If it's a covert operation why are we talking about it?

Caught Chuck Todd this morning on Today in between making the coffee and feeding the cat and generally getting ready for work. Word on the street, CIA operatives on the ground in Libya getting a feel for the rebels with the whole aim of arming them the better to overthrow the Mad Dog. Congress would have fairly tight control with the funding and the whole thing affords the White House legal deniability. Now I can just picture Khadafy eating his palm dates in the morning with a cup of goat milk, a little couscous or tabbouleh on the side going over the early edition of the Ole Gray Lady. What's this a map with who doing what? how many U.S. G-men? they're talkin' smack with who? what kind of weapons, state of the art? turns on the Today show and gets filled in on the rest from Mr. Todd of what Obama's gonna do -- who what where when and how. Again why are we talking about it? why am I even blogging about it? They say the Italian media don't say shit, they talk about the Jersey Shore. Maybe there's a value in pop ephemera after all. Somebody please hit the Sheen Button!!!:)

The arc of the commentary regarding Obama and Libya

Early on when the uprising in Libya began and the rebels took some cities but then Khadafy's forces were closing in the criticism then was Obama wasn't doing enough, dithering, taking too long to decide to try to stop a massacre. Hillary was seen as the real powerbroker behind the scenes who eventually persuaded the boss to do something. She was seen as being stronger than him, probably would've been a better president and I remember a New York Post editorial or two saying c'mon Obama let's get with an official Libyan policy already or was that just my imagination? Now their editorials tend to be more critical and questioning of the Libyan situation or is that just my imagination too? So that was the arc of the commentary early on (c'mon, admit it) and now that he has an official Libyan policy and is acting on it the arc of the commentary has now changed to why Libya? what is our national interest there? do we intervene militarily everywhere where dictators oppress their people? and related questions and subissues. I'm sorry but where I come from that's known as a mindfuck. In this case criticizing him early on for not doing something and not having a coherent Libyan policy in place but then the same people criticizing him when he finally does take action with some kind of Obama Doctrine taking shape. I take it these same people would say Bill Clinton did the right thing in not doing more in preventing the Rwandan genocide. There's something in that ancient classic The Art of War by Sun Tzu about the virtue of changing positions, you see it in the workplace alot. Apparently the Rwandan non-intervention is the model to follow since the whole thing hinges on our national interest anyway. So one day Obama is criticized for not putting the U.S. front and center in a leadership role in dealing with Khadafy and practically two days later criticized for putting the U.S. there at all. One can make the case that Obama initially launched those missiles due heavily in part to the earlier criticism of his apparent indifference to the crisis and is now explaining himself in front of the nation and not too well either I might add due in large part to the criticism that came later but that's what the mindfuck does, gets you to act in mutually contradictory ways due to the influence of the critics who change their views on an almost daily basis as events unfold and you're left to fend for yourself and your critics write another column or publish another blog. I try to aim for consistency here and can't fault the president for his humanitarian instincts, a humanitarianism that is apparently irrelevant if it isn't tied in with our national security interests:)

At the risk of being upstaged by world events

In terms of blogging material I had nothing today (Libya/Tsunami, been there done that) so I went home before and opened up my mailbag, a daily ritual I hate btw ("URGENT - Open at Once", well can I take a dump first? cat might be hungry) and got one of those Gotcha! pictures in full color and couple of different angles too detailing exactly where I made an illegal right hand turn by not making a complete stop during the red phase of some traffic light even though otherwise you could make a Right on Red there at the intersection of Odell and Nepperhan Ave. The return address on the stub said City of Yonkers Red Light Traffic Safety Program PO Box 742503 Cincinnati OH 45274-2503 (didn't know the city of Cincinnati and the big YO had a connection, hmmm) and the amount of the infraction was 50 bucks. Now I said quite recently that I probably never would blog about a traffic ticket, not the merits of one anyway as you'll always get the dutiful right-winger from the Law Enforcement wing of the party and overall Good Citizen who points out "but Z you deserved that ticket, could've hit some 14-year old Catholic schoolgirl coming home from school" (visions of the bookbag flying) but there was something in the letter...they gave me my own PIN # and a web address where I can view a VIDEO of my moving violation online. Must everything be online these days??? Yeah I know only I can access it but it's weird and creepy in a vague way. Well if my vid can be online so can my commentary. Now I was always in my bones against these traffic light cams as being somehow a violation of Something although I never felt the spirit move me to blog about it (there are always more important things you know) and always felt these tiny encroachments on our liberty and/or privacy would someday amount to some big cumulative nightmare on the spirit of our freedom but the prob here is if you complain let's say that in a couple years you won't be able to get an incandescent light bulb because our friend Bush signed a law doing away with them in favor of the compact fluorescent you risk sounding like Charlie Sheen in a militia uniform so at the risk of sounding hyperdramatical at what point in time can we say (and apply your own special pet peeve here) this and no more? makes me trepidatious. Can we conversate?:)

