Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Apple sues over Tiger leak

Apple sues over Tiger leak

Interesting stuff...

"Lightning" to tightly integrate calendar functionality into Thunderbird

Mike Shaver has announced the "Lightning" project

GREAT news for those of us who would like to shake our dependency on Outlook. Should see something sometime next year...

Mad props to John Donaghy for the link!

Monday, December 20, 2004

God designed women for homemaking...

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education: Creation Science Fair

Some highlights:

"Elementary School Level
Cassidy and her uncle, Steve
Cassidy Turnbull and her uncle, Steve, who is not a monkey according to Cassidy's research.

1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"

Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey."

"Middle School Level
Patricia Lewis
Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks.

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker."

Thanks to Garrett for passing this along...

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Are the troops upset with Sec. Rumsfeld?

Here is the whole thing as transcripted by the DoD.

There has been a lot of posturing about how the armoring question was staged and dishonest -- and that the troops are overall happy with Rumsfeld.

"Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]"

Note the applause. I'm assuming this has been painted as staged as well.

"SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it."

... and then the rest of his reply which has been splashed all over the news cycle.

...

"Q: Yes, sir. Specialist Anderson, Alpha Company, 2nd Platoon. And my question is I was curious to know why I, as a single soldier, cannot enlist in the regular Army, but I can enlist in the National Guard and be deployed with a family care plan?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Your voice was dropping off on me and I’ve got an aviator’s ear.

Q: Yes, sir. I was wanting to know why I cannot enlist as a single parent in the regular Army, but I can enlist in the National Guard and be deployed?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don’t have the vaguest idea. But by golly, we’re looking for folks in the Army. You ought to be able to enlist in the Army and I’ll try and figure out how in the world you ought to be able to do it. [Applause] We want people who want to serve and we’ve got ‘em and God bless you for it. Yes."



This question was really about pay and benefits. Why can't a single parent be in the Regular Army (where the pay and promotion are better and both health and long term benefits are so much better) but can be part of the NG and be deployed even though I qualify for the family care plan (a program in the NG that allows single parents to receive special consideration before being deployed).

Notice there was no understanding or action promised here. Just a "dunno, that sounds stupid" pass...


next question


"Q: Mr. Secretary, Specialist McKobiak (sp), 116th Calvary Brigade. My question is what is the Department of Defense, more specifically, the Army side of the house, doing to address shortages and antiquated equipment that National Guard soldiers, such as the 116th Calvary Brigade and the 278th ACR are going to roll into Iraq with?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The – now settle down. Settle down. [Laughter] Hell, I’m an old man and it’s early in the morning. I didn’t take – just gathering my thoughts here. In any organization you’re going to have equipment and materials and spare parts of different ages. And I am told – and no way I can prove it, but I’m told – that the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not a differentiation as to who gets what aged materials in the military, in the Army, as between the active force, the Guard and the Reserve. I’m told that they are, instead, trying to see that the equipment goes to those that are in the most need and who are most likely to be using it - the equipment. And that varies among the Guard and Reserve and the active force. So any organization, any element of the Army is going to end up, at some point, with – you characterize it as “antiquated.” I would say the older equipment, whatever it may be, in any category. Somebody is always going to be at that level as things are constantly replaced. And things are being constantly replaced. I mean, I believe them when they tell me that they have made a major effort to see that they’re dealing equitably as between the forces and seeing that the ones who are likely to be going into combat and have the greatest needs are the ones that have the best equipment. Yes, sir."


Doesn't sound like a happy trooper to me.


"Q: Chaplain Malone (sp), the 642nd Aviation Support Battalion. Mr. Secretary, my job is to support the spiritual fitness of the soldiers that you see in the room today. I am also here to support the morale of these soldiers. And the soldiers that you see here today have asked me to ask you this question on their behalf. Would you be kind enough, sir, to put us on your aircraft today and take us to Disneyland? [Cheers]

SEC. RUMSFELD: [Laughter] Oh, Chaplain, you did it. [Laughter] You asked it, you knocked it right out of the park and the answer is sorry. [Laughter] We’ve got more important things for you to do [Laughter] and we appreciate it. We’ve got time for a couple more questions right here."



