Here's an analysis of the growing political divide between Europe and America. The article suggests that it's because an increasingly secular Europe is wary of Bush's fundamentalist Christianity.

One point raised by the article is that Bush's supporters like his "moral clarity." Isn't that just another way of saying that he knows what he believes and is free of doubt? Wasn't that also true of a number of the 20^th century's least-fondly-remembered leaders? I'm not saying Bush shares anything more than "moral clarity" with Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin or Pol Pot, but even so, I think a case could be made that "moral clarity" can be bad.

On the other hand, "moral clarity" goes a long way to explain why conservative views are more attractive to less-educated folks, even though conservative politicians consistently screw them over. The conservatives have black and white, good-versus-evil kind of views - which are easy to understand - while liberals hold complicated views and admit uncertainty. Simpler views are easier to express simply. Many people have made similar points, so I won't run it into the ground.

Simplicity and clear vision are excellent. As in science, the simplest workable solution is the most desirable. Note the keyword "workable." I do think the Left/Liberals/okay, Democrats would do well to focus on reaching some consensus on basic issues and distilling those ideas to their essense, rather than what I see them doing: focusing on which positions are popular enough to win them the next election. And, of course, sniping at the opposition.

Politicians, what are ya gonna do?

Posted by Me at 10:27 link

Here's an article I found fascinating, about a study into the psychology of suicide bombers.

Surprisingly, hybrid cars are apparently a lot greener than fuel-cell cars, and will be for some time, according to scientists at MIT.

Combine Bush's speech, increased air patrols over Iraq, and this interesting tidbit - and what you get is a heavily pregnant pause.

And this, of course. Do read paragraph 9, though, where 1981 prices are translated to today's figures. Truly amazing that we bitch so much.

Posted by Me at 02:03 link

Nook-u-lar Evildoers, please stand by

Bush wants a multilateral solution to the North Korea situation. I couldn't agree more, but it leaves me scratching my head.

The Korean situation is complicated, more so even than it appears. Here's an overview analysis by the US Dept. of Energy (compiled in Oct. 2002).

Here's the deal as I understand it:

In 1994, the US and North Korea signed an agreement, the gist of which is that they would shut down their graphite technology nuclear power plant and, in return, we would lift some economic sanctions and build them two light-water nuclear power plants.¹ The plants were to have been completed in 2003, but by fall 2002, delays had pushed that back to 2008. Meanwhile, the country had a vastly inadequate electricity supply which prevented economic growth (among other problems).

• North Korea's position is that we promised to build the power plants and haven't delivered. Pyongyang believes the delays are intentional and claim they've restarted the graphite reactor in desperation, having no practical alternative means of generating the electricity they need.
  
• The US position is that North Korea's real intent in restarting the graphite reactor is to manufacture plutonium for atomic weapons.
  

It's wise for leaders to tread lightly. North Korea, while a small and extremely poor country, has a large army and modern weapons. The North Korean society is engineered to support war. If war breaks out, the North will inflict massive damage on the South before they can be stopped. They could also launch a number of missiles, not only at Seoul (and other civilian and military targets in the South), but also at their bitter enemy, Japan, and possibly even at the US West Coast. And, as if this point hasn't been made enough, they might have one or two Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons already.

In a prolonged conflict, the richer and better-connected South will inevitably prevail, but at a high cost in lives and money. The US, South Korea's longtime ally, could also suffer militarily and economically, but South Korea will be devastated. That's why it's only right that Seoul should take the diplomatic lead on this one. Still, I'm amazed that the White House has the good sense to permit that.

Of course, Bush hasn't done all that well. Many Koreans, on both sides of the DMZ, blame Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" crack for creating the tension necessary to generate this new crisis. The people of the South don't view the people of the North as faceless evildoers, but rather as their impoverished brethren (in fact, many Korean extended families are separated by the 50-year-old conflict). Before things started going sour again, North and South had made significant steps toward reunification. Conversely, many South Koreans have for some time been less than thrilled about the large US military presence in their country.

The real reason Bush wants a multilateral Korea solution may be no more complicated than the fact that Pyonyang wants a bilateral solution. Or maybe he wants to fight only one unnecessary war at a time. Then again, maybe Bush is secretly a genius - maybe he really does want a new Korean war, and he realizes that whatever he speaks out for, the rest of the world will line up against. (Like in the "South Park Flag" episode of South Park, where Jimbo and Ed convince the KKK to support the other side of the argument). Hmm...

When I have time, I'll update this post with links to supporting news and reference sources. For now, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Posted by Me at 01:55 link

Here's some encouraging news. And here's some more. And this is certainly welcome news.

And then there's this. Paranoia or just previously-untold truth? If it's true, the Administration should have just come out and tried to sell it honestly - I think they would have been more successful. Thank God they're not that smart, I guess.

