The UN's criminal mismanagement of the Iraqi Oil-For-Food program not only failed to relieve the suffering of Iraqis, it enriched Saddam greatly, contributing to his intransigence that led to the war in the first place, and provided a rich gravy train for those who would later oppose efforts to remove him. The blame for the cruel inefficiency of the program, of course, was largely laid on the U.S., to the point that it was Osama bin Laden's #2 casus belli. The UN has also been stonewalling the Congressional investigations into the scandal.
The UN has also essentially disregarded the findings of its own internal investigation into a sexual harassment case against a high UN official, and has seen instances of peacekeeper misconduct that are easily in the Abu Ghraib league.
So I don't think much of the UN leadership. But, hey, who am I to argue with its own employees?
Ofc. Krupke at 10:15 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
24 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
24 November 2004
I know I'm biased, since I voted for the guy and everything, but I just love this.
This Washington Post version of the event is very interesting: writer Mike Allen asserts that "It took Bush several minutes to realize what was happening." This is, to judge from this video of the incident (in Super-Grainy CRAP-O-VISION!), inaccurate.
I also love the criticisms leveled at the President by Chilean journalist Marcelo Romero, quoted in the Post piece:
"All of us journalists agree that President Bush looked like a cowboy. It was total breach of protocol. I've seen a lot of John Wayne movies, and President Bush was definitely acting like a cowboy."
The true mark of the international sophisticate: call an American a "cowboy", and smugly assume you've just won the argument.
To all those who consider this a "total breach of protocol", allow me to point out: in the post 9-11 age, there are several reasons why the security service of a foreign country might want to separate the President of the United States from his security detail. None of them are good.
This Washington Post version of the event is very interesting: writer Mike Allen asserts that "It took Bush several minutes to realize what was happening." This is, to judge from this video of the incident (in Super-Grainy CRAP-O-VISION!), inaccurate.
I also love the criticisms leveled at the President by Chilean journalist Marcelo Romero, quoted in the Post piece:
"All of us journalists agree that President Bush looked like a cowboy. It was total breach of protocol. I've seen a lot of John Wayne movies, and President Bush was definitely acting like a cowboy."
The true mark of the international sophisticate: call an American a "cowboy", and smugly assume you've just won the argument.
To all those who consider this a "total breach of protocol", allow me to point out: in the post 9-11 age, there are several reasons why the security service of a foreign country might want to separate the President of the United States from his security detail. None of them are good.
Ofc. Krupke at 6:22 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
23 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
23 November 2004
Last weekend, just slightly over two weeks after his court date which resulted in a dropped charge and a suspended 30-day sentence for domestic violence, Jack S. has re-offended. He got liquored up again (that intensive counseling program he went to worked wonders) and went at Jill so badly that she fled the house (which belongs to her, by the way), running to her daughter's residence clear on the other side of Southern City. From there, she called the police, and the SCPD division that covers that area responded to take the report.
Unfortunately, they did not notify the Devil's Island officers at the time they took the report. If they had, I am told our guys could have gone to the place and scooped Jack up. As it is, now that the crime's no longer fresh, we have to get an arrest warrant issued before we can pick him up.
Hearing about this when I returned to work (it all happened on my days off), I called the detective who was assigned to the case to ask him if by chance a warrant had been issued. What he told me wasn't encouraging. There is no warrant, and unless the detective can pull off a miracle, there will not be one. The reason for this is because Jill is not cooperating. She is, of course, aware that Jack's history of convictions means he will be subject to a tougher charge on all subsequent arrests, and that any arrest we make will land him that 30 days in the Southern County Detention Center that he skated out of on our last go-round. So she told the detective it was all a mistake, that Jack hadn't been violent her, that it was a big misunderstanding and everyhting's fine. He said she also complained that the Devil's Island branch of the SCPD has been "picking on" poor Jack.
You can't make this stuff up. If you did, it wouldn't be this pathetic.
Unfortunately, they did not notify the Devil's Island officers at the time they took the report. If they had, I am told our guys could have gone to the place and scooped Jack up. As it is, now that the crime's no longer fresh, we have to get an arrest warrant issued before we can pick him up.
