Category Archives: Politics

Dun…dun dun dun. Politics are dangerous (and so am I).

Jun 20

President Bush at KP: Quotable

Posted on by

"From this campus, every man and woman could see the black smoke rising from the Twin Towers," Bush said. "Within hours, your midshipmen were working side-by-side with the Coast Guard and Marine division of the New York City Fire Department," Bush told the midshipmen seated on a sunny football field at the academy outside New York City.

"Over the next nine days, you moved firefighters and police and emergency response teams into ground zero. You moved tons of food and water supplies. The heroic response to that terrible day showed the spirit of America, and the spirit of this fine academy."

Tags: , ,

Ads by AdGenta.com

Jun 19

North Korean Missiles

Posted on by

I read this article over at Yahoo! a few minutes ago, and all I could focus on was the part that reads:

President Bush briefly discussed the missile test with Russian President Vladimir Putin during an 18-minute phone call the Russian official placed to the American president on Monday. The leaders plan to remain in touch on the missile issue, said Kate Starr, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Do you ever wish you could be a proverbial "fly on the wall" for discussions like that? I do….

…and here’s what I imagine the conversation was like.

President Bush (GB): Hello?
President Putin (VP): Hey, George…it’s Vladimir.
GB: Vlady…how are things over there?
VP: Fine. Listen, this isn’t a social call…
GB: Is this about allofmp3.com again? I’ve already used my connections to have the place raided. They’ve already been….Putin…their place? Ahh? How about that one?
VP: No, not allofmp3.com, for God’s sake. This is about the missiles that Jongy’s about to launch over there in North Korea.
GB: Oh, that. Yeah. Let me guess: you’re worried I’m going to bomb North Korea into the stone age. Oh, wait…they’re already there. Bahahahhahaha…
VP: Seriously, though. Your advisors are going to be fired up about this.
GB: I know. They interrupted my breakfast with the news.
VP: What are your thoughts?
GB: Well, I’ve been pretty clear on this whole thing. Either Jongy gets in line, and stops with the nucelar (sic) weapons routine, or I’m going to turn Trey Parker loose and fund another movie that belittles him.
VP: I don’t think that’s appropriate. They’re our allies, after all.
GB: Look, Vlady. We’ve been through this before. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union was scary. Today, Russia isn’t very scary. I don’t care about your allies, and I don’t care about the price of rice in North Korea. Either he gets in line, or we’ll ensure that he’s…Putin…line.
VP: George, don’t….Bush…me.
GB: That was lame.
VP: Sorry. English is my second language.
GB: Yah, well your English is MY second language, too.
VP: So what are we going to do about North Korea?
GB: I don’t know, exactly. But count on it pissing you off.
VP: Right. I’ve got a meeting with the Russian mafia in ten minutes. Can I call you afterward?
GB: Sure. During the meeting, tell your wife I said ‘hi.’
VP: She hasn’t been involved since…
GB: I know, I know. I’m just kidding.
VP: Okay, I’m going to lose reception here in a second. You know how crappy the hallways in the Kremlin are.
GB: Yah. Don’t worry, it’s not like I’m going to invade North Korea in the next hour.
VP: Really? That’s great news!
GB: Got ya again. Just keep your TV on. Call me if you’ve got a problem with what we decide.
VP: George? Are you there…? George?
GB: Vlady…can you hear me?
VP: George?
GB: You look great in a fur cap.
VP: I heard that.
GB: Later.
VP: (static)

Tags: , , , ,

Ads by AdGenta.com

Apr 06

Trusting the Government

Posted on by

(This story was also published on Newsvine)

I was listening to Security Now earlier today, and Leo Laporte was talking with Steve Gibson about cryptography. It’s a pretty interesting topic, and it carries some fairly heavy "ethical" concerns – as they pointed out in the podcast.

Essentially, both Steve and Leo were strongly against any ability by the government to maneuver around encryption for the sake of "national security." I understand this perspective; it’s in line with Orwell’s predictions in "1984." I think Leo put it succinctly by saying, in justification of NSA snooping, something like "the government is fairly benign now, but we don’t know what it’s going to be like in the future."

They don’t trust the government…and I’ll bet that if you asked ten random people on the street whether or not they trust the government, you’d get more than five (perhaps more) who don’t trust the government either. This isn’t a shocker to me, as you can’t hardly spend any time in the blogosphere without running across some reference to "Big Brother."

