Imperial Life in the Emerald City (Inside Iraq's Green Zone) by Rajiv Chandrasekaran is an eye-opening account of failures in immediate aftermath of the Iraq war. The book does not paint a coherent picture of what should have been done to correct the situation. There are always disagreements. Using the advantages of hind-sight, it is easy to say different decisions should have been made. Or if "they" would have listened to a suggestion or addressed this problem, things would have worked out better. That type of nit-picking is natural and in some essences unavoidable. I personally don't believe that it reasonable to expect flawless execution in any new situation. What is expected is to make more correct decisions than bad ones; to improve and make long-term progress.

In that sense, Iraq post-war planning was a failure from the get-go. The defense department's expectations for how post-war Iraq was going to unfold was optimistic. The rampant looting should have been the first indication that this assumption was misguided, but wasn't heeded. The looting set back reconstruction immeasurably, which set unfavorable conditions for the aggressive policies the coalition provisional authority (CPA) would try to pursue. This, in collusion with, having under-qualified people on the ground made the start-up costs particularly staggering. I think we sent intelligent and talented people to Iraq. However, we did not send the most informed, experienced and wise people at our disposal to lead the effort. The administration chose to send the loyal and idealistic. This coupled with bubble environment that was the Green Zone perpetuated the misunderstanding of the reality of the everyday Iraqi and the people working for the CPA.

The first priority should have been to establish pre-war levels of employment, basic services and security. Instead, the CPA pursued an ideological based agenda towards trying to establish a modern representative democracy and a western free-market economy, no doubt influenced by Milton Friedman's ideas that the two go hand-in-hand. The factors of the setbacks in reconstruction due to the looting in conjunction with the fundamental overhauls that the CPA was trying to achieve caused enough chaos to fuel an insurgency. If more pragmatic policies would have been pursued, much of the dissatisfaction would not have come about.

I feel that another misunderstanding is the belief that the insurgency can be defeated militarily. It cannot, although that is one way that it must be fought. The insurgency developed because of high unemployment, degradation of the Iraqi's standard of living, and a continuing sense of social disorder. In order to fight the insurgency, it is necessary to fight its growth and the root causes. The growth can be handled militarily, but the root causes must be addressed politically and making real progress on the ground. I believe that the rise of the civil war we are now faced with is a direct result of trying to establish democracy too quickly without providing a proper social and economic framework for it to flourish. Setting up such a framework is unworkable in the short-term. The immediate problem is that people in Iraq are desperate. Desperate for security, food, water, electricity. These immediate needs will be provided by local warlords who seek to destabilize the existing rule and try to establish their own.

I have always been against the war in Iraq. I consider it to be a mistake of almost comical proportions. But, I subscribe to the viewpoint that is attributed to Colin Powell: you break it, you own it. I considered an Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule a low threat to the United States. In spite of the fact that he was a "bad man." However, I believe if the United States were to leave now, we will see Iraq turn into an extreme terrorist state. We will be blamed for the ensuing conflict which will likely involve years of fighting and have bouts of ethnic cleansing.

In order to come to an acceptable conclusion to the Iraq conflict, we must establish security, basic services, and employment. All three must be pursued simultaneously or none will be achieved. I don't believe the end result of that effort will necessarily be a moderate democracy. But, we have to leave a stable state, not a govenment on the brink of collapse, ripe with sectarian conflicts ready to erupt.

I don't know if what I suggest is tenable. It is harder to implement than it is to say. And I know that it will probably cost 1000's of American servicemen their lives. However, I believe the threats to our nation caused by another extremist Islamic state fueled by massive oil reserves, and on brink of nuclear capabilities is too great to ignore. I believe Iran will fill the power vacuum that an immediate American withdrawl from Iraq would bring.

I'm not for this war. I wish the US had not started it. But, I believe we have Iraq in at least as stable of a state as it was before we invaded. Anything less will cause Iran and North Korea scale problems in the future.

Today is the day of the Iraqi elections. The question still remains whether or not they have any legitimacy, Iternational election monitors are in Amman, Jordan. The U.N. washed its hands of the whole situation. The Kurds and Shi'ites seem to have no problems voting, but Sunnis in the middle part of Iraq are under a constant threat of violence, reinforced with mortar and rocket attacks along with car suicide bombings.

Iraq is on the road to democracy and this is the latest step. But, I don't know under what criteria you would use to judge this election as a success or failure and what meaning does it have if the canidates themselves are too scared to even admit they are running for fear of assasination. Iraq's citizens are allowed to vote, but on what basis are they making their decision?

