Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I don't care how ironic that sounds to some, it's true. Osama Bin Laden declared war on America, waged that war for years (and killed Americans in doing so), then hid for many more years, and was finally hunted down and killed like an animal. Mission accomplished.
We've been oppressed for so long, it just doesn't matter anymore. The government does what it wants when it wants. The name calling is going to stay around forever. But when you think about it, this is an insult.
"Turn on your television... to any channel."
For reasons which surpasseth all understanding (at least to myself), I was actually up very early this morning, before the dawn as a matter of fact. This was due to a scheduled television appearance which, unfortunately, did not occur (for technical reasons). Since I was up, though, I caught the tail end of the British royal wedding, which (for us Pacific Coast Time folks) happened in the middle of the night. Surprisingly enough, I have a few things to point out about the event.
Assassination, as a foreign policy option, is supposed to be completely forbidden to America. That's the theory, at least. But in our post-9/11 world, the once-unthinkable is now increasingly being seen as a viable option. The moral discussion of whether or not America should engage in assassination, though, hasn't even really begun in any noticeable way. Which is a shame, because the country as a whole should consider what its leaders are doing in this respect. Especially while we're bombing Tripoli, once again.
Again, this is not science fiction. It's a reality that already exists in the skies over at least two countries right now (and possibly more). Robots are killing humans. These robots are not acting on their own, they are fully controlled by human operators -- but the next generation of drone aircraft will not need a human to operate them (again, this is fact, not supposition). Robot artillery, robot tanks, and robot infantry cannot be all that far behind. War as the ultimate video game, in other words.
President Obama is trying a new concept for America in Libya -- where we open a war, but then almost immediately bow out and turn it over to others to deal with. In Libya's case, this means N.A.T.O., led largely by Britain, France, and Italy. Libya is also another country with a few diplomatic fictions in place. We're not supposed to be on anyone's "side" in Libya, even though it is obvious we are aiding the rebel forces. We're not supposed to be explicitly for "regime change" (because the United Nations didn't approve it), even though we are quite obviously in favor of Ghaddafi leaving as soon as possible. And nobody's supposed to be "arming" the rebels, even though as time goes by it becomes obvious that they're getting their ammunition from somewhere (not to mention uniforms, communications equipment, and other "non-lethal" support).
Since the mainstream media has, quite obviously, abdicated all responsibility for reporting the news in any sort of journalistic fashion, I thought today would be a good day to review the current status of America's wars. Depending on how you count, there are now three (or four) of these wars which have been all but forgotten by the media these days.
But I have to say, just on the scale of speechifyin' alone, Obama seems to be starting his re-election campaign very strongly -- by framing his issues within a basic Democratic narrative which has been missing in action for quite a while. For that reason alone, both of his recent speeches are worth reading.
Sigh. What's depressing about the whole thing, to me at least, is how the entire knock-down-drag-out fight is merely the preliminary round. This whole government shutdown walk-to-the-brink-and-stare-into-the-abyss thing is nothing more than the warmup for the next budgetary battles -- which will be much bigger. The entire initial fight is about staking out ground for the next two fights -- raising the debt ceiling, and the 2012 budget. Nobody involved -- not the Tea Party Republicans, not President Obama, not John Boehner, not Harry Reid -- really cares all that much about how this particular round ends up. They're all stuck thinking: "If I give in now, they'll want more later" -- and they're all entirely correct.