29 December 2006

29 December 2006, a sunny Friday, balmy and breezy

So now they're saying Saddam won't see 2007, how interesting. I guess they're anxious to see him go. I predict a brief spurt of violence followed by increasing calm. If that doesn't happen then something bad should happen to Sadr. I thought I remembered, way back somewhere, that the courts had already wanted to try him for murder, anyhow. Maybe it's time to simply arrest him for trial on that charge, let his militia rise up in protest and then use that as the excuse, restoring calm, to wipe them out?

The Kurds do have a point, however, wanting to see him on trial for his genocide against them. Not a bad idea, then it wouldn't be simply the Shia executing a Sunni for murdering Shia. On the other hand, then the other aggrieved parties would step up to complain and Saddam would be on trial forever.

On yet another hand, that isn't completely a bad idea…at least the people who keep saying that Iraq was better off under Saddam would get their noses rubbed in it for a long time, until perhaps maybe even they couldn't stand the smell of him.

I see that others are complaining that he shouldn't be executed during the time of holy pilgrimage now taking place. Of course, there's no logic in that because he'll be going to paradise at an appropriate time, right? The ultimate holy pilgrimage.

F.D.A. Tentatively Declares Food From Cloned Animals to Be Safe

Here, Alphonse, have a bite. No, no, my dear Gaston, after you.

Another Snowstorm Pounds Colorado

Sunny and 78, here, birds singing, light breeze stirring the trees. Sorry about that, you guys.

Here's why Lieberman is the smartest senator we have:

I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. (EA)

My only difference would be with the way that he put the larger war emerging in the present tense. It's our understanding, finally, that the larger war has been emerging for some time now, we just have been extremely slow catching on. The events of 9/11 finally got some attention, but the war had been going on for decades by that time. Hardly anyone knew that before 9/11 (maybe only the neocons), about ¼ of Americans have discovered it since then, but I don't think it has sunk in for the majority. Yet.

Interestingly enough, the front page contains news of bombings and killings all around the world, every day, but all we focus on is Iraq. I have difficulty understanding why so many people can't see any connection. They can accept all of the unconnected remnants of the evolutionary theory but they cannot see relationships here?

This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

The other difficulty I have is why so many Americans either did not read or did not believe the al Qaeda messages which said, plainly and in so many words, that this was precisely their goal, to cause a civil war in Iraq.

I don't know how many people I've read who shrug their shoulders and say "well, those people over there are like that", as fine an example of racial prejudice as you could hope to see stated by anyone. The Sunni and Shia have had their religious differences for many generations, but they also live together in quite a number of countries without causing a civil war to erupt in each of them, or genocide committed on the weaker by the stronger party, and they both manage to attend Mecca together. No, the civil war in Iraq is being deliberately provoked by people who intend to profit by it.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.

In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."

There goes the "it's all Bush's idea" argument.

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region.

I find it hard to believe how clearly Lieberman sees these things! Our enemies understand what it is that they want, we still don't quite get it. You can also guarantee that our loss in Iraq would free Iran to touch off their bomb with a sense of impunity.

But Israel would also know that, so I think they'd strike first.

In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.

I like the way he puts it. Americans need to recognize that this is in our strategic interest, that this is more than the morality of simply being good guys doing nice things like spreading freedom and democracy, which perhaps a lot of Americans don't really feel is necessarily our obligation anyhow. Maybe too many think that they have theirs, it's up to the other guy to get his own. Not my problem, mon.

They need to be shown that is in their best interests to do this. The problem is, as Lieberman points out, this is a long-term concept and this type of American thinks only short-term.

That is maybe the biggest advantage our Islamist enemies have over us: they naturally and normally think in much longer terms than Americans do.

Speaking of the really-longer term, Cal Thomas with some interesting ideas about atheism:

I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please

A good point. I know some atheists who assure me that they are just as "moral" as believers, maybe even more so because they can never be hypocrites, a very good argument, but it's less clear what they mean by acting morally. Treating others the same way they would like the others to treat themselves? (This at least contains within it the element of self-interest.) Not killing others, or coveting their wives? Not stealing? All of those moral ideas originate in statements of religious faith, don't they?

What atheist has come up with a completely new and original moral concept?

I'm not saying this to put down atheists, I think it's a valid question. I personally do not care if people are atheists or Methodists, that's their business, I feel no urge to "save" anyone's soul, although I suppose that might be considered to be the obligation of a truly "moral" person. Which means I'm not one, to nobody's surprise.

And, of course, I consider atheism to also be on the religious spectrum, it's just as the far left end. It's as much an act of faith not to believe as it is to believe because it also accepts the idea that there is no physical proof or logical argument, merely an unsupported belief. One might argue that the only truly rational person, therefore, is the agnostic.

