress in the balance.

After the drumbeat had stopped, in early October, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Against all reason, for no reason, to the condemnation of the world community. Which they must have known they would face, along with the certainty of sanctions from the world community as well. So North Korea clearly had nothing, or almost nothing, to be gained from a nuclear test. In my humble uninformed opinion.

I invoke Noonan's Law. Would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.

These two events are connected. The widely expected attack on Iran to prevent it from gaining nuclear weapons was called off because Iran already has nuclear weapons. Which they purchased from North Korea. And the means to deliver them, such as antiship missles and surface to surface missles, which they also purchased from North Korea. It is this information, leaked through appropriate back-channel sources, that caused the drumbeat to stop.

And since leaking this information through the appropriate back-channel sources might be considered a bluff by the wackos beating the war drums, the obliging North Koreans tested one of their nukes to demonstrate (prove) that they work as advertised. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. And no need for those oil deliveries. And after that no chance that drumbeat to war with Iran will restart.

Because while a successful attack on Iran might have resulted in a Republican victory in the midterm elections, this news forced other alternatives to be considered. An unsuccessful attack. Such as the loss of a couple aircraft carrier battle groups to nuclear antiship missles. Or the loss of a carrier battle group and Tel Aviv to nuclear missles. Either or both of these would probably not have led to a Republican victory. In fact the loss would probably have been even greater than it was.

So there was no attack on Iran before the elections. The October Surprise was pre-empted. I don't think there will be an attack on Iran. And I will consider that proof that my speculation is correct. Don't hold your breath waiting for the drumbeat to war with Iran to restart.

Majority Leader Rules

Blogger has thoughtfully eaten my last few posts. Or perhaps it's user error, since I'm still pretty new to this blogging stuff. But the news about the new House Majority Leader indicates a trend to me. He who has the funniest name wins. And clearly Steny Hoyer is a funnier name than John Murtha.

Consider the historical sequence: Dick Gephardt, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Steny Hoyer. Since at least the 101st Congress, the one thing they all have in common is that they're funny names.

Proving this true would require actual research which I have neither time nor interest in doing at the moment, to show the winner in each case had a funnier name than the alternatives. Which could be a problem if one of the alternatives was ever Newt Gingrich.

But for now, I note the trend and move on to see if I can recover any of the other posts blogger ate.

Possibly the best screen capture ever!

I haven't had any time to blog, and I had some other ideas for blog posts I don't have time for, but this won't take much time and just can't wait.

Via TBogg, who has demonstrated an uncanny skill in the art of screen capture, possibly the best portrait of Michelle Malkin ever taken. From a certain point of view. Expressing, as all good portraits must, the essential nature of the individual.

Note especially the caption and screen crawl, essential elements of the entire, um, composition of the artistic work. Oh heck, let me spell it out. "Michelle Malkin, author of the book "Unhinged", is also suspected of killing the baby girl's mother." There. And look at her expression! The best screen capture ever!

Earthquake!

You've probably heard about the earthquake in Hawaii today. I had some ideas for a blog post today, but they have been preempted. Big things happen early Sunday mornings in Hawaii. At least the earthquake didn't happen on December 7th.

A little after 7 am Hawaii time a magnitude 6.6 earthquake struck off the Kona coast of the big island of Hawaii. The word from emergency services was that no tsunami was generated. That turns out to have been incorrect, but the tsunami was only 4 inches high, so no big deal.

There was a lot of damage on the big island, but no serious injuries. Considerably less damage on the other islands, and again no serious injuries. But electricity was knocked out pretty much statewide for most of the day. So no blogging for most of the day.

No major damage on Oahu. The shaking lasted for almost a minute, but to the earthquake experienced it was obviously not close by. Enough to be really scarey for the earthquake-inexperienced. Having lived most of my life in California on or near the San Andreas and Hayward faults, I've been through enough to tell. It felt to me like about a 4.4-ish quake. I was a little concerned because I've never been through a quake in the building we're living in, but it's a wood-frame structure, and they're generally pretty good in quakes.