Hearing about this when I returned to work (it all happened on my days off), I called the detective who was assigned to the case to ask him if by chance a warrant had been issued. What he told me wasn't encouraging. There is no warrant, and unless the detective can pull off a miracle, there will not be one. The reason for this is because Jill is not cooperating. She is, of course, aware that Jack's history of convictions means he will be subject to a tougher charge on all subsequent arrests, and that any arrest we make will land him that 30 days in the Southern County Detention Center that he skated out of on our last go-round. So she told the detective it was all a mistake, that Jack hadn't been violent her, that it was a big misunderstanding and everyhting's fine. He said she also complained that the Devil's Island branch of the SCPD has been "picking on" poor Jack.
You can't make this stuff up. If you did, it wouldn't be this pathetic.
Ofc. Krupke at 5:37 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
22 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
22 November 2004
Forty-one years ago today, in a tragedy that reverberates to this day, shots rang out in Dallas, and when their echoes faded, all of us, whether Democrat or Republican, lost a dedicated public servant, a good man, and a patriotic American.
To be sure, he was not universally liked (such is the nature of his profession), but we can all respect the things he stood for: decency, justice, and peace. He stood up against the forces of darkness in their many forms, and his reward was a sudden death on a Texas street. And whatever he was to the greater society, he was first and foremost a loving husband to his wife, and a devoted father to his young son.
Yes, we at Analogcabin: The Right join with a grieving and grateful America to mourn the loss of Officer J.D. Tippit of the Dallas Police Department, End of Watch November 22, 1963.
A moment of silence.
To be sure, he was not universally liked (such is the nature of his profession), but we can all respect the things he stood for: decency, justice, and peace. He stood up against the forces of darkness in their many forms, and his reward was a sudden death on a Texas street. And whatever he was to the greater society, he was first and foremost a loving husband to his wife, and a devoted father to his young son.
Yes, we at Analogcabin: The Right join with a grieving and grateful America to mourn the loss of Officer J.D. Tippit of the Dallas Police Department, End of Watch November 22, 1963.
A moment of silence.
Ofc. Krupke at 5:27 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
19 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
19 November 2004
In sort of a sad follow-up to my last post, a word on the Fallujah mosque shooting, wherein NBC embed Kevin Sites videotaped a Marine shooting dead a wounded Iraqi enemy.
The Marines were clearing the mosque, which had been used as a fighting position by Iraqi insurgents. Upon entering a room which contained several wounded Iraqis, one of the Marines noticed that one of them appeared to be playing dead.
"He's fucking faking he's dead! He's faking he's fucking dead!" the Marine shouted, before firing one shot into the man's head.
There has been a rush to judgment in some quarters, calling this a "clear war crime." And many of the headlines and news pieces have referred to the dead man as a "prisoner," and therefore a protected person under the Geneva Convention (go here for Al-Jazeera's, ah, editorializing take on the whole thing). Many reports are also saying that the "Arab Street" is outraged.
Let me be blunt here: I don't give a flying fuck what the Arab Street thinks. Has there been a single thing the U.S. has done in response to 9-11 which has met with their approval?
It should be noted that insurgents in Fallujah and elsewhere have abused conventions of surrender to attack and kill coalition troops, including firing from behind white flags, and booby-trapping wounded or dead insurgents. As a matter of fact, a Marine from the unit involved in this operation had been killed the previous week by a booby-trapped body. The Marine in this incident had a split-second to decide if this was another case of that.
Go here and here to read a little about the fundamentalist paradise the insurgents made in Fallujah. Let the Arab Street show some outrage over that.
Florian Westphal, spokesman for the International Commitee for the Red Cross, stated:
The fact that was reported was that he was wounded. But whether he was already a prisoner or not was not clear to me.
We cannot, on the basis of TV images - no matter how disturbing and disconcerting they are - arrive at a judgment about an incident. We were not on the spot so we cannot be aware of all the circumstances of this incident.
The point is that there is doubt in this case, and the Marine must be given the benefit of it.
Sites, who has mostly not commented on the matter, did say this: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."
Not to some people, I guess.
The Marines were clearing the mosque, which had been used as a fighting position by Iraqi insurgents. Upon entering a room which contained several wounded Iraqis, one of the Marines noticed that one of them appeared to be playing dead.
"He's fucking faking he's dead! He's faking he's fucking dead!" the Marine shouted, before firing one shot into the man's head.
There has been a rush to judgment in some quarters, calling this a "clear war crime." And many of the headlines and news pieces have referred to the dead man as a "prisoner," and therefore a protected person under the Geneva Convention (go here for Al-Jazeera's, ah, editorializing take on the whole thing). Many reports are also saying that the "Arab Street" is outraged.