Um... this sounds like a plea for help. WE DON"T WANT TO DIE -- WE WANT TO FLY BACK TO DISNEYLAND WHERE YOU LIVE AND WORK...


"Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary, Specialist McCullough (sp), Alpha Company 1st of the 112th Infantry. There’s a lot of soldiers here from Western Pennsylvania and we were wondering if we were going to be given the opportunity to watch the Steelers win the Super Bowl this year? [Cheers] [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I can’t answer the question about outcomes [Laughter], but General, they’re going to have access to the…

GEN. WHITCOMB: Absolutely, sir.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes, you’ll have access to the television, but you’re going to have to figure out a way to encourage that to happen. [Laughter] Yes."


This was an easy one Don, and you had to turn and get fact checked. At least ACT like you call the shots.



"Q: Mr. Secretary, Lieutenant Colonel Alan Kronolog (sp). I’m the Inspector General for the 116th Brigade Combat team. We’re helping – or trying to help about 150 soldiers get their contingency travel pay. We’ve gone through the chain of command; we’ve tried IG channels. These soldiers have gone – some since July – without getting travel pay. Thousands of dollars, they’re having creditors call them at home, call their spouses at home, threatening collection action. We have a big problem. There seems to be a problem with the Defense Finance Accounting Service. Can you help us to understand that problem, Mr. Secretary or even better, can you point us to a resource that will help us get these soldiers paid? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: Can someone here get the details of the unit he’s talking about? That’s just not right. Folks have earned money and are due money, ought to be able to get the money and they ought not to have to put their families under stress while they’re waiting for the money. Thank you. [Applause] We’ll take a note and see what we can do. Yes, sir."


Another unhappy trooper.


"Q: Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade. Mr. Secretary [Cheers] my question is with the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement? [Cheers] [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: [Laughter] I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. [Laughter] Good grief. It’s the last thing I want to do is retire. The pay and benefits for the Guard and the Reserve relative to the active force have been going up unevenly at a rate faster than the active force. If you go back over four years – matter of fact, I just went over this with the senior person in the department who looks at pay and benefits. And apparently, what’s happened is that for a variety of reasons, the incremental changes that are made each year, in terms of pay and benefits and health care and retirement and what have you, have brought the Guard and Reserve up at a faster level than the active force. And what one has to do in managing the total force and the total force is critically important. We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active force. And we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way that we can attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the country. At the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and retaining the people we need. And if anything, I think the data suggests that the Guard and Reserve forces had been advantaged relatively compared to the active force over the past four years. Question."


I wouldn't be too worried about your retirement at your age and given your current occupation. You'll be in a war zone for the next 8 years of your contract son.

So far I've only skipped one question. These troops are scared, and many are already focusing their anger on the chain of command. This is not a group that is being demoralized by the media, they are fighting under a demoralizing command.

And here is the final blow:

"Q: Good morning, sir. Staff Sergeant Latazinsky (sp), 1st COSCOM (sp), Fort Bragg, [Cheers] North Carolina. Yes, sir. My husband and myself, we both joined a volunteer Army. Currently, I’m serving under the Stop Loss Program. I would like to know how much longer do you foresee the military using this program?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The Stop Loss has been used by the military for years and years and years. It’s all well understood when someone volunteers to join the service. It is something that you prefer not to have to use, obviously, in a perfect world. But if you think about it, the whole principle of stop loss is based on unit cohesion. And the principle is that in the event that there is something that requires a unit to be involved and people are in a personal situation where their time was ending, they put a stop loss on it, so that the cohesion can be maintained. It’s basically a sound principle. It’s nothing new. It’s been well understood. It’s been used as little as possible. And my guess is that it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."



Tranlated: "Hey -- you understood what you were getting into, deal with it. My guess is that..."