One thing is clear, Iraq is a long way from stable democracy. Iraq represents a large investment for America in both monetary costs and human life (not just American but also the Iraqis themselves). I don't know if the American people are fully aware of the huge investment it is. Or how its ultimate success or failure depends on factors that are external to anything America does. The Iraqis are beholden to make democracy work, something they didn't exactly ask for.

So we wait and see, but have no doubt that we were cursed to live in interesting times.

I honestly believe that the American economy is in for some rough times. At the local level, I see a great squeezing of the middle class. We have moved away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. The reason for this shift is to exploit cheaper labor and more lax environmental standards in developing countries. While this drives down costs for corporations, the cheaper production costs are seldom passed on to consumers.

The displaced manufacturing workers have to find a new job. Since manufacturing jobs are gone, the jobs left open to them are service jobs. These in general don't pay as well, nor do they produce anything that we can export to other countries. This results in massive trade defeceits. But this trend has been going on since the 80's. The question is: why have we been able to sustain this? One reason is that trade defeceit is exagerrated, we have American companies importing goods from their oversea factories. There is a steady outflow of cash to pay the workers. But, the major effect is the rich getting richer in America and the middle class becoming poor. But this doesn't totally explain the phenomenon either, since our oil imports are massive.

The best explaination is the dollar. Foreign countries buy our dollar. Since the dollar is cheap to produce, we are basically getting oil in exchange for paper. Here is another explaination. Although, I don't believe this to be the reason for the Iraq invasion.

So our dollar is inherently valuable, and it also means that we have huge foreign debts that may be cashed. This means, right now, the American economy is inflated by foreign investment. There are certain reasons why I believe this will change. The biggest one being the Euro. The US has alienated much of the world. I believe in retaliation, many contries are going to move their reserved funds to the Euro. This is going to be catastrophic to the US economy. Our dollar will rapidly lose value w.r.t. to other currencies and inflation will rise trying to balance our trade defeceit.

Balancing our trade defeceit is going to be hard because our local economy is now based on services, and secondly, that cheap labor that we were getting in other countries isn't going to be cheap in the face of a devalued dollar. This means a very painful transition.

What needs to happen: most importantly we need to ween ourselves off oil. But, ever since Carter said we had to do it in the 70's our leaders have done nothing to move us off oil. This is unlikely to change under the current political situation.

My best advice is to insulate yourself, I suggest investing outside the US. Invest in gold, Asian or European countries. All we need now is something to trigger this and I think the bubble will burst.

The natural comparison of Bush's vision of a society of ownership society is to say that we are currently a nation of renters.

In local terms, such as myself and my lifestyle I don't understand where this notion of a nation of renters comes from. I don't believe the vast majority of Americans are "renters" in a convential sense. Sure, we rent things. But sometimes it makes sense to rent things rather than own. Renting a car from an airport makes more sense than many alternatives. Renting an apartment makes sense if you are a temporary living situation, such as attending a university. In an ideal world, I still think that there would be some renting.

However, what I think Bush is really getting at, and something that is much more sinister is not the move towards less renting, but rather more ownership. This means, in simple terms, is less public spaces and public land. I don't think it is a wise idea for every section of this country to be owned by one person or entity. It is good and right that we do have public spaces and lands. The US is a nation of tremendous resources, but these resources need to be managed for the public good not for local benefit as any one familiar with the prisoner's dillema will tell you, local best interest is not always the best solution to global prosperity.

But, the scariest move is Social Security reform. In my mind, this is a large and tragic mistake that undermines the purpose of the system. The benefit of social security is that it is always there. It has a lousy rate of return and some reforms are needed, but most reasonable reforms revolve around making sure congress keeps their collective hands out of the "cookie jar" that is Social Security income so-to-speak. Bush's plan undermines social security because what if the stock market crashes? Unlikely, yes. But possible, definitely. Well, anyone with their social security in the stock market just became SOL. But, that was the whole point of the program to begin with, so that people weren't SOL when they retired.

Social security was developed in response to the great depression. Bush is making the susceptible to the same forces that caused the need for its introduction in the first place. How can this be catergorized as anything else other than folly?

I work for EA. I intern'd for Microsoft. As far as my short experience and ongoing experience at the company goes, I my experience working for EA is not as bad as some horror stories on the 'net. Although, the EA spouse thing does bring up my greatest fear about the job, that is, the job will consume my life.

Also, I thank that person for writing that livejournal entry. This needs to be discussed and thanks for bringing it up in a way that everybody at the company and a lot of people that don't have an oppourtunity to discuss. Your post was also extremely well written and you didn't flame the company although it didn't paint it in a good light, which was also good.