Let me be blunt here: I don't give a flying fuck what the Arab Street thinks. Has there been a single thing the U.S. has done in response to 9-11 which has met with their approval?
It should be noted that insurgents in Fallujah and elsewhere have abused conventions of surrender to attack and kill coalition troops, including firing from behind white flags, and booby-trapping wounded or dead insurgents. As a matter of fact, a Marine from the unit involved in this operation had been killed the previous week by a booby-trapped body. The Marine in this incident had a split-second to decide if this was another case of that.
Go here and here to read a little about the fundamentalist paradise the insurgents made in Fallujah. Let the Arab Street show some outrage over that.
Florian Westphal, spokesman for the International Commitee for the Red Cross, stated:
The fact that was reported was that he was wounded. But whether he was already a prisoner or not was not clear to me.
We cannot, on the basis of TV images - no matter how disturbing and disconcerting they are - arrive at a judgment about an incident. We were not on the spot so we cannot be aware of all the circumstances of this incident.
The point is that there is doubt in this case, and the Marine must be given the benefit of it.
Sites, who has mostly not commented on the matter, did say this: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."
Not to some people, I guess.
Ofc. Krupke at 12:12 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
10 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
10 November 2004
Kipling sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.
-George Orwell
-1stLt Clifton B. Cates, USMC, Soissons, 19 July 1918
-Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN, 16 March 1945
-George Orwell
Today, November 10, is the 229th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. That it comes the day before Veteran's Day is somehow appropriate. From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, from the sands of Iwo Jima to the streetcorners of Fallujah, Marines have fought, won, and died in America's battles.
When you join the Marine Corps, it also joins you. You love it deeply, and hate it with a passion, and find it more or less impossible to explain to anyone who didn't go through it.
I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold.
-1stLt Clifton B. Cates, USMC, Soissons, 19 July 1918
"Among the men who fought on Iwo Jima, uncommon valor was a common virtue.
-Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN, 16 March 1945
Semper Fi.
Ofc. Krupke at 4:20 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
07 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
07 November 2004
It has become fashionable (already) to say that President Bush won re-election because gay-marriage ballot initiatives got out the bigot vote, based mostly on exit polls that, it should be noted, got most of everything wrong. To be fair, of course, this idea has also been trumpeted by some social conservatives since they view it as evidence of their clout.
David Brooks, the token righty at the Gray Lady, puts it this way:
Every year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.
In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.
He cites a report by Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center that indicates there was actually little change in the evangelical vote as a percentage of the total electorate in this last election versus 2000. They certainly had a higher turnout this year, but so did almost everyone.
Furthermore, a look at this 2004 results summary and comparison with this 2000 results table, along with a little number crunching, shows that Bush gained close to:
3% in California
5% in Massachusetts(!)
6.5% in New Jersey
5% in New York
...all of which are less Democratic strongholds than Democratic fortresses. Do the Dems have a "I'm-a goin' git dem gays" explanation for those results, too?
Here's a piece from Slate making much the same point, emphasizing that Bush consistently polled better than Kerry in terrorism and national security:
If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.
Ancillary points to this issue:
-One of the states which passed a ballot initiative against gay marriage was Oregon, which went for Kerry.
-Bush had been strongly criticized by some conservative religious groups for expressing support for civil unions. If you're going to fire up the hate vote, that's not a great way to do it.
-Bush got almost exactly the same percentage of the gay vote in 2004 as he did in 2000.
None of this is likely to slow the growth of this meme, though. It's far too useful to too many people. Witness this, from Daily Kos:
And thus, the biggest silver lining of this election is how the GOP's victory is thus far being claimed, framed and explained. To that I say, "Let us join that chorus." And we should do so now, because there is immediacy in the post-election window of opportunity.
Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically.
Feeling united yet?
(via Instapundit)
David Brooks, the token righty at the Gray Lady, puts it this way:
Every year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.
In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.
He cites a report by Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center that indicates there was actually little change in the evangelical vote as a percentage of the total electorate in this last election versus 2000. They certainly had a higher turnout this year, but so did almost everyone.
Furthermore, a look at this 2004 results summary and comparison with this 2000 results table, along with a little number crunching, shows that Bush gained close to:
3% in California
5% in Massachusetts(!)
6.5% in New Jersey
5% in New York
...all of which are less Democratic strongholds than Democratic fortresses. Do the Dems have a "I'm-a goin' git dem gays" explanation for those results, too?
