tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post115619519900464761..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: Bush's Phantom MenaceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156531469501465622006-08-25T11:44:00.000-07:002006-08-25T11:44:00.000-07:00I've tried to summarize the implications of some r...I've tried to summarize the implications of some recent events: <A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/08/another-loser-of-lebanon-ii-america.html" REL="nofollow">Another Loser of Lebanon II: America </A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156527401643912392006-08-25T10:36:00.000-07:002006-08-25T10:36:00.000-07:00Oh boy...I make typos all the time, Vierotchka, y...Oh boy...I make typos all the time, Vierotchka, you must CRINGE when you read me! LOL LOL <BR/><BR/>Mark: <I>"If the president says it's a planet, you're not allowed to say it isn't"</I><BR/><BR/>Good one! He would love to be able to tell us what to think, wouldn't he? Even though he claims he doesn't care —a subtlety lost on those who do not "do nuance".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156526350878534912006-08-25T10:19:00.000-07:002006-08-25T10:19:00.000-07:00See - I made a typo in my post above - probably be...See - I made a typo in my post above - probably because of the medicine I take for my nerves (physical nerves, not mental/emotional ones)... :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156526235524039092006-08-25T10:17:00.000-07:002006-08-25T10:17:00.000-07:00Mark - No!!! Was that you, Vierotchka?Yes, it was ...Mark - <I>No!!! Was that you, Vierotchka?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it was <A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/07/us-middle-east-policy-blood-soaked.html#c115441995405195287" REL="nofollow">me</A>! :D<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I too have been known to make spelling mistakes, most of which are typos, but not all! I have an immense love for the English language, and whenerver I see it being <A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bastardize" REL="nofollow">bastardized</A>, I cringe...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156523992227835672006-08-25T09:39:00.000-07:002006-08-25T09:39:00.000-07:00Actually, the new criterion is, "If the president ...Actually, the new criterion is, "If the president says it's a planet, you're not allowed to say it isn't"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156523624694262852006-08-25T09:33:00.000-07:002006-08-25T09:33:00.000-07:00Fuzzflash, indeed "Pluto" will be missed...but to ...Fuzzflash, indeed "Pluto" will be missed...but to dismiss its planetary status on the basis of an odd ball orbit seems as arbitrary as the criticism that it is little more than an odd shaped snow ball. <BR/><BR/>Jupiter may be the largest "planet"...but shouldn't REAL planets at least be solid? Unless I missed a new development none of the really big "planets" —Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus —are solid. And, I seem to recall, that one of them, possibly Neptune, is actually brighter than mere reflected light should be. Perhaps they are not planets at all, but failed stars. <BR/><BR/>The new definition is dodgy. The new criterion is that if gravity makes it round, its a planet —solid or no. <BR/><BR/>However, our own Luna is round AND solid. So, it's a planet. <BR/><BR/>Besides —who's to say we don't revolve about the moon rather than the other way 'round? It's all relative, after all. Remove the moon and Earth's orbit will change.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156510696846920302006-08-25T05:58:00.001-07:002006-08-25T05:58:00.001-07:00Vierotchka is right on the mark with regard to the...Vierotchka is right on the mark with regard to the Straits. The Houston Ship Channel,however, is not nearly as wide, and, in fact, an artificial turning basin was constructed to allow ships to turn around. Additionally, "supertankers" cannot even navigate the channel. They off load at "super ports" offshore, as I recall.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156510683885817382006-08-25T05:58:00.000-07:002006-08-25T05:58:00.000-07:00No!!! Was that you, Vierotchka? I hate to make spe...No!!! Was that you, Vierotchka? I hate to make spelling mistakes, but sadly, most people don't notice. <BR/><BR/>Public education is free in North America, and there's no excuse for not being able to spell, but the proliferation of errors in modern English is nearly criminal. I wrote in to my local newspaper not long ago to tell them to stop using the word "snuck" instead of "sneaked", because as soon as you allow something incorrect to gain wide acceptance without comment, it's in the dictionary (as a colloquialism, or something like that). If you're quoting somebody and that's the way they speak, it's OK, but it's a different thing to talk like the trailer park when you are responsible for informing the public.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, your correction served its purpose, and it's a mistake I will never make again! Thanks!!!