However, I can honestly say that working for EA does not consume my life as of yet, although, I have heard that will change once we hit Alpha. I can easily see why we are likely to have a painful Alpha. We are shipping early. Designs aren't done although all of our TDD's (technical design documents/implementation plans) are supposed to be final. The time to do TDD's is compressed becasue designs they are late or unfinished. I had a game designer literally change a design doc while I was working on a task. It wasn't like the TDD wasn't completeless worthless anyway. It was scheduled for a week, and basically said "Do It." But, how are estimates supposed to be accurate if we don't know what we are implementing? Is this the same company that expresses their competitive advantage being they know what game they are making better than their competitors?

Then there are problems from the software engineering point of view. We have no automated testing (besides the test project I just set up). Most code isn't even unit testable because functions change their behavior based on some global game data usually from a half dozen different modules. QA hasn't been doing their job, in that they haven't found obvious bugs in code. I think the only thing that saves us is that it is written in C.

That said, I think the process we have is good. We just need to follow it. This is a lot better than what my experience at Microsoft was like. Developers need to take more ownership over quality because we are the ones that end up paying and QA doesn't do their job very well.

Ultimately, whether I stay at EA for longer than 3 years is totally dependent on my life not being Hell working for them (at least the me leaving part of it). I hope things get better. But, it is more of a matter of being able to light fires under people's asses. Dev's just end up paying the price since they are at the end of the pipeline. It is exactly like expecting a women to produce a baby in under 9 months. It won't be properly developed and the baby is likely to have many problems because there wasn't enough time to do things right.

The head of the studio talked about EA Spouse. So I know they are listening. But, actions speak louder than words. He sort of made light of it, which to me means he was out of touch with the problem. He needs to take it seriously. We lose too many good devs because of this crap. My project has already lost two, which makes it tougher on the rest of us. Then the whole thing just snowballs and things get worse. Which is definitely not good for the company, shareholders, or profits for which he is the steward.

I was reading The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. It is a very insightful book about the most dominant institution of my time.

Before discussing the book in particular, let's be clear on definitions. An institution is organization that compels people on what they can, can't and must do. Government is an institution. Marriage is an institution. The church is an institution. So is the corporation.

The corporation is driven by one metric: profits for share-holders. The case law for this is setup by Dodge vs. Ford. Shareholders can sue managers that do not pursue profits as their top priority.

This doesn't mean that corporations need to go after consumers in an unenlightened fashion. The best way to really exploit someone is to get to know them a little first. Corporations do the same. They are set up to gain our trust in order to exploit us most.

Another fact is that corporations are only concerned with their own costs, not the total. If there are costs that they can get other parties to pay for, they will pass them on, no matter how high and no matter what said party is able to pay. A corporation, by its very nature will do it. In economic theory, these are known as externalities. An externality is a cost occurred on a third-party that was not taken into account by the transaction. Corporations are driven to make all costs external to transactions.

Of course, the only institution that can deal with the corporation is the government. To a large part, the government has been derelict in its duty to protect its citizens from the exploitive aims of corporations. The government's key role in regulating corporations is to make sure they internalize costs that they cause to society. Deregulation is the equivalent of getting rid of the police. Privatization of schools and social security defeat the whole purpose of having those programs. But the key thing to remember is corporations are not concerned with the public good. They are concerned with maximizing profit no matter what they may claim about caring for people.

All this is argued very effectively in the book. But, the two things that I'd like to discuss. The first is the disconnect between managing companies and shareholders. Managers of established blue-chip corporations do not get there on any type of merit. If George W. Bush were not a Bush there is no way he'd be president. It is much the same with other top executives. There is no expectation that Ken Lay of Enron will ever have the financial concern of a hard-working mother in What Cheer, Iowa. Despite his misdeeds, Ken Lay will never be poor in the way people can be in Iowa.

There is an echelon of people for whom there is no merit for their position. We effectively become socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. The point is that the drive to pursue profits comes not from Mom and Pop shareholders but rather rich, major stake shareholders who are usually the ones running the company. However a significant percentage comes from the masses, and although there total stock is great in number than maybe any single person owns. The power is dilute and nigh impossible to organize. So managing companies have free reign to pay among themselves, what ever they want, to do what ever they want as long as they don't upset the major stake shareholders.

So, the issue may not be from corporations per-se but the culture from which the major stakeholders arise.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that corporations seek to consolidate themselves but isolate their consumers, employees, and critics. The most important tool they have at their disposal is the media. The media is in a sorry state in America. I'm not talking about the sex and violence on television. I'm talking about the general laziness of the news. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative viewpoints. I'm talking about the news being lazy. Crossfire, Larry King, and O'Reilly factor are the best examples. Pundits through out statistics and arguments, but there is substance. No one follows up on the facts and figures. Viewers are left to take arguments on face value. That isn't news. Viewers are not being informed. We need credibility. Calling on two pundits and have them argue over something is not a news program. There has to be some follow-up. Follow-up is hard, so most news programs move on to a new story or invent stories (like the West-Nile Virus).