Ironically, I was driving across a bridge while I was listening to this podcast. The bridge itself isn’t anything spectacular: most people who drive on it each day probably couldn’t tell you that it was a bridge. In actuality, it’s no more than 25 or 30 feet above the freeway below, and isn’t more than a quarter of a mile long. But as I was listening to this, thinking about whether or not I trust the government, the following occurred to me: would I have driven on this bridge, without hesitating, if I didn’t trust the government?

There’s the line of thought, and it doesn’t stop with bridges. Every day we do things (eat in restaurants, drive on bridges, give money to banks, pay taxes) that require the government’s involvement to ensure our safety and satisfaction. We do most of these things without thinking twice, yet, if the government were to somehow make a mistake, what might the consequences be?

Let’s continue with the bridge example. If the portion of the government that sets architectural/engineering standards for public expressway bridges was staffed – due to the untrustworthy nature of the government – by complete buffoons, it would be conceivable that the bridge might be constructed in an unsafe way. What happens if the bridge fails while I’m driving across it? You can count on the results being far more disastrous to me than some dude in dark shades at the NSA knowing what type of pizza I ordered last night.

Before the rants start filling up the comments section, understand that I recognize the difference between privacy and the "public good." We pay taxes so that things like roads and bridges can be built, so that we know the restaurants we eat in are clean to an acceptable standard, and that when we deposit our money in a bank, we have a legal way to get that money back. But we do those things because we trust that the government is doing what’s in our best interest.

I’m not making an argument for boundless wire tapping or special "backdoors" in encryption schemes, just pointing out what I perceive to be a particularly ironic stance on governmental trust.

Let the flaming begin.

free speech, encryption, wire tapping, government, privacy, security now

Ads by AdGenta.com

Feb 18

Cartoons, murder, mayhem…

Posted on by

I’ve been extremely reticent to address the recent protests and riots that have emerged in response to the cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper several months ago. I’ve been hesitant for a few reasons:

  1. I wasn’t entirely sure what the cartoons actually depicted
  2. My initial tendency is to side with free speech, regardless of who’s “insulted”
  3. It’s already been shown that publishing the cartoons results in death threats, and general denouncement by numerous Muslim leaders
  4. I don’t have any particular desire to ignite a conservative/liberal debate here, because American politics simply aren’t involved

Well, I’ve changed my mind. After reading about the rioting in Nigeria today, and the subsequent attack on Christians, I’m too disturbed to keep my proverbial mouth shut.

I agree that some of the cartoons, as published, are potentially offensive – particularly if you hold Mohammed in high regard. As a Catholic, I’ve found several artistic depictions of Christ to be in poor taste over the years. That being said, I’d never propose that a privately-held institution doesn’t retain the right, through free speech, to print or publish such depictions. As an individual, it’s my right not to patron said institutions.

So it’s fairly obvious by now that I think the Danish newspaper was well within its rights to publish the depictions of Mohammed, as much as they might displease Muslims.

The irony of the whole situation here is that the very “attributes” of Mohammed that are considered offensive (rejecting suicide bombers in heaven because there are “no virgins left,” his violent nature, his association with terrorism and unlawfulness) come as the result of some very strongly perceived stereotypes. I’m not prepared to speak on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace, but I can say with certainty that it’s not perceived as such…by the majority of non-Muslims.

There is no question that suicide missions are carried out in the name of Islam every day. Nobody wonders whether or not many Muslims hate Jews; they know it. The word “infidel” was only used in cartoons, until Muslim extremists started getting frontpage press. And now, Muslims are burning Christians alive because they’re angered by these cartoons.

Don’t you get it, guys? Non-Muslims around the world would be far more likely to write off the cartoons as useless dribble, if you didn’t insist on proving them right. Boycotts, demonstrations, letters, posters…that’s all fine. It’s an overreaction, in my opinion, but it’s fine. When you start killing people because they’re affiliated with a faith other than yours….you’ve just added validity to every aspect of the cartoons that you’re protesting.

If it upsets you that Mohammed was portrayed as a violent dude with a machete (presumably because he wasn’t that..?), then why bust out your machetes to cut down people who might agree?

I sincerely hope I’m overreacting, because I’m concerned that this is yet another step toward an all-out war between Muslims and everyone else. We’re all infidels, it would seem…and if it’s a Muslim’s duty to eradicate infidels, this is going to get ugly.

