A Little Inspiration

Wingsuit Basejumping - The Need 4 Speed: The Art of Flight from Phoenix Fly on Vimeo.

2010 :)

For all the men and women that spent time looking at this stuff with me over the past year..

Is this true?

I know its from the Huffington Post, but if this is true then we have some serious hypocrites in political positions. Whether you're for the DADT repeal or not there are some serious issues with the politicization of the START treaty ratification... please read..

Hard Work and Perseverance

To refute what I see as a problem with some of my peers and their lack of a desire to work hard I really enjoyed this short article.

Oh F

Stossel's got it. In case you didn't know, Thanksgiving is actually a lesson to future capitalists. I seem to have lost this meaning in my public school education..

Woah..

Revisionists at work again..

*Sigh*

Dear America,
Your reaction to several current events trouble me. If you're against the debt, but support the war(s) and permanent tax cuts you may need to rethink this. If you're for "24" style "enhanced interrogation techniques," but against the TSA giving you a little love, this is also something you should think about. If you're calling America's position on foreign policy in the last couple of years timid, but you're also against the START treaty being ratified in the lame duck session you may also want to think about this.. :/ blerg.

Should Liberals Appear On Fox News? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

An interesting look at polimedia as usual:

Should Liberals Appear On Fox News? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

I wish I had this much time on my hands...

BIG BANG BIG BOOM - the new wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

The State of Affairs

Matt Taibbi presents one view of the Tea Party movement in his well-written (as usual) article. Without any kind of of thoughtful alternative I'm going to have to agree with the majority of his argument. Matt Taibbi on the Tea Party | Rolling Stone Politics

The Taliban and Karzai government communicate?

Der...
Daily brief: Karzai confirms Taliban "contacts" | The AfPak Channel

Bloc Party - Flux

This has been one of my favorite bands for a while. Their music has continued to evolve with my tastes. I was surprised when I looked up the video for this song to see it was done with an old Japanese Toho look. Toho was the studio that did the old Godzilla flicks. Great song, fun video.

“Finally, our rulers will have culture”

A brilliant tongue-in-cheek retort to Atlas Shrugged. It's also filled with yogurt jokes, which happen to be one of my favorite.

James O'Keefe, new low

Well if you haven't heard investigative journalism just took a new blow. Along with great interviews with many controversial "characters" in the last two weeks, one of Anderson Cooper's investigative reporters, Abbie Boudreau, was ambushed by James O'Keefe. The events occured last month, but the plan, published by CNN, is intense. This is sick, perverted and desperate. Free speech and all of that, yes, but ugly free speech should be called out as such.

Roadside bomb kills airman in Afghanistan - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Roadside bomb kills airman in Afghanistan - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Mikey, you will be missed.

Get 'em AC

Countering this Terror (as opposed to the older ones)

The use of terrorist tactics against the United States is not a new occurrence. From 1919 to 1920 Gallean anarchists conducted a series of attacks, including the bombing of Wall Street. Our reaction was the Red Scare. Today we are fighting the “War of Terror,” a reactive struggle against a form of unconventional warfare. As F. Gregory Gause addresses in his article, “What Freedom Brings,” strategic goals of spreading democracy can have the opposite effect of what we intend. The most important element of a counter-terrorism policy at the strategic foreign policy level would be to encourage the secular, non-Islamist organizations in the Middle East, while developing a robust intelligence service capable of preventing or reacting to any future attacks. We must be careful of using domestically pleasing rhetoric like “spreading democracy” that does not actually serve the foreign policy goals of our country.

As Mr. Gause espouses in his article, encouraging democracy is not a bad idea in itself, but we should be observant of the result of such elections, such as in Gaza and Turkey. The elections systematically have great turnouts (above 50%), significantly better than the U.S., but more often than not religiously charged Islamists have been gaining power. Anti-American sentiment is growing through the democratization process. It’s not just the encouragement of democracy that will make us more safe, but also the encouragement of more secular, pro-Western organizations and parties in these countries. This is not an easy path at all. The rationale stated in the Zogby polling done in Mr. Gause’s article states that U.S. Policy and not U.S. values is what creates the animosity in the much of the Arab and Muslim world. From my experience in Afghanistan I would say that much of the information propagated about U.S. policy is misinformation, but little is done by the U.S. State Department or other government or non-government organizations to counter this fundamental problem.