It shook for a while after the quake was over. A little disquieting but not unexpected. But the worst was no electricity, which meant no coffee and no computer. So no internet, no news, no blogging. We tuned the little hand-crank emergency radio to a working station for our news.

Your basic earthquake has two major shaking components: the p-wave and the s-wave. The p-wave travels faster, but looses strength more quickly. The s-wave travels more slowly and holds its strength longer. So if you're really close to the epicenter, they both arrive at about the same time. If you're further away, the p-wave gets there first, then the s-wave. Far enough away they arrive separately, and you can tell the difference. The p-wave is vertical: it lifts you up, then drops back down, sometimes sharply. The s-wave is the horizontal , with the shaking most people associate with an earthquake. Even further away, the p-wave is too weak to feel, and you only get the s-wave. That's what we had when the earthquake struck us.

So it was obviously not too close. A reassuring thought when the first aftershock hit a few minutes later. There was a reportedly a third aftershock soon after as well but we didn't feel it. Nor any of the other later aftershocks.

Now you know how to tell how close you are to an earthquake epicenter from the way the earthquake feels. And remember, if you are able to pay attention to those details, it's probably not a serious earthquake where you are (although it could be serious somewhere else).

There was no significant surf today, but it wasn't really a beach day anyway. Before and after the earthquake, it was overcast, rainy, windy at times, and just to add extra incentive to avoid the beach, a box jellyfish warning also in effect.

Death in Iraq

So. Experts in the subject using a standard, proven technique survey a large sample of households in Iraq. Their samples are taken from around the country except for two regions which are too dangerous to visit.

Their conclusion is that a huge number of "excess deaths" have occurred since the U.S. invasion, between 400,000 and 800,000 with the most probable value at about 655,000.

Widespread responses from those who favored going to war say that result is far too high. Implausibly high, in fact. Even though they were unable to sample parts of the country that were too dangerous to visit.

The people conducting the survey are experts in the field. They are using proven techniques approved and supported by the U.S. government. At least in places other than Iraq. They know what they are doing. Their work was not suspect in Bosnia, nor in Sudan. And in Sudan the data are probably less reliable. And it's quite possible, even likely, that in Bosnia and in Sudan there were places that could not be surveyed because they were too dangerous to visit. Yet results from those places have not generated any outcry, nor have they been disputed. Quite the opposite. The results of surveys in Sudan are cited as reason for international intervention in the region.

So here's a question. If a study of this sort leaves out places that are too dangerous to visit, doesn't that mean the results of the study are more likely to be too low? I mean really, if there are places that are too dangerous to visit, it's because those places have a higher than normal death rate.

So if those regions that were too dangerous to visit had been included, we would expect the actual number of excess deaths to be even higher. Significantly higher, because those regions were too dangerous to visit.

It follows from this reasoning that actual number of excess deaths in Iraq due to the war is much greater.

That is why aggressive, unprovoked war has been considered an international crime since the Nuremberg Trials. And why those who initiate aggressive, unprovoked war are considered international war criminals.

What does that make those who favored an aggressive, unprovoked war in Iraq?

Duck and Cover

The always excellent Digby's Hullabaloo has an excellent post on the October Surprise in North Korea.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that an administration dominated by oilmen was preoccupied with the hypothetical nuclear threat posed by oil-rich Iran while it resoloutly ignored the actual nuclear threat posed by oil-poor North Korea.

After all, their job is to protect us, isn't it? That's what they keep saying.

Seems unbelievable

Perhaps you've heard of the celebrated ceramic toad of osaka. Which at the height of its power controlled a stock portfolio of over $20 billion. For some reason I was recently reminded of this story. A correspondent for the Financial Times invested some considerable effort in trying to trace the fate of the ceramic amphibian, alas without success.

While I was browsing the web for more information about the toad, I inadvertently discovered the thought-provoking controversy over the existence of Idaho. One of my friends was away fror several years. He claimed to have lived in Idaho during that time. Said he got married, got divorced, and moved back. I accepted the story at the time. Now I'm not so sure.