Oh so Bush gets to go to war first

I sense a trend developing although conservative commentary is still young on the matter and that is a growing conservative criticism of Obama over our actions in Libya. Savage last night said why are we there yada yada kind of the usual reverse liberal criticisms of Bush's adventures in Iraq. Political fault lines -- when Bush went to war>good, when Obama goes to war>bad. Neocons are the only consistent bunch of the group, apparently they never met a war they didn't like. I get the sense that John McCain always wants to go to war. Liberals apparently never see a war as being morally justified even if the standard being used is helping an oppressed and persecuted people which to me is a kind of a liberal paradox or conundrum since they're against those people being oppressed and persecuted in the first place just not helping them out via war (alternative, singing Kumbaya?). Sure it doesn't help that Obama and members of his administration are saying contradictory things. Now the president says it's official U.S. policy that Khadafy must go and that Ham guy, that commander over there says he can see him remaining in power and even though he's not a member of Team Obama let's throw in that British defense minister who pretty much has come out for assassinating Khadafy. It'd be nice if everyone were on the same page and I've been meaning to say a word or two about assassinations as it applies to foreign leaders. Reagan signed an Executive Order against this and I've read at least one conservative commentator say all Obama has to do is rescind this order with the stroke of a pen and I guess then the CIA can then go in with a poison cigar like they tried to do with Castro or maybe they can put a black mamba or box jelly in his tub where he cavorts with that sensuous nurse. It's all mind-numbingly stupid commentary as once you allow certain albeit extremely narrow exceptions for assassinating foreign leaders, heads of state (e.g. the guy's a monster and eats people or he raped a caravan of nuns) then what do you say years down the road when someone advocates assassination using the rationale Prime Minister XYZ is bad for the global economy or is just an all-around sucky guy who's bringing us down because he makes his population make baseballs for well below any decent standard of living wages? You see it's like this, once you allow moral exceptions or put it another way, the law against murder is ironclad, you can't just off your spouse because he or she cheated on you with the UPS guy but that's a moral philosophy course for another day. Now if they hit Khadafy's tent where he entertains folk, well they might deem it some type of military installation because he has a toy helicopter in there and a DVD copy of Hogan's Heroes so there be a very fine line ya know? I've one word to soapie though,

LOCKERBIE

Not that there's anything wrong with it

On the eve of the allied air assault against Libya Moammar Khadafy had this to say in a personal letter to Obama: "I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son." This echoes what he had previously said some time back in a long and rambling and incoherent speech to the UN body in a kind of sonnet: "we are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as a President of United States of America." Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez had warm greetings for Obama at the Summit of the Americas back in the day, they hugged or high-fived or fist-bumped or something and Chavez gave him a book. Raul Castro, brother of Fidel once said "Obama seems like a good man" and wished him luck. They say they can tell.