My thoughts and prayers are with those families, across the globe, whose lives are being turned upside down because of the artistic opinions of twelve Danes. After all – the people beating down your door, occupying your streets, dowsing your body in gasoline and lighting you on fire…they were insulted by some cartoons in a newspaper.

Just remember that.

Jan 25

Race and Coaching: Can We Move On?

Posted on by

Every morning, immediately after I have my breakfast, I head to a small, quiet room (with tile floors, a sink, a shower, etc.) with my 9300 Communicator to read the latest news stories on ESPN. Most mornings, I scroll through the articles without much reaction. Football’s football, and my predictions and perspectives almost always vary from the next guy’s. But today, Michael Smith (of ESPN) actually got me riled up; and being riled up on the john is not only unpleasant, but potentially unsafe.

So, Michael Smith, you’re the target of my first “rant” in an awfully long while.

Since I read your article on the race of coaches in the NFL on my 9300, and I don’t have pictures enabled by default, I didn’t have any idea what you look like. In fact, it wasn’t until I dashed to my desktop to begin writing THIS, that I saw your picture, and realized that you’re African American. Immediately, I began to wonder if you didn’t secretly bid for a coaching position with one of these teams, and your rejection was the underlying motivation for the article…I was hoping that was the case, anyway.

When are you people (disclaimer: “you people” refers to you people in the media, not you African Americans) going to stop using the race card as leverage for the front page? The NFL’s policy on minority coaches is fine; I don’t have a problem requiring teams to interview minorities before making decisions. Sure, I think it could be a little more sweeping to be fair to guys like…I dunno…me. Why don’t I get a shot at interviewing with each team? Nevermind, this is going off-topic.

I understand the league’s requirements for interviews, and while I’d find it extremely insulting if I were an African American coach, I’m not. It’s fine. What’s not fine is that you’ve decided to keep score of the number of minority coaches being hired, and evaluating the league’s “performance” from that metric. Here’s my favorite quote from your article:

Minority coaches haven’t gone oh-for-eight on the open job market but rather oh-for-one eight times. The NFL’s not adding to its embarrassingly small roster of minority head coaches was not so much one company hiring eight white men for the same level job. It was more like eight individual corporations each selecting one white man over several worthy candidates, both white and black, for one position.

Michael, I’m confused. Your articles aren’t riddled with grammatical mistakes, you work as a writer for ESPN…aren’t we to assume some semblance of intelligent thought goes into your articles? I recognize that my sarcasm doesn’t do much to prove my point, so here’s a question whose answer will prove my point.

How many white runningbacks are there in the NFL?

Quick, now. You’re about to say Mike Alstott…but he doesn’t do all that much running. I’m waiting. Okay, how about this one instead then…

How many white wide receivers are there in the NFL? You’ll be able to come up with a few more this time, no doubt. But I’ll bet the percentage is lower than that of African American coaches to white coaches. Reason? MERIT. MERIT. MERIT. And yet, I haven’t run across an article from Pasquarelli, complaining that too few white athletes have been given a chance. Well, that being said, why would he? The NFL doesn’t have a policy for THAT.

Here’s another gem from your article:

Look, if you dropped the names of the 10 most qualified assistant coaches in a hat and each team drew, at the very least a few of them would come up with a minority. But it isn’t that simple. We don’t live in a meritocracy. There’s a network in place that, unfortunately, most minorities aren’t plugged into.

Okay, you work for ESPN. You’ve got every sports stat from the beginning of time at your very finger tips, so I’m going to put this burden back on you. Compile a list of statistics to justify your “most qualified assistant coaches,” compare them to similar statistics for coaches who were hired instead, and back up your argument with some fact. Unfortunately, in today’s day and age, I’m about as quick to cite racial discrimination as causation for someone’s unemployment as I am to apply for a head coaching job in the NFL (I’m not planning on applying for a head coaching job).

So now the underlying problem here. By writing the article that you did, you effectively precluded any responsible discussion on the topic; no white guy wants to argue – especially with a black man – about racial discrimination, lest they be labeled a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body. Not one. But I like to think that the majority of my bones try to act in a logical way, so I’ll take the criticism.

I want the best coach running my Chargers. If it turns out that that coach is African American, Mexican, or Asian…awesome. I couldn’t care less. I just want to win.

Oh, and in closing: if I were Asian or Mexican, I’d be super pissed. Not only do I not have adequate representation in NFL coaching positions, but I don’t even have a writer representing my personal interests on ESPN.