At the operational level an active and robust intelligence collection and sharing effort under the Department of Homeland Security is the only way to counter threats that are homegrown or already operating within the borders. There are many problems that are currently being modified within this structure, and it will always be a problematic organization. The continuing adaptations to counter the changing threat are good in that we won’t find ourselves asleep at the wheel. Understanding this is a reactive system acknowledges the fact that it a policing nature inside the country. Outside the country is open to more debate. As we see the nature of the threat today and our actions, especially the drone issue on the Afghan-Pakistan border, we see an example of winning the battle to lose the war. With the growing reactions to our military and paramilitary actions to combat terrorism we must realize that our policy is what creates the division that creates terrorism.

Al-Qaeda’s greatest argument (and one it seems to be winning) is that by miring the U.S. in sustained unconventional conflicts on multiple continents with very little effort compared to ours, we become weak. After a decade we have had very little payoff as compared to the effort. President Bush may have wanted to spread democracy, but we see that without influencing the population’s view of U.S. policy we have little effect on the fuel of the terrorist activity. Our reactive efforts at home prevent the attacks, but are flawed and make errors occasionally. Our proactive military efforts can create more animosity or animosity where none existed. We must balance our efforts at all levels while correctly identifying the source of the rage at the West, and either changing our policy or producing a system to counter this rage will give us the most efficient results.

Dot. The world's smallest stop-motion animation character shot on a Noki...

Just brightened my Friday



Tip of the hat to Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish

Repubs and well, ideas, continued

Good, it's not just me seeing this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Postcards From the Pledge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Repubs and well, ideas

Read it. I personally believe there are still no new ideas here. It's a watered down rehash of the "Contract with America." It's comments like this, "Politicians in Washington have imposed an agenda that doesn’t reflect the priorities of the people. What’s worse, the most important decisions are made behind closed doors, where a flurry of backroom deals has supplanted the will of the people," that make me want to find Tom DeLay and kick him in the nuts. How can these people get away with making statements like this? I want a truly intelligent opposition, not one that gets away with making dishonest statements because the current administration is unpopular.

OMG...

The Escapade Continues...

The depressing and fatalistic aspect of COIN is shown here. Months, maybe years of hard work and "COIN" operations can be undone by five disturbed soldiers. You know, Army regulation states that "soldier' must be capitalized in army writing. Not for those guys.

Picture is from my deployment in winter, 2009.

Contradictions and Meaningful Dialogue

Well, as if this "bilateral" dialogue could get any less intelligent, here we go

*Picture is of U.S. presence around Iran

Interesting website if you have the time to check it out...

Big Questions Online

Our leaders :D yay

Christine O'Donnell Opposes Masturbation in MTV Documentary - ABC News

Song to start the week

National Security Strategy or lack thereof...

The National Security Strategy as mandated by the Nichols-Goldwater Act of 1986 is primarily a means of the legislative branch ensuring the executive branch displays the nation’s strategic goals. It came about as a process to present how the executive branch was spending federal funding. In order to ensure that the executive branch was not spending recklessly the NSS defined what the national strategic objectives were and how they would achieve them within the realms of diplomatic, economic and military means. The NSS can be purposefully broad and undefined or make specific aims.

As a matter of stating the strategic goals of the country the NSS also lays out the coordination between national resources and agencies and departments. A clear strategy will assign what agency and the resource needed to the specific goal in the plan. Although not necessary it can produce debate and consensus, which is another specific aim of the NSS. Many politicians, military specialists and everyday citizens treat the NSS with soft hands or utter disregard. It was not created to be either, and should produce contention and discussion about what our goals are and should be, as well as how we should or should not obtain them.

Another use of the NSS is an overt promise of support to allies or threat to our enemies. The NSS has named enemy nation-states and non-state actors and the means to which will target them. This may aid our enemies in identifying their strategic goals, but with a bureaucracy as large as ours it is a necessary evil. The NSS can also be used to demonstrate which nations we see as important allies and to what degree we are willing to support them. In certain circumstances such as the Israel-Arab conundrum, the Korean Peninsula labyrinth and the Balkans nightmare laying these strategic roads create a doctrine to work around.