I must be giving off the wrong vibe or something:)

Obama, in over his head

After a quick browsing through the latest events in Libya I get the impression in some ways that French president Nicolas Sarkozy is the president Obama should have been. France seems to be taking the lead in enforcing a UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire and French jets were seen flying over the rebel-held city of Benghazi in eastern Libya. According to the latest reports a plane was shot down over the outskirts of Benghazi to the cheers of rebels (in the newswire I read it simply said plane although judging from the reaction it must have been Libya's). Sure there are arguments against a no-fly zone ranging from it is for all intents and purposes an act of war, our troops are already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and enforcing a no-fly would have the effect of making Khadafy a hero in the Arab world (huh, from villain to hero in one fell swoop?) but I can no longer subscribe to the paleo-conservative/libertarian position of non-interventionism in such tragic cases. Khadafy and his ministers are pretty much telling the U.S., Britain and France to mind their own business and if in the paleocon mind this has some validity I would ask if the same could have applied to Hitler. The Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings went well for the Mideastern rebels but in this case seems they need that extra push from the international community. It is a moral thing we are finally doing, it's heartening and let's not forget for those libertarian non-interventionists out there we still have those four New York Times journalists missing in Libya which I know the Randian party line would probably go along the tune of that never would have happened unless......Well now at least Obama gets spared his version of Bill Clinton's Rwanda even though it's not so much he took the lead but got pulled along. God so much going on in the world the last few weeks!

Fun with numbers

Since I'm on vacation and online traffic is usually slow when I have all the time in the world I decided to play around with some numbers just now. Some time back in a discussion of dieting that guy from Idaho made the point that medically recommended ideal weights seem overly harsh and I thought he was exaggerating at the time until I just googled "ideal weight" and entered my personal information on a couple of websites for a personal ideal weight calculation (you should too to see what I mean). There are many many websites devoted to this and many formulas but they seemed to have a common enough range. OK so I'm at 200 now, doctor is pleased and thanks to Muscle Milk for many happy returns but get this >> Bearing in mind that I'm 6'2" the first site I visited spit this out: my recommended weight range is between 155 and 194 lbs.!!! with my ideal healthy weight being 174. The second place crunched out these numbers and this was supposed to be a more reasonable site not taking everything doctors say as gospel: medical recommendation 148-195 lbs. and ideal weight 190. Now it's not the 190's that get me, that doesn't seem too rad for a guy of 6'2" and big-boned although I don't plan on that but those other ranges I'd be anorexic at those #'s. Ya gotta question this stuff and I'm lucky I have a doctor who heavily gravitates towards the upper numbers. Also for self-defense purposes I strongly favor those higher figures. Just thought I'd have some fun today so crunch in those numbers for yourself and see what you come up with. Last point, if these are the formulas in use to determine we have a fatty/obesity epidemic in this country then the numbers are highly skewed (a political agenda?). The Medical Arts are a crock if they say your personal role model should be Twiggy. You know somewhere in these ranges you have to enjoy life too ya know:)

Things I hate about Twitter

For starters tweeting sounds vaguely gay but that's not the point. Twitter is the stupidest thing on the Internet,

vapid celebrity xyz: "I just took a dump" (later picked up by "E.T." and "Access Hollywood" and talked about during your favorite drive-time morning show the next day when they should be playing music. Scott 'n' Todd, whassup?)

Twitter is the Ego run amok. We're all mini-Sheens now. Young guy at work told me about his Facebook page (Twitter/Facebook, same thing), check it out. Thanx I'll try not to. Now most bloggers have a massive ego that goes beyond healthy (Twitter/Facebook/Blogging, same deal) and the thing with Sheen, I couldn't cap it at first but he has Lucifer Syndrome. "I am the greatest. I fell like lightning from the Sky, I will set up my own Kingdom" and other drug-induced, existentially distorted bullshit). Whatever was gleaned of value in that 20/20 interview he is now reduced to some roving asshole, Dad must be sooooo proud. They say his upcoming city to city comedy tour sold out in a matter of minutes. These are probably, I'm only hazarding a guess here the same folks who wiped out all those potassium iodide tablets from the shelves because some molecule of Strontium-90 or Caesium-137 might float over the East Coast (it's not that they're chem majors but they seem to have an uncanny ability to pick up important info before you do kind of through osmosis, otherwise they're watching Married with Children). Oh well there's always kelp (for now). I remember during one of our major snowstorms this past winter and this was right before the first flakes fell but it got so busy so early I couldn't even set up the showcase, first time that's happened. It was retarded busy and I don't think this culture could make it through the Apocalypse but you can be sure as hell they would have to tweet about it (the combo blogger/tweeter/facebooker: "The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter just broke free and is now hurtling towards the Earth. HOLY SHIT!!!"). I was in Dick's Sporting Goods the other day with my friend, the new one they built in the Danbury Fair Mall and they got these things by Camelbak in the bike section. Basically what it is is it looks like some kind of backpack deal but the idea is you put water in it and there's a tube that goes in your mouth and you suck the water out (as Carlin once pointed out this society seems to feel the need for constant hydration). Then if you buy that you have to buy the cleaning kit that goes along with it of course. My friend seemed interested but that's how they suck you in I said. Now unless you plan on being stranded in the Alaskan wilderness a bottle of BB's overpriced tap water should suffice for your immediate needs when you're simply bicycling, hiking or just jerking off in the woods. Jobs, my friend said every job we've had in our lives has scum in it and you begin to wonder are people really this way? Shellshocked by Life. Nature is acting different too these days. Saw a pigeon the other day soaring, must've thought he was a hawk. The Archie Bunker Talking Alarm Clock: "Get the hell up, geeeez." I have to go home later and bang the crumbs out of my toaster oven, should I tweet about it?:)