Here's a piece from Slate making much the same point, emphasizing that Bush consistently polled better than Kerry in terrorism and national security:
If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.
Ancillary points to this issue:
-One of the states which passed a ballot initiative against gay marriage was Oregon, which went for Kerry.
-Bush had been strongly criticized by some conservative religious groups for expressing support for civil unions. If you're going to fire up the hate vote, that's not a great way to do it.
-Bush got almost exactly the same percentage of the gay vote in 2004 as he did in 2000.
None of this is likely to slow the growth of this meme, though. It's far too useful to too many people. Witness this, from Daily Kos:
And thus, the biggest silver lining of this election is how the GOP's victory is thus far being claimed, framed and explained. To that I say, "Let us join that chorus." And we should do so now, because there is immediacy in the post-election window of opportunity.
Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically.
Feeling united yet?
(via Instapundit)
Ofc. Krupke at 5:18 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
04 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
04 November 2004
Today is my day off, but I had to go into the station anyway. Today was, finally, the trial day for Jack S. If you don't remember Jack and his paramour/speed bag Jill, you can read about them in the archives for 18 July. Both of his cases were supposed to be resolved today, after innumerable continuances and his stint in an out-of-state treatment facility. As a bonus, I had been called by Personnel to come in and sign for my pay increase, as my probationary patrolman status ends this week. The personnel lady showed me my new salary figure and cheerily informed me that it would be my last raise unless I get a promotion.
I know. You're asking, "What the hell does this have to do with the election? Isn't this asshole Bush enabler going to gloat, already, and get it over with?" Well, I'm getting to that. Our Esteemed Founder sent me a very gracious email after the election, offering congratulation that my side had won, giving his concerns about the future (fascism, theocracy, mispronunciation of the word "nuclear", etc.), and suggesting "a post to reassure us pinkos that the world won't fall apart in the next four years." He adds, "I really hope that you're right about Bush."
So do I. I know, not really comforting, but it's all that any of us can really and honestly say about the people we vote for.
A couple of commenters over at Spoony's remarked that it's the Bush supporters (few in their view) who weren't mouth-breathing idiots that scare them the most, because such people give him rationale and support for his idiot mouth-breathing policy. If that's how you feel, fine, but you surrender forever any claim that your side is somehow not beholden to simplistic dogmatism.
Look, this is the thing about America: no other country on the face of the planet has quite our record for beating, overcoming, and surviving the worst impulses that crop up in our government and society. We might have had a military junta after the Revolutionary War. We fought ourselves bloody less than a hundred years after our birth, with a post-war bitterness that claimed the life of one of our greatest presidents, but which finished slavery. In the 1800s we had on the one side elite corruption and industrial greed, and on the other bomb-tossing nihilists whose only answer was to maim and murder until the whole thing fell apart and became a statist monolith. We surrendered to neither. And on and on. And we won each of these victories ourselves, with our ingenuity, our passion, and our blood. Who else in America's weight class can say that? Absent outside intervention, would not clean, civilized, public-hospital-and-mass-transit Europe have fallen to the fascists and/or the Red Steamroller?
Bush is going to do some things that you don't like. Clinton did some things I didn't like. Nader types don't like anything anybody does. That's the thing about democracy, and one of the finest arguments for limited government: sooner or later, someone you despise is going to be in charge. No period in history will ever be as dire to you as the one you inhabit yourself, but we'll make it through, doubtless bickering all the way.
Anyway, that's why I bring up Jack's court case. Because life goes on. Guys like Jack beat their girlfriends before Bush, before Clinton, and will still be doing it when Barack Obama accepts the nomination at the 2020 Democratic convention in San Francisco. Consider the lilies of the field, and also the domestic batterers.
Speaking of Jack's trial? One of the two charges got dropped. This was done as part of a deal, not because it was a faulty case. Jill wanted to dismiss all of them, but the prosecutor wasn't going for that. So he plead guilty on the more recent charge, and was given a 30-day jail sentence, suspended for one year. The good news is that this now gives him enough convictions on his record that when we bust him for domestic violence in the future, it's a different charge, a stronger one. One of my cop buddies suggested that I might want to mention this to Jack.
"Oh no," I replied, feeling a spark of malice flare to life. "I want it to be a surprise."
Because when you get down to it, I guess I am kind of an asshole.