The National Security Strategy can define a presidency. It can also be a great source of historical importance, solidifying a president’s aims and means to those goals. The difference between the stated goal and the outcome can be telling of the competency or fallacies of the administration. Politically it is important to have goals that are obtainable and a good plan of action. Unobtainable targets or a poor strategy to obtain a goal can waste time, resources and lives.

The Influence of Interest Groups

As this the election cycle begins to speed up following the Labor Day weekend America will begin to see the effect of lobbying and the fight against it. Lobbying is a political sensitive word and rightly so. As of 1998 43% of the men and women appointed to congress have taken lobbying jobs after their term. The first major lobbying efforts by outside interest groups were economic and related to gaining railroad subsidies in the post-Civil War era. Since then we have seen advocacy groups for identity, political issues, state and local governments and foreign governments. Although many feel that lobbyists have too much influence over our leaders and their decisions, the lobbying will continue to be significant to our domestic and foreign policies for the foreseeable future.

The economic advocacy groups that lobby inside our government were some of the first to organize. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is the largest federation of labor unions. It has a political body not unlike a government of its own. It also has international ties to the European-based International Trade Union Confederation. In 2007 the AFL-CIO spent two million dollars on lobbying the U.S. government on various trade and labor issues.

The National Council of La Raza is the best example of an identity-based advocacy group in the media attention lately. With the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court earlier this year, the lobbyist organization received more notice than it ever had. The group, which was founded to support Hispanic advancement in society, has been attacked over allegations that it is exclusionary in its advancement of human rights. Although the topic is controversial and debatable the organization is quite extensive, based in Washington, D.C. and serving in eight other cities. It is non-profit, but receives philanthropy from major companies, such as Ford and Wal-Mart. As the fastest growing segment of our population no one can doubt the effect of this advocacy group in the future.

Political advocacy does not get any better than the late Charlton Heston and his NRA. The effect of the numerous celebrity presidents (Ulysses S. Grant being another) and the politically charged topic of gun rights and gun control make this lobby extremely important in American political life. The non-profit organization spent ten million dollars on the 2008 presidential campaign alone! Its lobbying efforts have been a continuous sway on second amendment rights and the successful bids by mostly Republican hopefuls in my generation. The endorsement of the NRA can be the difference between making or breaking a campaign. That is the power to shape policy and sway the legislative process.

No foreign government has the influence or power to push, prod and otherwise manipulate American policy like Israel. I’d rather mention the Georgian ability to affect our policy and shape future (or past) political positions with regard to Foreign Policy and specifically Russia. Randy Scheunemann, Senator McCain’s top foreign policy advisor in his run up to the 2008 election, was a lobbyist for Georgia prior to working for the Senator. In what was called a conflict of interest, Senator McCain was unequivocally involved in the Georgian Conflict. What some called smart foreign policy shaping others called overt outside influence on America’s decision-making process. Whether you take one view over the other, it is undeniable that Georgia’s investment paid out well, but not as well as they had hoped.

It is a natural product of democracy for groups of like-thinking individuals to band together in order to push their ideology further than one person could. Although it is an American reaction to be disgusted by the amount of lobbyist and politician bleed over, it is impossible to split the two. Politicians have platforms on which they stand (or risk being labeled a flip-flopper), and it is reasonable that the politician would look towards advocacy groups with similar platforms through rose-tinted glasses. The money involved in lobbying is what exacerbates the average Americans view towards the organization, sometimes with reason. No one likes to think that the American dream can be bought out, but we have yet to see the bottom to a politician’s greed.

Diplomacy or the art of talking to yourself...

Diplomacy, as put by Mark Twain is, “the principle of give and take… give one and take ten.” In Thomas Fedyszyn’s article on the use of diplomacy he identifies three forms of diplomacy: unilateral, bilateral and multilateral. He also relates that three types of formal diplomacy are normal, preventative and coercive. Power defined inside of the scope of diplomacy can be stated as the ability to influence the policies and actions of another country. Through this interpretation and my belief system (which is an essential to my opinion) I, like most of the international community, prefer normal bilateral diplomacy. All forms and types of diplomacy have a time and place to be used, well, except for unilateral diplomacy in my opinion, but I will address that shortly.