Thoughts on radiation/cancer and the Japanese nuclear crisis

With a possibility of a looming Japanese nuclear meltdown I had this thought that I'm gonna throw out there with the complete foreknowledge that this thread will be easily proven wrong by the more learned medical folks here but this blog is more in the style of thinking out loud and so there is something I can't wrap my head around exactly. With the evacuations in certain sectors of Japan and the threat of some type of radioactive cloud drifting towards the West Coast with the Surgeon General telling us to take precautions (I don't know what this means) here it is: we use radiation to treat cancer. In one instance radiation is obviously bad for you and in the other it's the preferred mode of treatment combined with chemo. Now I know Saty will say it's the amounts or some such thing, we don't exactly nuke cancer patients but just the same many of them do look like Auschwitz survivors but this is to be expected whereas in other instances we're told in no uncertain terms to evacuate. I saw a few nights back on a news program how they are now trying to attack cancer cells in the brain with electromagnetism. It was Katie Couric's show and the initial results were promising and they showed one brave soul with his wife and he has been undergoing this experimental treatment for some time now but the reporter stressed that this treatment has to be combined with the more traditional chemo/radiation regimen and my question is why if the electromagnetism is doing a great job on its own? So why in one situation do we run away from radiation and in another embrace it? I thought it was always bad all the time but anyway there you have it:)

Political correctness kills

I have to repeat it although it's an obvious truth, Islam is problematic. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslims. Radical Muslims are not the whole of Islam but they are a substantial minority and substantial minorities can cause problems. Today is the first day of Congressman Peter King's hearings on homegrown radicals, you may have heard this Congressional investigation is controversial and Peter King has been called all kinds of names and well, let me just say again, Islam is problematic. I think it's a matter of emphases, everyone knows there are Muslim terrorists in the world but the liberal crowd wants to stress the peaceableness of most Muslims (not hard to understand) whereas conservatives are troubled by we don't really know who's who, who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Seems to me though the good Muslims may want to take back their religion first before they complain and I know I'll hear the usual points by soapster, Satyavati and surely Shaw but my whole thing is the situation is complicated so why can't we understand that?

Fast times

...(resisting the Sheen thread)...Today Wednesday March the 9th is the beginning of Lent, Ash Wednesday for us Catholics and I'm wondering if any of us truly fast anymore. Now my last church bulletin laid out the rules, one regular meal today and on Good Friday and two smaller meals at other times of the day are allowed but they cannot equal another regular meal. Got that? you do the math but since I was dieting for the second half of last year it's probably easier for me so today for lunch I had a tin of sardines, six crackers, a pear and washed it down with some Poland Spring. Later on I'll eat regular but not pig out, dunno what it'll be yet but I do find fasting to be a spiritual experience so let's lay it out. How do YOU fast? Once the hunger starts to set in do you reach for that Twinkie or Ding Dong and rationalize it? Sure you do before you go all Gandhi on us. The Friday thing of abstaining from meat is not an issue for me since I LOVE seafood anyway but the Question before the Board today -- have we become pussies when it comes to fasting?