Speaking of puzzling things…

The surging euro is confounding critics who once doubted it could rival the dollar, pound and yen - but Europe's shared currency still annoys some consumers five years after its introduction in cash form.

In 2006, it has surged in value, rising nearly 14 percent to 20-month highs and is about three or four cents off its all-time high of $1.36 in December 2004. It's a strong turnaround from an initial plunge to as low as 82 cents in 2000.

"When it first started - and even before it hit markets properly, everyone was very skeptical and negative on the whole thing, and that's exactly the performance we saw," said David Jones, chief currency analyst for CMC Markets. "That initial negative view is history now," Jones said. "The euro is seen as a strong global currency now."

I can accept the fact, but why is this so? The economic fundamentals underlying the euro are not that hot, as even this article acknowledges:

Having a single currency hasn't closed the growth gap between Europe - where one or two percent annual growth constitutes an upswing - and more dynamic economies in the United States and Asia.

And, as even the "surging" item notes, from December 2004 to December 2006 it's still down three or four cents. And I chuckled at this line:

On Thursday, the Emirates' central bank governor said the dollar's weakness is prodding his country to convert 8 percent of its foreign exchange reserves into euros. About 98 percent of the Emirates' nearly $25 billion currency reserves are in dollars. That may decline to 90 percent in six to nine months if the bank's directors approve the switch as is expected, Central Bank governor Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said.

Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business, said the dollar's supremacy, while vibrant, could suffer because of larger U.S. trade deficits...

But if we weren't buying oil from the Emirates we could eliminate the trade deficit, at which point they'd like their dollars...except we wouldn't be buying from them any more.

Ah, here it is:

"The euro is the prime candidate for diversification," he said, but added that Europe's struggles to maintain single-digit growth and high unemployment rates would keep the euro from supplanting the dollar as the primary reserve currency.

"Moreover, Europe's trade problems with China, and trade deficits, will grow in the years ahead, casting some doubt on the euro's long-term strength relative to the dollar," Morici said. "Picking the euro over the dollar or vice versa comes down to picking which currency will be stronger two and five years from now. That is a difficult choice to make."

Leaving me back at my original question: what's holding it up today? Europe considers 1-2% growth an UPswing. Still, two years and not yet back up to the former high is not exactly growth during that period.

On a serious note, I loved this AP headline:

TV Tastes Often Differ In The Same House

That's headline news? Here's another AP headline:

'For better or for worse' takes a lot of work

I guess they are reduced to this after being caught faking disaster news in Iraq.

The U.S. Army is studying a number of options for surging troops into Iraq if President Bush picks that approach as his centerpiece for a new war strategy, military officials said yesterday.

Geez, Louise. Look, guys, it ain't rocket science…wait a minute, yes it is. Every non-uniformed guy you see carrying around a rocket launcher, or any other weapon: shoot him dead. No uniform, carrying weapons, dead. Period. That would solve 90% of the problem.

After that you consider shooting half of the Iraqis wearing uniforms.

On the Costa Rica home front (for friends and family)…

I love sitting up here in my second-story northeast corner, looking out at the approaching weather. I'm getting pretty good at short-term weather prediction. There are some low bluffs about ten miles away, another sixty miles or so to the Caribbean…where the clouds start forming. When the bluffs disappear from view my next marker is a tall tree about a mile or so away. When that disappears from view, batten down the hatches. (Only David knows what that means, probably. Maybe not…did they still use battens in your day, Davy?)

These storms are brief, but intense. Getting the doors and windows closed in time can be a race if you haven't been paying attention…it doesn't take a lot of water to spread a long way on a flat tile floor, and these rains dump a LOT of water in only minutes, even seconds.

As I told David, I'm also a pretty good long-term weather predictor, too. Either it will rain, or it won't. Or both. Sorry, I'm being too passive, I now realize: it WILL rain, and then it WILL NOT. Want more? It WILL NOT snow.

Big party scheduled for tonight with our newest friends…in fact, we haven't even met Robert yet, other than over the phone. Robert and Louis moved here from Montana, bought a home they are renovating just outside of El Tanque, about ten minutes from here to their house, they have dogs and cats, both, and that's about all we know so far except that they seem like really nice guys and I think, even on such short notice, that we are going to become good friends.

I get by on my Spanish, although I seriously have to start working on it now, with Tony, and I have several English-speaking Tico friends, but it's actually a relief--that's the appropriate word--to be able to speak English with two native English-speakers and not have to try to figure out what every word means.