First I would like to address the shortcomings of multilateral and unilateral forms of diplomacy. Although multilateralism should be preferred to unilateralism, its nature, especially coupled with realpolitik can be deceiving. In the liberal or Wilsonian point of view multilateralism can be and should be the preferred diplomatic venture. More often I believe that the actions of one nation in the diplomatic effort can muddle the combined action of the sum. The six party talks or the Israeli-Arab relationship are good indications that when the failure of diplomacy favors one party of a multi-party organization it tends to occur. From what I’ve written you could say that I do not believe in multilateralism, which is not the case. I believe it is important and serves an essential role in the international community, but is not as effective in conveying power in diplomacy.

Unilateralism is effective in coercive means to portray power if as, Fedyszyn states, “conversation with oneself” is your goal. As the hegemony unilateralism is an option at our disposal. It’s fair to make the argument that the immediate value of unilateral diplomacy is unequal to any lasting damage that the action inflicts. This is shown most recently in our efforts in the War on Terror. Declaring war on a non-state actor’s method of inflicting damage and talking to oneself may not be the best diplomatic strategy.

The best conversation is one between two people. It provides the least amount of confusion, unless that is your goal, and then it can provide the most “controlled” confusion or manipulation. “Soft Power” is built along these precepts. Instead of coercing your opponent you influence him into wanting want you want. That is a power that not many nations have the ability to accomplish. It is also the polar opposite of coercive unilateralism in that what you accomplish does not create animosity between the nation-states.

Power is a relative term that can encompass many aspects of diplomacy. I believe that coercive or preventative types of diplomacy cannot be the norm in displaying power. It must be a power that reflects a sensibility in dealing with other nations. A short-term win is not necessarily a long-term win. America’s inattentive and impatient nature can be its weakness in diplomacy. As a nation we must fight this temperament.

U.S. Exceptionalism

In America's unique path to nationhood the pseudo-religious and enlightenment tones of our upbringing have controlled both our domestic and foreign policies character continually for 244 years. It is extremely unpopular, almost "un-American," to phrase our ventures as anything outside of providence. As the author articulates through his observations of periods where exemplary and missionary practitioners disagreed, they still formed their arguments through these precepts. Even our National Security Council writes in this fashion when the vast majority of citizenry is not even going to read it! I believe in the current age of globalization, mass media and Fukuyama's "end of history" that the missionary approach is the only viable option, but with caveats. In the post-Vietnam area where the country has become aware of our fallacies as a nation (and that all nations have) we must strive as much as possible to continue a policy of supporting democratic values and virtues abroad. The caveat is that we cannot forget that holding a moral higher ground as an example in the exemplary model. Forgetting this would be detrimental in a foreign policy objective.

Throughout the history described in the article the author shows a rise to more international interventionism as the country grew. It is both a product of economic policy as well as the byproduct of a growing regional and international power that brought us to this logical position. I believe it is logical for altruistic and utilitarian reasons. One desired to give an example of the merits of democracy to the world and one desired the wealth and power of a capitalistic society. The view that democracies will not fight each other suggests that they would help each other as well. The problem with the missionary position (I had to say it once) is the concept of "Jus ad Bellum" or right to wage war and the otherwise meddling in others' affairs. A democracy cannot espouse its values and commit what domestic and international communities see as an unjust war. Similarly to engage in clandestine activities in another country and get caught (ie Operation Ajax in Iran, 1953) defeats the foreign policy aim of using America's exceptionalism doctrine.

The belief of the exemplary position as the sole proponent of foreign policy is as useful as bringing a knife to a gun fight. The age of hoping that an example will spread without pushing the product is far gone. Isolationism is a truely American reaction to international conflict and understandable as having two oceans have always been a great comfort. Since the rattling of German and Japanese swords in WWII and the Soviet threat during the Cold War those two oceans have proven that they cannot truly protect us anymore. Disengagement only provides the space for another nation, not necessarily a democracy, to fill the hegemonic position.
The missionary strategy has both proven to be effective in instances like WWII and the the collapse of the Soviet Union, and destructive, as in the examples of the Filipino Insurrection and Vietnam. The difference is how the policy was implemented and how the policy conflicted with the moral guidance we inherited. The ability to maintain the example of "the city on the hill" while projecting a will to protect and assist nations in the furthering of democratic values is key to executing this policy with the most effect. To falter on either creates the accusations of hypocrisy from the international community that can nullify all of our efforts.