1 1/2 Men

The show is often deemed the best tv has to offer but for me it's a mixed bag. Yes several episodes were funny but the whole thing is contrived. Yeah I know contrived like duh it's make believe and it's a sitcom but in the last episode I caught even Alan gets laid and that after only meeting some woman in a bar who seems to have a Nazi fetish and later makes a Hitler mustache on Alan with indelible magic marker. It's one long drawn out penis joke over many seasons and Charlie's biggest problem in the show seems to be where to take a nap in the afternoon after banging five different women, does the theme of rejection ever come up? My friend and I were discussing producer Chuck Lorre's vanity cards which flash at the end of each episode, so quick you can't even read them and we both agreed the ones that pissed off Charlie Sheen were inappropriate. Charlie is (or was) a worker for Mr. Lorre, Mr. Lorre was his boss so it'd be like if your boss posted stuff at your expense on the bulleten board, say you're an alcoholic or whatever personal problems you have it ain't right. By now we ALL want to know what Sheen is on and the only way to get to the bottom of it is good old-fashioned blood work. His interview on 20/20 made semi-sense in some creative drugged out sort of way (sometimes you gotta pull back and be objective about this sort of stuff) but he's lost me, now he's just in the Bermuda Triangle, he's tiresome and painfully boring but what a weird way for a show to end. It'd be like if All in the Family suddenly came to an end in its heyday because Carroll O'Connor became fucked up in the head or The Brady Bunch got yanked because Robert Reed became a dickhead overnight. BTW all those who say they've had enough of this story you'll be the first ones to chime in:)

emotional judo, mind masturbation & other techniques of the ancient fighting skills

Channel-surfing last night and on came this commercial about animal cruelty, some animal group which does good work but I always change the channel. I'm sensitive to this stuff so it begins with some hungry and tired dog walking the sidewalk with the caption "when will I eat?" The thought occured why doesn't the cameraman or whoever is filming this give the dog a bowl of Alpo and some water? Watch me suffer to make a political point - the former abortionist turned pro-life activist Dr. Bernard Nathanson passed away Feb. 21 at his home in Manhattan. The Silent Scream, basically he was friends with an abortionist, Dr. Jay Kelinson in New York City and since the procedure was gonna be done anyway it was shot in ultrasound and the rest is history. I would have done without the title though, slightly Elvira-ish. So I was watching this NOVA/National Geographic special couple weeks back about venomous critters and they showed some guy suffering in a Vietnamese hospital after getting bit by a poisonous snake known as a krait. Seems antivenin is rather expensive there and most folks can't afford it so they hooked him up to a respirator instead so he could breathe and it takes a few weeks for the venom to run its course this way and, I don't know it's fucked up.

Does Obama care more about gay marriage than Libya? I really don't care how he's evolving, Rodan the Thinking Man. Just do Something, about Libya that is. He's the kind of person if he worked in a deli he'd be farting around in the kitchen making a seafood pastry puff and you'd have to kick him in the ass to help with the line up front.

I caught Joe Scarborough on the Today Show this morning and it reminded me once again of why I never liked the guy. He said Newt Gingrich is unelectable as president because in the past he has called Obama a socialist among other things. Joe has made a fetish out of pointing out when he feels other conservatives are being a little extreme, think McCain's daughter but less stupid. I even question whether the guy is a real conservative but if Newt's policies are good for the country I don't see a problem. At some time it was decided that it's a Bad Thing to call Obama a socialist, it's a control issue between liberals and elite conservatives like David Brooks to kind of fence us in, the whole argument from intimidation thing. It's a I Want to be Popular at Manhattan Cocktail Parties brand of conservatism, it's hip to be hip, the whole moderation is sexy thing until I'm so dull maybe I don't stand for anything anymore. BTW you can't say the work "cocktail" at Hannityland, discovered that once otherwise it'll be cut off. Reminds me of why I don't miss the place:)

The saddest part about Charlie Sheen is

it's taking away from his important and groundbreaking work on 9-11. I almost think it's a government conspiracy to supply him with 'hos and drugs.