I know. You're asking, "What the hell does this have to do with the election? Isn't this asshole Bush enabler going to gloat, already, and get it over with?" Well, I'm getting to that. Our Esteemed Founder sent me a very gracious email after the election, offering congratulation that my side had won, giving his concerns about the future (fascism, theocracy, mispronunciation of the word "nuclear", etc.), and suggesting "a post to reassure us pinkos that the world won't fall apart in the next four years." He adds, "I really hope that you're right about Bush."
So do I. I know, not really comforting, but it's all that any of us can really and honestly say about the people we vote for.
A couple of commenters over at Spoony's remarked that it's the Bush supporters (few in their view) who weren't mouth-breathing idiots that scare them the most, because such people give him rationale and support for his idiot mouth-breathing policy. If that's how you feel, fine, but you surrender forever any claim that your side is somehow not beholden to simplistic dogmatism.
Look, this is the thing about America: no other country on the face of the planet has quite our record for beating, overcoming, and surviving the worst impulses that crop up in our government and society. We might have had a military junta after the Revolutionary War. We fought ourselves bloody less than a hundred years after our birth, with a post-war bitterness that claimed the life of one of our greatest presidents, but which finished slavery. In the 1800s we had on the one side elite corruption and industrial greed, and on the other bomb-tossing nihilists whose only answer was to maim and murder until the whole thing fell apart and became a statist monolith. We surrendered to neither. And on and on. And we won each of these victories ourselves, with our ingenuity, our passion, and our blood. Who else in America's weight class can say that? Absent outside intervention, would not clean, civilized, public-hospital-and-mass-transit Europe have fallen to the fascists and/or the Red Steamroller?
Bush is going to do some things that you don't like. Clinton did some things I didn't like. Nader types don't like anything anybody does. That's the thing about democracy, and one of the finest arguments for limited government: sooner or later, someone you despise is going to be in charge. No period in history will ever be as dire to you as the one you inhabit yourself, but we'll make it through, doubtless bickering all the way.
Anyway, that's why I bring up Jack's court case. Because life goes on. Guys like Jack beat their girlfriends before Bush, before Clinton, and will still be doing it when Barack Obama accepts the nomination at the 2020 Democratic convention in San Francisco. Consider the lilies of the field, and also the domestic batterers.
Speaking of Jack's trial? One of the two charges got dropped. This was done as part of a deal, not because it was a faulty case. Jill wanted to dismiss all of them, but the prosecutor wasn't going for that. So he plead guilty on the more recent charge, and was given a 30-day jail sentence, suspended for one year. The good news is that this now gives him enough convictions on his record that when we bust him for domestic violence in the future, it's a different charge, a stronger one. One of my cop buddies suggested that I might want to mention this to Jack.
"Oh no," I replied, feeling a spark of malice flare to life. "I want it to be a surprise."
Because when you get down to it, I guess I am kind of an asshole.
Ofc. Krupke at 2:49 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
03 November 2004
Permalink |
---------------------
03 November 2004
CNN reporting that Sen. Kerry has called President Bush to concede the election.
Nifty. Personally, I have to admit I'm a little surprised at the election results. My official prediction, to anyone who asked, was, "Kerry by a squeaker - or a lawsuit." A more detailed reaction later, maybe. Right now, I'm just glad the thing is over.
I continued my tradition from 2000 - watching the election returns (well, okay, clicking over from my video game periodically for updates), staying up way too late, going to bed without a clear result, and developing a minor crush on a CNN anchor (Michelle Mitchell in 2000, this year Christi Paul, who won my heart when she lip-synched a bad word after a live feed failed).
God Bless America.
Nifty. Personally, I have to admit I'm a little surprised at the election results. My official prediction, to anyone who asked, was, "Kerry by a squeaker - or a lawsuit." A more detailed reaction later, maybe. Right now, I'm just glad the thing is over.
I continued my tradition from 2000 - watching the election returns (well, okay, clicking over from my video game periodically for updates), staying up way too late, going to bed without a clear result, and developing a minor crush on a CNN anchor (Michelle Mitchell in 2000, this year Christi Paul, who won my heart when she lip-synched a bad word after a live feed failed).
God Bless America.
Ofc. Krupke at 11:13 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
02 November 2004
May the best man win.
Before you vote, click here. You heard me, do it.
And stand up. Whatsa matter? You a Red?
(link courtesy Mountaineer Musings)
Permalink |
---------------------
02 November 2004
May the best man win.
Before you vote, click here. You heard me, do it.
And stand up. Whatsa matter? You a Red?
(link courtesy Mountaineer Musings)