In an example of unparalleled hubris, Iraqi officials are demanding that the United States apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city. Officials are complaining that the blast walls installed by the U.S. to protect the public are ugly and that Humvees and vehicles have caused damage in patrolling the city and fighting insurgents.
The city released a statement saying “The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which reflected deliberate ignorance and carelessness about the simplest forms of public taste . . . Due to the huge damage, leading to a loss the Baghdad municipality cannot afford . . . we demand the American side apologize to Baghdad’s people and pay back these expenses.”
For those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, this is a particularly maddening moment. We continue to lose lives and billions in public funds as our states sell off parks, buildings, and cut critical programs. We have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq with little or no evidence of where money has gone.
In Afghanistan, we have a corrupt president who repeatedly states that he prefers the Taliban and views the United States as an enemy. Karzai also sought to tax U.S. contractors supporting his government and a bailout for his banks.
Yet, we continue to assume towering losses because our leaders are unwilling to take personal responsibility to pull us out of these countries. Rather than risk political backlash, President Obama and others allow our military personnel to die every day for countries that are increasingly openly hostile to us. This is becoming a truly Felliniesque farce.
Source: Reuters
Jonathan Turley
The mouse that roared… Peter Sellers…
Who be the mouse here?
Spent much of the day in Green Bay. Brown County Democratic Party Office, calling identified union members to encourage inviting the Wisconsin senate to not destroy Wisconsin’s progressive tradtion.
The Republican Party was the progressive party until it got corporately co-opted. Then came Robert La Follette, Sr. Along the way, the 40 hour work week, and more.
My “Useless Machine” kit came yesterday, got put together yesterday, and went with me to Green Bay. A demonstration of the political philosophy of the “Grand Old Party of NO!” Demonstrated it. Observed sadly bemused countenances.
Went to the “Can the Bill!” rally held at the Stadium View on Holgrem Way, near Lambeau Field. Showed more people the Useless Machine demonstration of the Grand Old Party of NO!” Observed more sadly bemused countenances.
Told of the day in 1968 when, walking through Grant Park, in Chicago, someone shouted out a warning, watch out for tear gas.
Got to Michigan Avenue. Across from the Conrad Hilton. Poor People’s Parade stalled to the north. Crowd of people on the sidewalk on the other side of Michigan Avenue. Police north of the crowd and south of the crowd. North Police commanded crowd to go south. South police commanded crowd to go north. Crowd compacted like garbage compactor compacted. Police batons swinging. Man beaten by police through large plate glass window accompanied by breaking glass sounds. Sounds like baseball bats hitting watermelons. Human heads are not watermelons and police batons are not baseball bats. Walker Commission, later: Police riot.
Orwell, all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal.
I seek to not live Orwellian. I seek not to have someone who knows me not tell me that I know me not.
Dr. Steve Kagen was the final main speaker at the rally inside the Stadium View before the march. I marched. Dr. Kagen recognized me. We have met and talked. He was my Congressman.
Some one knows me even if someone who is a regular here does not.
Found a Macintosh dual G5 2.7 gigaHertz, 7 gigabytes of RAM, Superdrive. Final Cut Express 4 on the way. Hundreds of amateur (I am an amateur radio operator) video to be edited and put on YouTube in short segments.
Truth will out.
I am a man (not with so very much guts for lack of colon and not so very much stored feces for lack of colon and not so very effective bawls because they were replaced with silicon as part of cancer prevention) without the usual supply of guts or bawls, and I is be sorta gyneandrous, and I am nonetheless vastly more man than mouse.
So, who is the mouse that is roaring? ‘Tain’t me.
I am good at bawling about child abuse and its progeny, though.
Bawls about child abuse, I got plenty, and plenty is plenty enough for me.
I agree that this is not the right place for me, for I am not, in the usual sense, of the political right. What place is left for me, save somewhere not extreme right, yet in the midst of this bawlg?
I found and recognized the typo. To me, this is not a blawg, it is a bawlg. Until the bawlg proprietor deems me an impropriety, I shall do my due diligence here as a member of the highest court of all, the court of honest public opinion.
My work speaks for itself; for its own sake it needs not a self-appointed misinterpreter, if such misinterpreter were possible.
For the sufficiently unskilled, playing chicken on a narrow path may behold surprises?
This reminds me of the old movied, “The Mouse that Roared.” A tiny pre-industrial nation decides to declare war on the US, knowing it will lose–their weapons are bows and arrrows. They figure the US will rebuild them, as we did Germany.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing 1, February 18, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Awwwww.
The double-team victim card.
Autism or not (and I suspect not), Brian should be honored that another citizen thinks enough of his rights and standing in society to treat him equally just like he’d treat any other adult instead of tip-toeing around his handicap. He is getting exactly the same treatment he would get if he was “normal brained” and spread such socially toxic ideas. No more, no less.
Or he can try to hide his propaganda behind his “condition” some more as to avoid any criticism.
However, this is the big person’s table. WARNING: Adults engaged in free speech. Sorry! If you want to be treated like an adult and not an infant, there is a price.