The press holds an important place in democracy. It must inform. Even the correct course of action given the available evidence can be the wrong thing to do if the evidence is wrong. The press is responsible for coming up with evidence, and they are surely failing.

Well, I'll admit that I'm wrong. North Korea did not set off a nuclear explosion. They set off a huge convential explosion. Their cover story of it being for a hydro-electric dam is fishy. Experts claim that the nearby river is a poor choice for such a dam. The fact remains that it is very near a uranium enrichment facility. Who knows what they are doing.

Moderation: How I moderate

So, I've gotten moderation duty a few times recently. I'd just like to mention how I moderate. I do have an agenda, but I try not to mod things up or down because of it. I do naturally have a view-point. So if someone claims: we invaded Iraq because they have a StarGate, as oppossed to saying: we invaded Iraq for oil. I generally need to see more evidence supporting the claims of the StarGate then for the Oil invasion. Although, I try not to moderate on claims on their face. However, you'd need more links to support the first case (preferably from reputable sources) then the second.

I will automatically mod something down if I see a direct insult of someone else, regardless of the point they made. If something is unmodded, I will generally mod it up if it has a link that is relevant to the story in someway.

Posts that are previously modded up in some way will get modded up by me if they are good English, well-reasoned, provide links to other relevant information, and/or demonstrate a mastery of articles of the story or the underlying issue. 3 is the average post which is above just a mere opinion. 4 is for a good post. 5 is generally reserved for an excellent post.

I try to set my standard so that I feel we'd see a bell shaped curve on most stories of sufficient size. Although, I don't care about the low-end, and the high-end might be scewed a little bit. What I'm saying is that I prefer to use my mod points to mod people from 0-2's then to move people from 4s to 5s or 3s to 4s.

Questions for President Bush

Bill O'Reilly is interviewing President Bush and is soliciting questions. You can e-mail them to oreilly@foxnews.com or something.

On a personal note, I don't much care for Bush. I don't think he's been a good president. He led us into a war in Iraq that I have been against before it even started. I am upset that he turned budget a surplus into budget busting deficeits in less than a year. However, I still consider myself a Republican, so I naturally like some ideas. I like the idea of testing kids although the consequences of taking away the school's funding is too extreme. Why not institute year-long school or impose uniforms?

Well, anyway, I have been trying to think up questions that address issues that concern me. I'm trying to think of questions that are not just veil'd attacks, but rather how he views the world. So here are some examples.

If the American people are safer, when can we expect the Department of Homeland Security to drop the Threat Advisory below "Elevated?"

Obviously America is going to stay the course in Iraq, but when do you foresee Iraq having enough stability for us to withdrawl our troops? How many American and coalition causualities do you foresee by this date? How many innocent Iraqis and insurgent causulaties do you foresee? Did you expect the Iraq invasion to be this difficult? What insights has this war given you that you would use if we conducted a future war conducted against let's say: North Korea, Iran, or Sudan (i.e. what would you do differently)?

What are the victory conditions of the "War on Terror"? For example, if Al Queda was completely destroyed, Bin Laden killed or captured, would the war on terror be won?

How do you plan to reduce the budget deficeit during your next term?

For no child left behind, will you consider alternatives such as having year-round school instead of reducing a school's funding?

I really don't think there will be a snow ball chance in Hell that any of these would make it to the president, but doing nothing is worse. I'm going to have to pick one though.

They had this post on slashdot. Here is the link on CNN. And Here is another from yahoo/AP.

It is pretty clear to me that North Korea did a nuclear test, or botched one. It took place near a known uranium enrichment site. North Korea has been boasting about its nuclear weapons program for years. It took place on an important anniversy to North Korea. Eyewitnesses saw a huge mushroom cloud that was about 2 miles in diameter.

Counter arguments that U.S. officials are listing are poor at best. Powell: There was no indication that was a nuclear event of any kind. Well, I consider a large mushroom cloud to be an indication of a nuclear event. Yes, it could be caused by other factors. But something that large, near a nuclear enrichment plant, gee what could it be? Answer, not a forest fire, which was another U.S. official's response.

South Korea is also being misleading. They are saying that they don't believe it was a nuclear blast. Well, I guess they'll hold that belief until over a 2 mile diameter cloud from a "forest fire" happens over Seoul.