Back to the unreal world…Wes Pruden on Bob Woodward, whom he calls 'Mortuary Bob':

Only yesterday, with Gerald Ford's body having barely assumed room temperature, Mortuary Bob scrounged the tapes and notes from a two-year-old interview in which Mr. Ford delivered remarks that -- would you believe? -- sound as if seized from the morning's headlines about how bad George W. Bush's war is going in Iraq. Mr. Ford, in Mortuary Bob's telling of it, makes exactly the arguments that Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and the usual giggle of Democratic critics make of the Republican president. What a wee world, where coincidences occur with convenient precision and regularity.
Donald Rumsfeld, the newly deposed defense chief, and Dick Cheney, the sharpshooting vice president, made "a big mistake" in going to war in Iraq. "They put an emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," the late former president is said to have said. "And now, I've never said publicly I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
Mortuary Bob says Mr. Ford didn't at all like the idea of trying to spread democracy, of trying to drag reluctant Muslims into a more recent century, a notion which -- here comes another one of those happy coincidences -- neither Mr. Bob nor his friends like, either.

No graveyard is safe when Mortuary Bob is on the prowl. But nobody gets exclusive interviews with the newly dead quite like he does, and none of his graveyard subjects has ever claimed to have been misquoted.
Nevertheless, there's a footnote to Mortuary Bob's latest scoop(ful) from the region of rigor mortis. Tom DeFrank, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Daily News and a Ford friend of many years standing, interviewed the 38th president only last May and Mr. Ford said he had told President Bush just this year that he did, too, support the war in Iraq. His quibble was that he thought Mr. Bush should have made bringing down Saddam the reason for going to war.
"Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him," Mr. Ford told the Daily News. "But we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?" (EA)

You have to hand it to the anti-WMD people, they've convinced a surprising number of people that WMD were the only reason we went to war in Iraq, and they've further managed to imply that nuclear weapons are the only ones which count as WMD.

But the congressional Joint Resolution listed a lot more reasons than WMD, and Bad Saddam was one of them.

And how odd would it be to have avoided all mention of WMD when the United Nations had reeled off a dozen or more Resolutions against Iraq which concerned WMD? The United Nations complains a dozen times and Bush isn't even supposed to notice? Come on.

Best line:

But just you wait, Bob, your turn is coming.

Diana West on the problem we face with freedom of speech:

…the Year of Shutting Up probably began back in September when Pope Benedict famously argued that the practice of forced conversion — key to Islamic expansion over the centuries — is inimical to both faith and reason. The eruption of anger among Muslims at such criticism was instantaneous and severe. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed. Basically, the pope did exactly that.
    At the time, Daniel Pipes explained why placating such anger with silence was dangerous for the West: "The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."
    Mr. Pipes' language — "shariah norms in the West," "the imposition of an Islamic order" — evokes a potential transformation of our culture that is nothing short of revolutionary. Our elites seem not to have the slightest clue how devastating such a change, which comes under the rubric of Islamization, would be to our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that they don't know the difference between "an Islamic order" and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization — or even that there is a difference.
    There are exceptions. In November, there was Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, who stood up for constituents' free speech under CAIR pressure. Now Rep. Virgil Goode, Virginia Republican, has become both the lone standard-bearer of free speech about Islam and the favorite whipping boy of the PC elites. In a letter to constituents about the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, to use a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Goode expressed what I take to be his recognition that the laws of Islam — which prohibit religious freedom, freedom of speech and conscience, equality before the law and women's rights — do not augment but rather contravene the founding principles of the United States.
    He also wrote: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." It's difficult to argue with Mr. Goode's logic. Indeed, the test case of the age — Europe — demonstrates that Islamic immigration brings Islamic law, which is demonstrably at odds with American values and beliefs.

It's not a matter of us trying to shut them up, but them insisting that we do.

Good line, especially today, by American Spectator's "Enemy Central":

All things considered, 2006 wasn't a bad year. Sure, the GOP lost a few seats, but it held on to the one that mattered, Joe Lieberman's.

Very true.

Jed Babbin was pretty hard to beat, himself!

All right, all right. Calm down. Yes, it's New Year's Eve again. So what's the big deal? Read the calendar, pilgrim. No matter how fervently Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann might wish it to be, next year isn't 2008. I almost wish it were. The Christmas Eve edition of the Washington Post gave us two headlines that I wish could reappear same time next year. One was Vichy John Kerry's op-ed entitled, "The case for flip-flopping." The second was, "Monica Lewinsky flashes her intellect." Those will be mighty hard to beat.

These guys do make me laugh, I have to admit.

Well, maybe not. If last week's presidential wannabe polls could repeat themselves in, say, late December 2007, we'd be laughing so hard we'd probably not be able to breathe. Last week's polls showed Hillary running fourth to Baby Obama in Iowa and in a dead heat with him in New Hampshire (and only a few points ahead of the Breck Girl, John Edwards). Who among us wouldn't have paid big money to have been in the room when she found out?

He's got me gasping just thinking about it!