Brett Domino is awesome as usual

Political Crazies

This article published in Salon by Glenn Greenwald looks into the horrendous state of affairs of American political life and the problems of the two party system.

I'm not a huge Ron Paul fan. I enjoy his logic and argument that he explained clearly in his last book, The Revolution, and I direct everyone to give it a read with an open-mind. It's a breath of fresh air.

Greenwald's very accurate argument in the article is something I have been commenting a lot on when I try to explain my own political and social leanings. If you are for the 2nd Amendment and it's goals in today's society, you don't necessarily have to be against abortion legislation. In all honesty, you should be for the illegality of the state having the ability to tell you what to do with your body... but I digress. Give it a read.

Photo courtesy of nytimes.com

Death by Powerpoint; finally some national attention to the epidemic

Kudos to Meg for forwarding me this article by Elisabeth Bumiller. For anyone who has spent a little time "touching up" your order, SITEMP, etc this article will be everything you've discussed with your peers. When the article cited "powerpoint rangers," I knew this reporter had done some digging.

The article and it's sources all state that PPT "dumbs" down and prevents critical thinking. That is similar to that horrible saying, "guns don't kill people, people do." PPT is just the tool that commanders choose to convey information. Commanders are ultimately responsible for assuring that his or her subordinates understood what was conveyed and if they didn't understand. The commander should also make his PPT slides about conveying the most appropriate information that PPT can. Too often I would see a commander fail to convey the proper information (most likely because he or she failed in her mission), but through PPT and its 3D effects, warping, etc the audience would be glamored and we would all leave the meeting with blank faces. It works most of the time.

I believe the congnative problem is that most briefers keep one slide up and talk the bullets. It's like the presenter made 3x5 index cards to keep him or herself on track and instead of looking down at them occasionally, put them on the wall so everyone could just tick down the list (because the other problem is the military just has too many damn meetings and you can't wait to get out of the meeting because you already know all of the information.) Everyone shuts down. If you have numbers send it in a goddamn email. If you have general, non-specific ideas or symbology to convey use PPT. IF YOUR PPT PRESENTATION IS ONE SLIDE AND IT CLOSES DOWN MAILBOXES BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

What this article really needs to talk about is that officers are just about the fluff. We aren't results-based managers of people. We are egotistical time-wasters looking for another BULLET for our OERs. We of course is the "royal" we.

Ok, Cooper is awesome in my book after this.

The Korengal

I share many of the thoughts and emotions of the Soldiers in this article and the author, Sebastion Junger. Whether you know much about the conflict or not it's just a great read.

I miss this skyline

Get up and go from Stefan Werc on Vimeo.

Confederate History Month?

Yes, it's true. Great article here by Frank Rich, that sums up my attitude about it.

Somber quote in wake of the Polish anguish...

“History counts its skeletons in round numbers” -Wislawa Szymborska

"Winning" in Afghanistan

This is the rest of the discussion I mentioned briefly earlier. My buddy Joe and I were talking about the Army's nation-building skills or lack there of. What I see is the lack of a stratigic planning, or more likely many people are going through military posts with the complete interest of not fixing any of this.

"Osama bin Laden is not Adolf Hitler. Al-Qaeda is not Nazi Germany. Al-Qaeda poses a threat. It does not pose an existential threat. We should view Al-Qaeda as the equivalent of an international criminal conspiracy. Sort of a mafia that in some way or another draws its energy or legitimacy from a distorted understanding of a particular religious tradition.

And as with any other international criminal conspiracy, the proper response is a police effort. I mean, a ruthless, sustained, international police effort to identify the thugs, root out the networks and destroy it. Something that would take a long period of time and would no more succeed fully in eliminating the threat than the NYPD is able to fully eliminate criminality in New York City."

-Andrew Bacevich

Not only is this a very accurate assessment, it is the only real viable and sustainable option for us. Despite what the Neo-con and Republican circles think, the military option is untenable.

Perfectly stated...

"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution," - Clay Shirky

Knowledge, ignorance and fear

With the new Tea Party rallies going on and the momentum that the movement is gaining I am trying to find something more than some vague principles:

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets

More to follow.

Readjusting...

It's been two months and I need to write something... so....

*something*