Take with: "Before Yonhap's report, The New York Times' Sunday editions said senior U.S. intelligence officials had seen signs of activities that some analysts thought might indicate North Korea was preparing a nuclear bomb test." We have even more evidence that North Korea was trying to test a nuke. Powell could still be strictly correct, but he is being misleading. Besides, he has loads of credibility after his show and tell at the U.N.

We don't have conclusive proof that it was a nuclear test, but it winds up being the most probable explaination. Although, it is very possible that North Korea botched it. Other counter-explainations end up being speculation, which is admittly what this is. Regardless, I think it is obvious that North Korea is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is important to assume the worse. Pressure North Korea for an explaination. The last thing that America needs is a nuclear arms race in Asia between South Korea, North Korea and Japan.

It is times like these that I wish America still had some credibility to go after countries trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

I was encouraged to write this by the following link: Aethists Are People, Too. While I'm not an aethist, people frequently confuse the two, and lump them together to a group of anti-christian people.

I would like to state that I'm not anti-christian. I'm actually a fan of Jesus Christ, I think that he gives a lot of good advice about how we should act and how we should conduct our lives. I however don't believe in an afterlife. I also don't believe Jesus was a messiah, son of God, Lord and savior, etc. Nor do I think Jesus and the Bible are necessarily the final say when thinking about morality.

There are many reasons to be Christian. However, I choose to live my life according to reason. There are many facts about the world that I'm more sure of than the veracity of the Bible because I experience them, I see them, I understand where they come from and can understand their reasoning. The Bible on the otherhand purports to be a book of truth, that must be accepted on faith even if evidence directly contradicts it. As a stupid example, in order for story of creation to mesh with the fact that we have skeletal remains of dinosaurs many wild and strange arguments have to be made. Such as, maybe God didn't mean 7 days, He meant 7 God days which could be thousands of years. Which I can only reply, if God is a perfect being, wouldn't he have thought of that and been a little bit more explicit. Perhaps, not calling them days in the first place. Another reconciliation is that the story should not be taken literally, which seems to directly contradict the claim that the book should be taken as the one and only truth. I mean, should have God prefaced it by: this should not be taken literally, or this does not match up with things that you'll later dig out of the ground. Or worse, God or Satan chose to place dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us and test our faith. Of which, you'd have to make this claim any time facts did not match up with the Bible (which happens frequently). And it isn't clear why God would want this to happen or why He is so mysterious especially since He will send you to eternal damnation or heaven by his side as a result. I find all of these to be a very tall order. I choose to accept the fact that the Bible was written by human beings trying to explain what they felt their relationship with God was. In the end, that is just an opinion, not truth. I can have no conviction behind that, and I am most displeased when others try to cover up other, better explainations because it doesn't match up with their opinion which has no basis in fact or truth.

The biggest problem I have with religion is that it always requires faith. Or to put it another way you have to be biased. You to come in from the perspective that the Bible, Koran, etc. is right and everything else is wrong. Well, how do you know that? Tracing it back, it comes down to your parents. Babies born in isolation wouldn't spontaneously become Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddists. The bias of what you believe comes from your parents and how you are raised. I don't consider that a sound ground for truth. I want to believe in a morality that is true for all people, not one based solely on how I was raised or who my parents were. So, I reject religion in favor of reason and facts. From facts and reason I try to derive ways of living my life such that I consider everyone my equal (reciprocity) and I leave no one worse off. I also try to help people when I can, but that is a virtue, not a strict requirement of being moral.

So, where does that leave me with God? I don't know. God might be out their watching, but He is not a personal God. Not a God that I know. I don't believe He is embodied in any religion or requires any faith, but I could be wrong. There is much in this world that I can't explain. Where do the rules that govern the universe come from? I don't know. I don't have the capacity or the will to find reason for it all. I exist, I have a will, and this is what I believe. If God intended for me to live my life another way then it was His mistake, for I have a will and I have a choice and this is the decision that I have made. It is the gift that He gave me. If others say that I am going to hell because of the choice I made, so be it. I accept my punishment. Since the ability to choose freely and to do what I know is right in this life is more valuable to me than an eternity in heaven and more than a worthy exchange for an eternal punishment in hell.

There was an interesting take on US foreign policy called What Barry Says. Sorry, the the site is flash based and a little bit quirky, but if you see the video you will see what I'm talking about.

Included in the video are a redefining of War on Terror as defeating opposition to US domination, the term War Corporatism, and the reiterating that US has waged almost a half century of conflict (after Korea) of which I'm sure most Americans are hardly even aware. I'm not talking about the gulf wars I'm talking about how out of the blue we bomb Panama or Libya to shut-up opposition to US interests.

Defeating opposition to US domination is actually what the War on Terror is all about. The September 11th attacks are just a pre-text to pursue a highly agressive foreign policy against countries that oppose US interests.