Just the same, I think his Bush criticism is right on target:

Our president, still talking about democracy in Iraq, seems to have lost his compass and no matter how many half-Bakered "study groups" opine, there's still one and only one way to end this war. Someone needs to get Dubya to write this on a bulletin board 100 times: Peace is not about processes. It's about winners and losers, and until each belligerent is in one category or the other, the war ain't over.

If you read around widely enough, the general (no pun intended) consensus is that we really haven't FOUGHT this war as a WAR, we've tried from the beginning not to damage any infrastructure or injure any civilians or even lose the lives of very many American troops, the latter a nice idea but one that can be improved upon by using Costa Rica's technique: don't have any troops in the first place.

This works for Costa Rica because if Nicaragua invades (other than via the semi-peaceful illegal immigrant method now being used) we are counting on the U.S. to send troops to defend us. If the U.S. had no army, I suppose they could always rely on the U.N. for protection..

More Costa Rica stuff.

Very interesting evening, at a minimum. There were three children, after all, and we could have brought Tony, but it was just as well to have a night off on our part. Dr Randall's wife couldn't come for some reason. The couple from San Jose were intriguing...he sells real estate out of Casa Canada, an organization that works with expats, and his lady friend (relationship uncertain) was from the San Jose area, spoke moderate English. Dr Randall's brother was there, speaks no English, as did another lady who lives in La Fortuna and came with her daughter, I have no idea why or what relationship she was to any of the group.

I spent some time with Robert, who hates Bush. I didn't even breathe politics, but I longed to tell him that I admired his principles: he said he sold his house and moved out of the United States the day Bush was re-elected. I have to admire him, because so many phonies said they were going to do that but did not when the time came. You don't have to agree with someone in order to admire a principled stand. He put his money where his mouth was, that wins points with me.

I never did get to find out why they picked Costa Rica and, even more interesting to me, why El Tanque of all places. That always fascinated me, all of my real estate career...why this particular house in this particular spot? One of our "in" sayings is that there is a buyer for every house and a house for every buyer, the trick is matching them up in the least amount of time. This is where the art comes into the business, it's the part I really enjoyed the most.

First of all you listen. You ask the buyers to tell you what it is they are seeking. They tell you. Another saying in the real estate business is "buyers are liars". This isn't true, really, what happens is that buyers have difficulty articulating exactly what they want. They use words but you have to translate them into emotions in order to figure out what they mean...except you've just met the people and you don't know them well enough to translate very well. This, in a nutshell, is what being a good Realtor is all about.

Vibes, you might say. It’s all about vibes.

For instance, there are a lot of places I might pick to live in Costa Rica, but their house would never be one of them. Of all the choices they had, why this one?

No, I'm not living in a place I would have chosen, but circumstances played differently here. We intentionally bought a temporary house because we couldn't find a rental and this was an alternative we intended to sell after it had fulfilled its purpose. I expected to live here no more than a year, at most. But Robert and Louis obviously bought their place on purpose, so I'd like to know why? Down deep I guess part of me remains in the residential real estate business.

If I didn't live here, in La Fortuna, where else in Costa Rica would I live? I liked a little town up on the side of Volcán Irazu, between Cartago and Turrialba. It was up in the hills, with a great view, clean air, and off the main road. One hour to the Caribbean, one hour to San Jose, maybe less each way. Turrialba was a nice small/large city.

There's one spot on the Caribbean coast that I like, only one, but the drawback is that it rains there A LOT. And it has problems with drugs. But it's a pretty place, great ocean views, nice surf. It's a strong 'maybe' place, but I think the cons slightly outweigh the pros in my ledger.

So what made El Tanque right for these guys?

late night final

Saddam is dead, Carol announced from the tv set. I guess they were serous about it, after all. Now we see what happens next.

After they figure out what to do with his body. I thought the tradition was to bury these guys in unmarked graves out in the desert, but I guess not.

Why not put it on e-Bay?

Somebody in California would buy it and build a theme park around it, debasing him more effectively than anyone else possibly could.

He was 69. I've reached the age where I carefully note the people who have died younger than I am.

Actually, to be sober for a moment, I think my own father finally died partly because he had outlived all of his friends. Sure, he still had us, and Tony, but that's not quite the same as having your contemporaries still around. After a long life, friends can even become more important than family. Like they say, you choose your friends but not your family. In the end I have the feeling that my father simply didn't see any point to sticking around any longer, everything was too much work for him.

Still, I think the hardest thing in life is losing one of your children. I don't think my father ever recovered from losing my sister to leukemia, and losing my step-son John to a motorcycle accident was a trauma from which his mother and I have never fully recovered and never will. Your children simply are not 'supposed' to die before you do, it's not in the intended order of things.

Saddam probably little understood the thoughts his death would bring from some of us.