* A "yellow dog" Democrat would blindly support anyone - even a yellow dog - running on the Democrat ticket. Be smart - vote the issues.

Posted by Me at 20:58 link

Here's adopt-a-soldier, a way to offer moral support to someone deployed to the Middle East, as featured in this article on ABC News. Whatever your feelings on the war, this is a way to show that you care about US soldiers. Remember, these kids (most are under 25), didn't start the war - they'll just have to fight it. Many of them oppose the war, and all of them are separated from their friends and family, a long way from home.

Posted by Me at 09:33 link

It has been brought to my attention that I have yet to post one single entry about mountains. Truth is, I haven't been to the mountains since right after New Year's. (gasp!) Part of that has to do with schedule, part of it with money and part of it with my ever-expanding butt. Can't blame the dogs, they're always ready. But I is a poor college student whose sole income right now is a part-time job which has been demanding an increasingly smaller part of my time. So, instead of going to Shining Rock or Mitchell or Grandfather, I've been going to the gym, or to the park, or riding my nordic track, which is actually outstanding exercise. And the with computer hooked up to the stereo, it's a pretty cool setup.

But nothing compared to a day in the snowy mountain woods. The worst part is that this has been the wintriest winter in a long time. I could have snowshoed and cross-country skied right here in NC. Well, the winter's not over, so I may still get to do that.

And this weekend I'll be in upstate New York. Maybe the Adirondacks, or if the weather's just too harsh, maybe the Catskills instead. Or the Berkshires. We shall see. But rest assured, I shall hop a misty mountain 'ere the Ides of March arrives.

And I'll blab all about it. Promise.

Posted by Me at 14:30 link

This is long overdue, and even now it still seems pretty half-hearted.

Give it up - Bubba wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway. The Republicans have the Guns, God and Goobers vote all sewn up, and doing something (dare I utter the Word?) Liberal isn't going to change Bubba's mind. Start behaving like you have a conscience, and you might even burn through some of the they're-all-the-same-so-why-bother-voting apathy that allowed a schlemiel like Bush to seize power. Senator Clinton? Senator Edwards? This is your 11^th hour wake up call...

(Once again, Tom Tomorrow nailed this one a while back.)

Posted by Me at 22:11 link

The Empire is striking back again, but we're not going to take it lying down.

Star Wars "Imperial March", also known as Darth Vader's theme, plays whenever the dark one appears. It seems appropriate theme music for the Bush administration.

Posted by Me at 23:57 link

As the push for war intensifies, the Bush administration has also been quietly busy on the home front. Here are a few examples from ENS:

• The Bush administration is seeking to undermine the regulations protecting our public lands. One of the most disturbing aspects of this is the proposed limit on public comment. These lands belong to all of us, remember.
• In the words of Senator John Edwards (D-NC), the horribly misnamed Clear Skies initiative "puts polluters ahead of people." According to EPA figures, 100,000 people will die from breathing bad air if this passes.
• The administration is failing to protect wildlife habitat and ignoring scientific findings regarding endangered species.
• The administration's response to overwhelming scientific evidence of global climate change? More study, with inadequate funding and virtually no applied research.

One of the legacies of Vietnam is our collective guilt that returning soldiers, undoubtedly shell-shocked and stuggling already with the difficult transition from combat zone to home, were assailed by protesters, who called them "baby killers" and blamed them for the war itself. To me, and to a lot of other Americans, this was terribly, nauseatingly wrong. I have the utmost respect for our military personnel. Some individuals did horrible things during the Vietnam war, just as individuals have always done in every war that's every been fought (and will do in any war ever fought, another argument for peace).

But those are exceptions; the vast majority of our fighting men and women really are our best and brightest (another argument against war - we need these people), and conduct themselves courageously and honorably. Without them, our society wouldn't be possible. I hope we've all learned that, whatever our feelings about war in general or about a particular war, we need to support our troops. By the way, you can help in a very tangible way right now by fostering a soldier's pet.

All that having been said, opposition to war or opposition to a particular war is a completely separate issue. Politicians, not soldiers - or even generals - make the decision to go to war. Once the decision is made, the generals have to order the soldiers to kill and to risk being killed. The generals don't like to give those orders. Most soldiers don't like to carry out those orders. But they do carry out those orders, risking their lives and incurring the guilt of killing human beings, because it's their duty. Many generals and soldiers, both active and retired, have spoken out against the war. Many parents and spouses of soldiers have also spoken out. I have spoken out.

We spoke out, and we'll keep speaking out, because we believe that this war is a very bad idea, for a number of perfectly logical reasons. To suggest that we are unpatriotic for speaking out is itself unpatriotic. If we reach a point in this country when all citizens are required to go along with everything our politicians are selling, just because the stakes are high, then the terrorists really will have won in a big way.

Oh, and before you line up to follow George W. Bush into battle, you might check out his military record.

Posted by Me at 14:31 link