The reopening of the strategic defense initiative is a long-term to mitigate nuclear ICBMs. SDI has nothing to do with with protecting us for terrrorists. It is about being able to effectively wage war against countries that have already developed nuclear capabilities.

We are looking at the beginnings of World War 3, and America isn't necessarily the good guys in this one.

We are in the midst of War Corporatism. This is directly what Eisenhower warned us about when he said beware of the Military-Industrial complex. We have companies that directly profit from War. So I ask, if you have a company that profits from war and it has been proven that these corporations pursue profit above all else, what agenda will be advocated when elements of these corporations are in the most powerful positions of government?

This is a new-type of fascism that is being home-grown and bred in the US. Not all fascism looks like a bunch of Nazis marching around saluting Adolph Hitler.

Under Bush-Cheney there has been an attempts at unbridled increases in the executive branch powers. While the executive branch may not have total control here in the US. The Bush administration pushes policies such as the Patriot act that trounce on our civil liberties. They attempt to forcibly counter dissent. And, they already subvert our legal system by keeping "terrorists" in places like Abu Gharib or Guantanamo where we have proven that we are not above torture to get what we want, even if it is only to break the will of the prisoners.

What is frustrating is the Bush is not leader. He is merely the likeable figure-head. He listens to his advisors above all else and he doesn't question the advice that he is given. The people around him are the power players.

These wars are paid for with the lives of the poor and the money of our future children. We accumulate debts and effecitively put the war on a credit card or a loan. So, the vast majority of Americans turn out to be for the war for whatever reason or at the very least indifferent. They are willing to accept the most positive spin that the War Corporatists can put on their actions.

All arguments from history are naturally by analogy. So, I ask every American to examine, compare and contrast the rise of Nationalism and Fascism in Europe during the 1930's to what is going on in America today. You are free to disagree and reject, but I plead for you to think about it. And vote your conscience in November.

I was so happy, some one else actually seems to understands the War on Terror also.

Here are some follow-ups. As it turns out, an advisor for the Bush-Cheney campaign wound up in a Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad. What that group is doing personally digusts me. First of all, what Kerry did was a matter of public record for 30 years, they are only challenging it now. Secondly, none of them actually served with John Kerry. Third, they take comments out of context to misrepresent what John Kerry said. There is a nice write-up here for the background about the group. The Bush campagin previously stated that they had no affiliation.

As much as Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" claims not to be a news program. From the segments I've seen from CNN's headline news vs. segments they do on "The Daily Show" about the same topic. "The Daily Show" actually does a better job of giving the viewer the proper context so they can form an opinion about a given news item. For example, when Cheney made attacks against Kerry's remarks about a "sensitive" war. The Daily Show actually ran Kerry saying the word in the sentence which he used it. CNN HL just reported speeches that Cheney made attacking Kerry. "The Daily Show" properly framed the issue. Cheney took one word which was in a litany of others. Then proceeded to take it completely out of context and in what basically boiled-down to Cheney questioning Kerry's masculinity (along social-norms not biological). On the otherhand, CNN HLN did not quote Kerry. They showed Kerry speaking but muted the audio for their voice-over. But, they then showed Cheney giving his speeches attacking Kerry (with audio). "The Daily Show" properly reported the news. I don't know what CNN HL News was doing.

I guess that is what bothers me about the news. There is a lot of talk, and very little content. The News also can manufacture their own controversies by taking things out of context then never really reporting what actually happened. Here is something I wrote about the Gary Barnett controversy.

Reporters wanted to know if she mentioned anything about the rape to the University of Colorado coach, if it had anything to do with her leaving the team, etc. Barnett is like, this is the first time I've heard about it. And she was kicked off the team because she wasn't very good. What got him in real hot water was: Reporter: so, did the other players question her ability? Barnett: Look, Katie was a girl. On top of that, she wasn't very good. She couldn't kick the ball through the uprights...

Barnett honestly answered a question he was asked. It was the media that decided to take those 10secs out of the interview and blow them up like they were the only things that were said. In fact, many news reports cut out the question to make it look like it was some spontaneous outburst. Context is very important. And the media does a poor job at providing sufficient context, hell, I'd settle for any context at all.

The problem with television news is not the biases. I wouldn't mind a slight bias. It is rather that it is so poor at reporting what actually happens. Of course, the rush to be first to report everything doesn't help either.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park) are coming out with a new film, "Team America: World Police." What bothers me is that people treat these guys as relevant social commentators or something. Their social commentary is about as deep as kicking your mother in the cooch and often times less so. I guess it appeals to the young *sigh*

The news around Najaf is really upsetting to me. The fact that militants have taken refuge in a mosque doesn't really bother me. The fact that they are actively fighting from it and using women and children as human shields is what bothers me. It is outright cowardly. In the interest of our troops, we should just bomb it. However, because of the political consequences, we are unwilling to destroy a holy mosque of Islam with women and children inside. The fact that CNN has a reporter inside the mosque further complicates matters.