<BR/><BR/>The Straits of Hormuz are a known strategic liability, and the U.S. Navy (and likely others, but theirs is the principal interest in the region) have detailed plans for clearing the Straits in just such an emergency as described, using demolitions and clearance divers. Still, it's a symbolic threat as well, and any public perception that Iran could close the Straits would likely cause an immediate spike in the price of oil; so, mission accomplished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156499336647594972006-08-25T02:48:00.000-07:002006-08-25T02:48:00.000-07:00Mark - On my first visit here, Len picked me up fo...Mark - <I>On my first visit here, Len picked me up for using "criteria" when the context called for "criterion".</I> - actually, it was me (my first response ever to you!) - but I am flattered that you should confuse Len with me!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous - you're quite right. In fact, we discussed the Strait of Hormuz in the comments of past posts here on the Cowboy - if you are interested, you can find them <A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/07/bush-has-de-stabilized-middle-east.html#c115312267232588325" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-administration-may-have-urged.html#c115454726167062823" REL="nofollow">here</A>. The shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz are indeed very narrow, the rest of the Strait being too shallow save for small fishing boats. You can find a map of the Strait of Hormuz and the shipping lanes <A HREF="http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/hormuz_80.jpg" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and there's a good entry about the Strait of Hormuz in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A> - an excerpt: <I>The strait at its narrowest is 21 miles wide, having two 1 mile wide channels for marine traffic separated by a 2 mile wide buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum exporting Persian Gulf States.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156485254795542632006-08-24T22:54:00.000-07:002006-08-24T22:54:00.000-07:00Re:Straits of Hormuz-If the US invades Iran we wol...Re:Straits of Hormuz-If the US invades Iran we wold be totally blocked.I don't know how wide the strait is or how wide or how deep the the shipping channel is,but a couple of super tanker sunk by Iran would turn the world economy upside down.A sinking of a large barge in the Houston ship channtl plays havoc with the Port of Houston.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156476211383254552006-08-24T20:23:00.000-07:002006-08-24T20:23:00.000-07:00...and you must have known that in Russian, the le......and you must have known that in Russian, the letter "y" represents the sound "oo". That'd make it "Nakasaku".<BR/><BR/>It's fun to pick each other up on trivia like this, because this blog oozes with intelligent folks. I just came from a blog where "abundent" is just one of a host of borderline-illiterate spelling mistakes.<BR/><BR/>On my first visit here, Len picked me up for using "criteria" when the context called for "criterion".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156472675598737712006-08-24T19:24:00.000-07:002006-08-24T19:24:00.000-07:00You're right, Mark! I guess I was in Russian mode....You're right, Mark! I guess I was in Russian mode... oh, and on second looks, the devastation cannot be compared, I must have been in a Russian hyperbolic mode! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156464709856008992006-08-24T17:11:00.000-07:002006-08-24T17:11:00.000-07:00I'm sure Len would want me to point out that's "Na...I'm sure Len would want me to point out that's "Nagasaki", after all the times you catch him in grammatic pecadilloes!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156455315586657492006-08-24T14:35:00.000-07:002006-08-24T14:35:00.000-07:00This reminds me of Hiroshima and Nagasaky, also le...This reminds me of <A HREF="http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/html/world/20060804_MIDEAST_GRAPHIC/index.html" REL="nofollow">Hiroshima and Nagasaky</A>, also levelled by American-made bombs... :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156392454351453172006-08-23T21:07:00.000-07:002006-08-23T21:07:00.000-07:00"We're far away, so we're ok..." I'd never heard o..."We're far away, so we're ok..." I'd never heard of "PKD's" before Mark. But there's the old favourite "don't come the raw prawn" you can say to people who are trying to sell you bullshit. Glad you enjoyed what you did. We are indeed the "lucky country", warm and wealthy and gun free. We've managed to deport almost all of our cringing soapies to the UK (as some sort of payback for the way they sent us out here) but we haven't eradicated them completely from our own screens. Visit again, Mark. You'd be most welcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156391659938202422006-08-23T20:54:00.000-07:002006-08-23T20:54:00.000-07:00I loved Sydney, I visited there in '95 with HMCS V...I loved Sydney, I visited there in '95 with HMCS VANCOUVER. We spent the first weekend at the Garden Island Naval Base, but the following weekend we tied up right across from the Opera House, directly under the Coathanger Bridge. It's a fabulous city, so clean for its size (at least downtown, where I was). <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I didn't get to see much else of Oz, although a few crew members did a bit of a road trip. They came back replete with new Aussieisms, such as "PKD's", which was slang for "Poor Kangaroo Decisions", meaning a dead kangaroo at the roadside.