Saturday, August 03, 2002

The Bear Doctrine

NZ Bear has a very interesting post. I'll just quote the high points, and let you go there and read it for yourself if you like.
The United States should consider military action to effect a change of regime against a foreign power when: 1) That power has demonstrated that they are hostile to the U.S. and its citizens, either by directly attacking us; by threatening or planning such an attack, or by supporting other actors who have executed or have threatened such an attack. or 2) All of the following are true: a) We have the means to decisively execute such a military operation without significant casualities, to our own forces or to innocent civilians. b) Deposing the regime is clearly in the best interest of its citizens, and our intention is to establish a democratic government upon completion of the operation. c) Such an operation is in the selfish best interest of the United States (economically; politically, etc.). On national sovereignty: to me, the concept is meaningless except between nations in which the citizenry have the power to effectively change their own government; i.e., are functioning democracies.
I think he might be onto something. Condi? Colin? Dubya? You listening?

Friday, August 02, 2002

Whoppergate?

Believe it or not, There is public outrage in Copenhagen, about Police officers getting free/discounted meals at resturants, including Burger King. The Copenhagen Post has an Article about it. (Found the link via Fark.) My favorite bit:
Last month, Politiken reported that Ålborg police had enjoyed a sweet perk at Burger King locations, with the restaurant offering a free Whopper to any officer who bought a soft drink or french fries. The left-wing Unity List party was furious at the allegations and took the case to Christiansborg, where the matter was directed to Minister of Justice Lene Espersen. Under Espersen's directive, the National Commissioner of Police as well as the police union agreed that the practice of police burger-discounts was 'unacceptable.'
Really, is that a bad thing? For goodness sake, officers around the world work dangerous jobs, risking life and limb for what is generally a very low wage. Here in the US, or at least in North Carolina, It is very, very common to see resturants offer discounts to policemen, firemen, and quite often people such as EMS staff, etc. When I worked at the Pizza Hut on campus at Wake Forest, we routinely gave Pizzas to the Campus Police. It wasn't some sort of bribe, or kickback, or nefarious scheme to gain influence. We already had a monopoly as the only pizza place on campus, what more could you ask for? We did it to be nice. I knew those officers worked day in and day out to keep things safe for all of us. Late at night, they would walk people to their cars after closing. I see absolutely no reason why this kind of action would be objectionable to anyone, except maybe those with some sort of phobia of police, and authority figures in general. In High school, there was a small Convenience store with a snackbar area, that served sandwiches and fried chicken. It was jsut off the interstate, near a Sherriff's substation, and very close to where the Kernersville and Winston-Salem lines met. They gave out free food to cops. I have never, and I mean NEVER gone by there without seeing at least one police car there. They got the Highway Patrol and DMV off the Highway, and the sheriff deputies, and WS and Kernersville Officers as well. We nicknamed it the "Lint Trap". After all, that was where the "fuzz" hangs out. One interesting note about that place. Last I heard, it had never, ever been held up. Thats a pretty good record for a convenience store 30 seconds from a Highway on-ramp, in a dimly lit, unpopulated area. I need to find the address for those cops in Copenhagen. I wonder if they could use some BK coupons...

Thursday, August 01, 2002

Great moments in political campaigning.

A politician compares their opponent to Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons, and has comparison chart on PDF to back it up!

Israel condemned by UN for promoting spousal abuse

Ok, maybe the headline is just a bit premature, but it wouldn't surprise me. The Washington Post has an article in which a Palestenian seems to blame beating his wife on the Israeli curfew.
"We were at home eating, drinking and sleeping," said Mansour, a 50-year-old shopkeeper who asked to be identified by only his first name. "We got angry, we beat our wives. We've left our houses today to see a change of faces."
The way I figure it, Its only a matter of time before the UN and the EU chime in on the same note, blaming Israel for Spousal abuse, the same way they continually manage to blame them for everything from Islamokazi suicide bombers to El Nino in the pacific. Note: Found this link via Best of the Web.

Tuesday, July 30, 2002

Online Vigilantism and the Porno Patriot!

A great NRO piece by James S Robbins. Here is a sample.
Anyone who tries to find the official al Qaeda website Alneda (the Call) via its most recent IP address 65.216.200.41 is greeted by a screen proclaiming "Hacked, tracked, and NOW owned by the U.S.A." This is one of the several initiatives pursued by Jon David, an adult-content webmaster who has made it his mission to frustrate the online jihadists. The "porno patriot" uses sophisticated software to seize web domains when they move between hosts (which they invariably do when providers find out what is on their servers), and he has licensed or assumed control of Alneda.com, Alneda.net, Al-Qaeda.com, and nukeafghanistan.com, among scores of others. In the case of Alneda, David hijacked the domain name, put up a mirror of the original site as it appeared in June, then logged hits to the decoy site for five days using tracking software. Once the terrorists caught on that this was not their resurrected Alneda, word got out — but not before over 20,000 hits per day were tracked and the information turned over to the authorities. The actual Alneda site (in Arabic) can now be accessed at IP address 66.132.29.71 — hopefully not for long.