Brian has the right to his own opinion. However, he will continue to have to defend what he says factually and logically no matter who he is or what his alleged “condition” is. It’s called “the price of admission” for participating in free speech between adults – you’re free to have whatever opinion you like, but you’re not free to your own facts or to not have your opinion challenged simply because you don’t want it challenged. You express it, you own it including the consequences which, in the adult world, include the possibility of challenge. If that’s too much for his “autistic” brain? He should stick to watching television instead of blogging. If that offends him or anybody else? I don’t give a rat’s ass. A corollary to the right to free speech is the right to be offended.
If your ideas are valid? They’ll survive. If they are invalid? They won’t. So far, Brian’s ideas are not surviving. Too bad for him. He should adopt ideas that aren’t easily dismantled. If he doesn’t want to have his nonsense challenged? This isn’t the right place for him.
#######################################
Thank you.
Awwwww.
The double-team victim card.
Autism or not (and I suspect not), Brian should be honored that another citizen thinks enough of his rights and standing in society to treat him equally just like he’d treat any other adult instead of tip-toeing around his handicap. He is getting exactly the same treatment he would get if he was “normal brained” and spread such socially toxic ideas. No more, no less.
Or he can try to hide his propaganda behind his “condition” some more as to avoid any criticism.
However, this is the big person’s table. WARNING: Adults engaged in free speech. Sorry! If you want to be treated like an adult and not an infant, there is a price.
Brian has the right to his own opinion. However, he will continue to have to defend what he says factually and logically no matter who he is or what his alleged “condition” is. It’s called “the price of admission” for participating in free speech between adults – you’re free to have whatever opinion you like, but you’re not free to your own facts or to not have your opinion challenged simply because you don’t want it challenged. You express it, you own it including the consequences which, in the adult world, include the possibility of challenge. If that’s too much for his “autistic” brain? He should stick to watching television instead of blogging. If that offends him or anybody else? I don’t give a rat’s ass. A corollary to the right to free speech is the right to be offended.
If your ideas are valid? They’ll survive. If they are invalid? They won’t. So far, Brian’s ideas are not surviving. Too bad for him. He should adopt ideas that aren’t easily dismantled. If he doesn’t want to have his nonsense challenged? This isn’t the right place for him.
Blouise:
Nope … it was an inside joke from the Carter thread
——-
Care to elaborate?
RE: Bronco Billy, February 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Buddha is Laughing:
do you know how silly you look arguing with a person with autism?
Ride em cowboy, ye hah
######################################
Bronco Billy,
Well said.
Thanks, really, thanks.
Here is a Democratic president liberating Afghanistan:
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6971-25-tons-of-bombs-wipe-afghan-town-off-map
Here is a Republican president liberating Iraq:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm
You can keep on thanking me if you like, although no thanks from you is required.
I don’t destroy your nonsense for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of others and my personal amusement.
#######################################
Thank you.
Although that didn’t stop your mom from asking for one for you.
Do you know that I don’t care what people think of me personally as long as they don’t buy into his socially toxic drivel?
Yee-hah!
I’d give the Pope the smackdown if he was talking that kind of antisocial/anti-legal/anti-Constitutional bullshit.
When it comes to protecting the preservation of the rule of law and the continuation of civilization?
No one gets a free pass.
Buddha is Laughing:
do you know how silly you look arguing with a person with autism?
Ride em cowboy, ye hah
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E. 1, February 18, 2011 at 11:53 am
“It may be wise to take into account the long-term effects of the perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths in terms of the damage done in the form of trauma to the yet-living relatives, friends, and acquaintances of the now-deceased.”
“The ongoing “cost” of the trauma to living Iraqis totally dwarfs the “cost” of the physical damage to the infrastructure of Baghdad. The ongoing “trauma cost” to the people of the United States as a consequence of having been deceived dwarfs all other costs incurred by the United States related to the Iraq-Afghanistan wars.”
==========================================
hear! hear!
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
You can keep on thanking me if you like, although no thanks from you is required.
I don’t destroy your nonsense for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of others and my personal amusement.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 18, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Really, it’s no problem.
################################
Thank you.
Really, it’s no problem.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 18, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Did I mention, yet again, that your purported credentials in no way qualify you to research the sociological and psychological value of adversarial due process?
And you are most welcome.
I will continue to smash your anti-civilization, pro-criminal, pro-tyranny bullshit as long as you keep trying to sell it to people against their best interests.
One lives to be of service.
#####################################
Thank you.
Did I mention, yet again, that your purported credentials in no way qualify you to research the sociological and psychological value of adversarial due process?
And you are most welcome.
I will continue to smash your anti-civilization, pro-criminal, pro-tyranny bullshit as long as you keep trying to sell it to people against their best interests.
One lives to be of service.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Oh, no. Thank you, Brian.
I never get tired of smashing nonsense from propagandists.
Here it goes once again:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
#####################################
Thank you.
Oh, no. Thank you, Brian.
I never get tired of smashing nonsense from propagandists.
Here it goes once again:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.