It is obvious to me that we need to change the Geneva accords. Women and children who willingly put themselves in harm's way need to be classified as combantants, or at the very least not labeled as non-combantants. Otherwise, we are sacrificing our troops and getting labeled as war criminals in order to save our troops. There probably is no way around killing the women and children, but at least our troops wouldn't have to be put on trial afterwards.

The only reason our enemy resort to this tactic is because it is so effective, which makes it alot like terrorism. The "War on Terror" is an unwinnable war, and we will never beat it by beating down other countries, because terrorism, by it's nature is a tactic, not a group or person. We can defeat Osama or Saddam, but there will always be someone new to take their place.

Terrorism will exist so long as it is effective. Terrorism is an effective way for a small group of people can influence major political organizations and international diplomacy. When terrorism ceases to be effective, it will go away. That is what disturbs me about the US reaction to 9/11. We go into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden... fine that is justifiable. We can have an foreign policy that states, if terrorists are hidding in your nation, we will go after them if you are unwilling to. Iraq on the otherhand was just a tie-ing up of a loose end that Bush's father left behind when he was president and has nothing to do with the war on terror and more to do with oil. So the whole push is not about tracking down terrorist anymore, it is about going after enemies. I don't understand how Saddam was ever really our enemy. Sure, he invaded Kuwait, we kicked him out and put international sanctions on his country for the next 10 years and successfully dismantled his weapons programs. How is he our enemy. We are not in a tizzy about China invading Tibet. How is the situation any different besides the fact Tibet doesn't have oil.

We have as much justification to go after Castro as we did Hussein, which is to say none at all.

9/11 was a horrendous act of terrorism. But, the US is really shooting itself in the foot here. If the point of the attack was to destroy the West and our way-of-life, I'm afraid they have been remarkably effective. 9/11 is not effective because of the number of people killed. The number of people killed was tragic, but not earth shattering. How many people die of smoking in this country every year? How many people die in car accidents? How many people are just outright murdered by other Americans? So, 9/11 is not about how many people died but rather the effect. The West dies when it gives up on the values it treasures most. The most important of which are equality and freedom. Terrorism is the greatest challenge that we face. We must face it with bravery. Freedom and liberty have costs, and one of them is we can get hurt or killed by those that abuse those rights. Security is important as far as being diligent and wise to those that may harm you. But, when we get heavy handed and give away our civil liberties in the face of fear, the terrorists have accomplished what they have set out to do. That is how we lose the War on Terror. It is not an external battle, but rather one that is fought within, and we, my friends, are losing.

I always find it bizarre when I hear a veteran of war being for Bush. I realize that military people usually have a certain mindset. And therefore are more likely to vote Republican. Republicans typically fund the military better. They are typically against police actions/nation building. When a Republican leads the nation into war, they usually do so with the full arsenal of United States. This, in general, leads to a greater safety for an American solider. Republicans have a policy of fighting till they win. Which, in a military point of view is good. If your military is unbeaten in war, they have an aura of being invincible. It improves morale of your army and decreases morale of the enemy.

So, at an intellectual level, I can understand why a veteran would vote Republican over Democrat. But, if you look at the actual candidates in this race, it seems to be no contest. For Vietnam, Bush took a rich man's way out and enlisted in the National Guard. He was unaccounted for three weeks. He's never seen combat.

John Kerry won three purple hearts. He's seen combat and had his life on the line. After he did his service, he came back and protested against the war. I really can't think of anything that is more American.

So, I don't understand why Republicans attack Kerry's war record. Kerry did what he was supposed to do. He fought. He had first hand knowledge of what a mistake Vietnam was, came back, and tried to end it. Bush did not fight for this country. He went through a loophole. And, according to reports did not even take his service for the National Guard very seriously. What are Republicans thinking when Kerry's hand is so strong and Bush's so weak on this issue?

In fact, I don't know what Bush supporters are thinking in general. The man has had drug problems, which were far more serious than Clinton's weed usage. He is ultimately a hypocrite anytime he speaks against drugs. Bush is not an intellectual. In fact, I would say he isn't the brightest spoon in the drawer. Every company he has ever run, he has run into the ground. Now, he has done the same with the federal government. We have the largest deficits in history. Even Kerry's plan will take four years to repair the budget. He led us into a war based on faulty intelligence, in response to an attack that said nation had little to nothing to do with. He lied to us when he said we would be greeted as liberators. He failed to build world opinion and commit enough resources to actually secure the nation that we "liberated." He claims that the American "people are safer" while at the same time terror alert levels go up. I'm left to wonder, why the hell do people think this election will even be close? The fact that it sounds like it will be close terrifies me to no end. What does a man have to do to prove that he has been a bad president and no good for this nation?