Your best hope, Staff Sergeant Latazinsky is a guess that you're SOL.
SOCIAL SECURITY NOT IN CRISIS?...[Washtington Monthly]

"Imagine that. Social Security might not be in crisis after all. May this meme spread joyously across the land...."

link thru to LA Times article
No Pay, No Play:Bull Moose:

"Reform without responsibility is a non-starter"

Bush Hatred, Redux

Exactly. I think the same applies largely to the DNC as well.

"And maybe that's the bottom line. I think today's Republican Party, and its leader, are built on a foundation of fundamental dishonesty about who they are, what they want, and where they are taking the country. As a Christian, I will endeavor not to hate them for that. As an American, I will endeavor to respect those who voted for Bush, because after all, they have as much right to the franchise as I do. But until they demonstrate the ability to walk, or perhaps I should say swagger, in a straight line, I will continue to hold the president, his advisors, and his allies in Congress in minimum high regard. That did not change on November 3."

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Disgruntled Troops Complain to Rumsfeld:

This is the response of a man who has never worn a uniform:

"'You go to war with the Army you have,' he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops."

...

"Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible."

...

"And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said."

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia

Required reading. If you don't know who the PNAC is - you know their most prominent members.
MyDD :: Inventing Reform:

"Make no mistake. The huge budget deficits that are repeatedly run up by conservative administrations are not just attempts to 'starve the beast' and force massive cuts in the social safety net. They are equally attempts to position the conservative agenda as a reformist agenda to the status quo. If they can convince a majority of the population people that the budget shortfall is caused by Social Security rather than by tax cuts they will succeed. Without the reformers, the Republicans would be out of power. Thus, even in power, they need to invent ways to make certain that they can keep this crucial voting block in their coalition. A fake Social Security crisis is one such invention. "

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Conservatives use oil-for-food to hammer U.N.

The price of containment through sanctions? Look the other way when key Allies are part of the corruption. Of course, blame the UN for the poor oversight... and probably the previous administration. Those who control the past...

From the article:

"The Washington Post reported on November 13 that Edward Mortimer, communications director for the U.N. Secretary-General's office, claimed that the 661 Committee chose to approve 70 separate contracts beginning in late 2001 that were 'potentially overpriced':

Over the next 18 months [after 'the Greek captain of the oil tanker Essex admitted conspiring with Iraq to smuggle $10 million worth of crude oil' in October 2001], U.N. officials presented the sanctions committee with 70 contracts that were potentially overpriced, Mortimer said. But 'nobody placed a single contract on hold,' he said -- including the United States and Britain, Baghdad's toughest critics on the Security Council."

....

"FOX News host Bill O'Reilly expressed outrage on the December 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that "the U.N. oil-for-food program degenerated into a criminal enterprise, feeding Saddam more than $20 billion in illegal revenue." On the December 3 edition of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, radio host Limbaugh put the figure at "$22.3 billion at last count." In fact, the amount is, at most, one-fourth of what O'Reilly and Limbaugh claimed. And Saddam obtained a much larger portion of the illicit revenue he used to prop up his regime through oil smuggling outside U.N. auspices.

The GAO report estimated that of the $10.1 billion in illegal oil revenues, only $4.4 billion came from "surcharges against oil sales and illicit commissions from commodity suppliers," i.e., kickbacks, compared to $5.7 billion from oil smuggling that was outside of U.N. control.

The Central Intelligence Agency's Duelfer report similarly estimated that of the nearly $11 billion in illicit income that Saddam obtained from August 1990 until March 2003, only $1.5 billion, or 16 percent, came through oil-for-food [Volume 1, PDF p. 158]. According to the U.N. Office of the Iraq Program (OIP), sales of oil under oil-for-food generated $65 billion in revenue."

....

"Former assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs Robert Pelletreau spoke more bluntly about the U.S. position on Iraqi oil smuggling to Turkey in an the December 2004 Harper's Magazine article by Joy Gordon. Gordon wrote: "Turkey, like Jordan, complained that that the sanctions were harming its economy. And Turkey, like Jordan, was a crucial ally the United States needed to appease. The result was a decision by the United States 'to close our eyes to leakage via Turkey,' according to ... Pelletreau."