<BR/><BR/>I loved Australia before I ever saw it, from Neville Shute's "A Town Like Alice", one of the best books I ever read when I was younger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156388359157792022006-08-23T19:59:00.000-07:002006-08-23T19:59:00.000-07:00Len, re Adelaide: I lived there for ten years some...Len, re Adelaide: I lived there for ten years some time ago. It's a beautiful city of about a million people stuck on the edge of scrubby land that drifts into the vast Australian desert. They have always had water supply problems. It attracted a lot of German settlers in the gold rushes of the 1850's, along with a number of Scots - all very capable and civilised. And the women are beautiful, Nicole Kidman lookalikes. Nicole herself was born in Hawaii but her father was related to Sir Sydney Kidman, an iconic Adelaide cattleman with holdings 1/3 the size of Texas spread out across the continent. So there's a lot of pastoral history in Adelaide. It's a lovely place but a bit isolated. It has a reputation for conservatism (of the good kind) and as a great place to raise kids. I live closer to Sydney now, but thankfully still in the countryside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156386683706182842006-08-23T19:31:00.000-07:002006-08-23T19:31:00.000-07:00Len:I predict Bush will go down in defeat: 5-4 wit...Len:<BR/><BR/><I>I predict Bush will go down in defeat: 5-4 with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Scalia voting for individual privacy.</I><BR/><BR/>I would side with Mark regarding Chief Justice John Roberts: Roberts is the wild card on this one for his strict interpretation of the constitution. i agree with Len regarding scalia's staunch privacy activism, but i believe this one will prevail the homeland security side of the case, demanding higher scrutiny on American people chatting with their <I>homies</I> in the Middle-east.<BR/><BR/>My prediction, 5-4 against Bush's eavesdropping program with Roberts, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, while<BR/>Scalia will write a dissent just for the hell of it...Sebastien Parmentierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510809227926364827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156382939448968632006-08-23T18:28:00.000-07:002006-08-23T18:28:00.000-07:00Dante: I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge....Dante: <I>I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge.</I><BR/><BR/>And, one day, that very bottle of champagne will be sabered by a band of "revolutionaries" beneath the statue of Voltaire in Ferney! <BR/><BR/>Liberté, égalité, fraternitéAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156382445349430042006-08-23T18:20:00.000-07:002006-08-23T18:20:00.000-07:00Vierotchka, Mark...good comments. Indeed, we are n...Vierotchka, Mark...good comments. Indeed, we are not legally at war. The question is: will the Supremes buy into Bush's argument that greater latitude must be given him because we are "at war". Without going in to detail, I found an interesting chronology of case law that suggests that Bush's measures go far beyond powers that even real war time Presidents have assumed and/or demanded of Congress. The Alien and Sedition Acts of the obvious example but the nation was, in fact, in a real war at the time. As odious as they were, the Patriot Act, arguably, exceeds them. Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams, opposed them; by 1802 they were repealed or had expired.<BR/><BR/>If the case can be made that because the war was begun upon numerous and various frauds, that it was unnecessary, then the case can be made that the war time powers are, likewise, unnecessary and even unconstitutional.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156379454387418232006-08-23T17:30:00.000-07:002006-08-23T17:30:00.000-07:00Vierotchka, you have hit on the weak point (from t...Vierotchka, you have hit on the weak point (from the GOP viewpoint) underpinning the whole case; the validity of the "War on Terror" as a real war.<BR/><BR/>What is a real war? Has it been defined from a legal standpoint? I probably should have looked it up, then I wouldn't need to ask, but I didn't. Anybody know? Does it specifically say there must be an opposing army, or only armed conflict? You can bet it's going to come up - the White House has used variations on the theme (we're at war, this is a nation at war, I am a war president) far too many times to suggest they are just trying out the idea. They've actually done very well at getting it accepted.