But, what really floors me: Halliburton lying about profits while Cheney was CEO. I'm flabbergasted.

You know that they make you sign endorsement decrees to attend Cheney's speeches. I don't like how this administration thinks.

This was originally part of a post that I wrote. I took it out because it was off-topic. But, I wrote so much, I couldn't throw it away, so I put it in my journal.

I honestly think Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot. They've committed so many sins in the marketplace that they've ruined the Microsoft Windows ecosystem. In their pursuit to dominate every aspect of the PC software market, they've killed off all their competition. They need 3rd parties developing software for their platform, but software companies are becoming more reluctant because if they are successful, Microsoft will step in and compete and undercut them. Netscape is probably the most visable example. I honestly think that killing Netscape was very bad for Microsoft. Without competition, what drives features? What drives upgrades? Nothing. There is no reasion to innovate. You compete with old versions of your product. You suffer from group think.

Look, they could have sold IE for $30-$40 a pop. Instead, they ship it with the OS, and IE development costs eats into their OS profits. WTF?

I also must state, Ballmer is killing Microsoft. He is too much of a bean counter. He is the typical big company CEO. Shareholders like him because he does safe things to boost profits. But, make no mistake. Microsoft is a shadow of it's former self. I honestly believe Microsoft will be around for a long time. But for the sake of the PC software industry, they need to learn not to kill their competitors. Otherwise, Linux is going to eat them alive. Linux is a healther software ecosystem than Windows right now. Atleast, the ground is more fertile. But Microsoft has had longer to grow. This will change. 3rd party software developers will be attracted to Linux because it is free. They don't have to worry about the OS vendor coming in and killing their product. It is safer all around. The only thing stopping Linux is market share. Which is just a chicken and egg problem at this point. But, Linux will catch up if things don't turn around at Microsoft. Microsoft can't move forward fast enough to outpace Linux. Big companies with nothing to compete against can't do it. Linux will eat them from low-end on up, just like Microsoft did to bigger proprietary computer companies.

I must say I'm a little disappointed with the moderation system. The biggest problem that I see is that most moderators don't mod 1-0 posts up. They mod the 3 or 4 posts up. Which creates this situation where posts either sky-rocket to 5 or linger at 0-2.

Here a couple examples from stories posted yesterday.

Spamassassin Beats CRM-114 In Anti-Spam Shootout

• -1: 19
• 0: 64
• 1: 66
• 2: 96
• 3: 24
• 4: 10
• 5: 25

Building a Better Office

• -1: 9
• 0: 184
• 1: 216
• 2: 253
• 3: 66
• 4: 16
• 5: 52

This is consistent with my own experience. 5's routinely beat out 4's. 5's and 3's are almost equal. And most posts don't make it out of where they start at. This is not the numbers you want from a properly working moderation system. Much more posts need to be modded up. And the posts that need to be modded up are the ones sitting in 0-2 category. And overall, there are too many fives.

Although, what really bothers me the most, is that moderaters with agendas know exactly how this works. I made an unpopular post defending the RIAA suing copyright infringers. I feel the post is well argued and makes for a more meaningful discussion. It got modded up to 3. Then a moderator came along who didn't agree with what I said and modded it down to 2 again. Effectively, killing the post.

I guess the best thing about posting on slashdot is that it allows me to practice argumentative essays. For, if you make a mistake in your argument (and sometimes even if you don't) someone will point it out.

Although, one thing that I could do without is the ad hominem attacks. Someone vaguely accused me of being a cock-sucker. While, it was definitely a zinger. Such an accusation in a post detracts from a useful discussion because it works on other people's prejudices not on facts relevant to the discussion.

The other thing people try to do is point out a fallacy in your argument by using a flaw in their own. A popular one is equivocation. They try to change the meaning of what was said and argue with that (usually with loaded language) rather than the facts or their interpretation. I guess they buy into Homer Simpson's philosophy of: "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." I'm not a big fan of word twisting, and as such I try to choose words carefully to convey exactly what I mean. Still, there are people that no matter how considered the wording will equivocate it to some argument with which they are familiar. Then spout out a bunch of rhetoric which doesn't address any of the points in the original argument. It is like trying to have a meaningful discussion with a parrot. I guess that is the world we live in. Sometimes I just wish we lived in a better one.