<BR/><BR/>Now we'll find out if it'll stand up to legal scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, fuzzflash, for the legal blog suggestion, I'm going to check it out right now. It should have occurred to me that, with perhaps the legal case of the decade simmering, legal types would be just as abuzzz as laymen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156373084445335982006-08-23T15:44:00.000-07:002006-08-23T15:44:00.000-07:00Mark, this is not wartime for America - what war? ...Mark, this is not wartime for America - what war? What foreign army is the US army pitted against? An occupation is not a war, and neither is there any official war in Afghanistan - peace-keeping and occupation, however clumsy and agressive, do not qualify as waging war. The so-called "War on Terror"? It's not a war. Unless Bush engages in a real war with Iran, he is not a "War President" at all, the GOP's delusions notwithstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156372673646787612006-08-23T15:37:00.000-07:002006-08-23T15:37:00.000-07:00And then, of course, I reckon the good Justices mi...And then, of course, I reckon the good Justices might be intelligent enough to realize that if they give in to Bush on this one, they saw off the comfortable, cushy and lofty branch they are sitting on. Somehow, I don't see them voluntarily making themselves irrelevant and putting themselves out of the best jobs in the country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156371580684598932006-08-23T15:19:00.000-07:002006-08-23T15:19:00.000-07:00Hey, Len; I hope you're right. Perhaps much of wha...Hey, Len; I hope you're right. Perhaps much of what I've seen (relevant to the weakness of the Taylor decision, constitutionally speaking) has been spin. However, the counter-argument relies heavily (no surprise to you, I'm sure) on the president's powers in wartime.<BR/><BR/>His claim of broad powers in his capacity as Commander-in Chief has largely been accepted, and has permitted him to override whole swatches of constitutional law. I'm not saying it's right - quite the opposite, in fact.<BR/><BR/>This is truly the line in the sand. If the Taylor decision is permitted to stand, the last flimsy screen half-obscuring the fact that the nation's highest executive is a lawbreaker and a criminal will be swept aside. The Emperor will be revealed in his nakedness.<BR/><BR/>If Madame Justice Taylor's argument is bulletproof as you suggest, it won't make it past the Sixth Circuit, and the Supreme Court will never see it. There should be no reason for the Circuit Court to reverse a wholly defensible judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1156369127610453572006-08-23T14:38:00.000-07:002006-08-23T14:38:00.000-07:00Dante, I've often said that Bush seems to be spoil...Dante, I've often said that Bush seems to be spoiling for a Constitutional showdown. It's part of his psychological profile and, of course, he thinks the fix is in. <BR/><BR/>Oddly, however, the wild card may turn out to be Scalia, who has voted FOR privacy in the past. Most notably, he voted against the use of infra-red equipment by cops without "probable cause". "The question we confront today," explained Scalia, "is what limits there are upon [the] power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy." <BR/><BR/>Scalia explained that the Court was making an effort at establishing a rule that would serve to protect Americans' homes from virtual police invasions made possible by a host of high-tech surveillance devices currently on the market, and those yet to come. In a footnote, Scalia briefly outlined some of the new technology that made such a broad rule necessary if the home is to remain a private sanctuary even while Big Brother arms himself with an ever-expanding array of advanced surveillance and policing tools: <BR/><BR/><I>The ability to "see" through walls and other opaque barriers is a clear, and scientifically feasible, goal of law enforcement research and development. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, a program within the United States Department of Justice, features on its <A HREF="http://www.nlectc.org/techproj/" REL="nofollow">Internet Website</A> projects that include a "Radar-Based Through-the-Wall Surveillance System," Handheld Ultrasound Through the Wall Surveillance," and a "Radar Flashlight" that "will enable law enforcement officers to detect individuals through interior building walls." <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Scalia rejected the government's argument that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it was limited to detecting hot and cold areas and thus did not detect private or intimidate activities going on in Mr. Kyllo's home. Scalia drew a firm line at the door to the home: "In the home, our cases show, all details are intimate details, because the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes."<BR/><BR/>That kind of technology coupled with widespread surveillance of phone coversations would, of course, make privacy itself non-existent. Government intrusion would exceed even that envision by George Orwell. <BR/><BR/>If it goes to the Supremes (and it will), I predict Bush will go down in defeat: 5-4 with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Scalia voting for individual privacy. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, every court must take the language and the reasoning of the referring court into account. Despite the right wing spin machine, Judge Taylor's decision is bullet proof.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.com