A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg



Links


New Email Address! levelgaze@gmail.com

Blogs

NoWarBlog

The Lefty Directory

The Agonist
aintnobaddude
alicublog
Alas, a Blog
Altercation
Ambivalent Imbroglio
AmericaBlog
American Street
Amygdala
Anger Management
Angry Bear
Armed Liberal
Bad Attitudes
Barney Gumble
Bartcop
Beyond Corporate
Billmon
Blah3
Body and Soul
Booman Tribune
Brad DeLong
Busy Busy Busy
Buzzflash
By Neddie Jingo
Calculated Risk
CalPundit
Chase me ladies
Chris Nelson
Contested Terrrain
Cooped Up
Conceptual Guerilla
corrente
Counterspin
Crooked Timber
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Decembrist
Demosthenes
Driftglass
D-Squared Digest
Electrolite
Eschaton
Ethel
Ezra Klein
Fafblog!
Fanatical Apathy
Firedoglake
First Draft
Fistful of Euros
get donkey!
Globblog
The Hamster
Here's What's Left
Horowitz Watch
Housing Bubble
Hullabaloo
Intl News
Istanblog
James Wolcott
Jesus' General
Juan Cole
Junius
Lean Left
Left Coast Breakdown
Letter from Gotham
Liberal Oasis
MacDiva
MadKane
Mahablog
Majikthise
Making Light
Marginal Revolution
Mark Kleiman
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Whores Online
Michael Finley
Michael Froomkin
MyDD
My Left Wing Nathan Newman
Off the Kuff
Oliver Willis
Orcinus
Pandagon
Pen-Elayne
Pfaffenblog
PLA
The Poor Man
R.B. Ham
Raed in the Middle
Ragout
Raw Story
ReachM High Cowboy
Rittenhouse Review
The Road to Surfdom
Roger Ailes
Rude Pundit
Ruminate This
Seeing the Forest
Seize the Fish
Self Made Pundit
Sideshow
Sirotablog
Sisyphus Shrugged
Skippy
Slacktivist
South Knox Bubba
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
The Talking Dog
Tapped
TBogg
Ted Barlow
Testify!
Thinking It Through
Through the Looking Glass
TNR Online
Tres Producers
TRR
Two Tears in a Bucket
uggabugga
Unknown News
Vaara
Wampum
War Liberal
Winning Argument
Wonkette
WTF Is It Now


General Interest

BBC News
The Economist
Metafilter
RealPolitik
Robot Wisdom



Bob. A damn fine comic.

Archives


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Sunday, December 28, 2003
 
Excuse Me?

"Losing your job in the United States today isn't a catastrophe."

--George Will, This Week


Monday, December 15, 2003
 
Memecheese

Free advice for Howard Dean and/or Wesley Clark:

Everything Bush does should be called "simple."

The approach to Iraq? "On any given issue, you're with us, or you're against us. Every deviation from the will of the commander will be treated as if it were a failure to follow orders on the battlefield." Simplistic.

The economy? "[see Reaganomics]" Simplistic.

The environment? "It'll take care of itself or corporations will." Simplistic.

There isn't a lot of sophistication in Bush's public statements. He talks in front of curtains(?) emblazoned with repeating two- or three-word slogans that are merely cosmetic, and which claim results yet to be achieved. Simplistic.

He doesn't avoid details and working knowledge of the world for political reasons; he avoids them because he doesn't understand them. The strategy of pawning off heavy-thinkin' stuff to brainy subordinates, as recent administration infighting and disarray have shown, won't run an airline.

We don't want to call him "stupid," but questions about his mental acuity and attention span are widespread, buried in the back of everyone's mind. If they can be linked to specific statements, policies, and results, the bubble of his credibility could be reduced to nothing in short order.

Watching the first debate, I thought Gephardt's "miserable failure" was kind of pathetic (if true) and, well, simple. But it caught on.

If "simple" doesn't strike the right note, there are plenty of synonyms that would do in its place.


 
Twenty-Eight Dollars?!?

KBR charges the Pentagon $28 per day to feed each US soldier in Iraq. On the off-chance that's not disgusting enough, "the Pentagon reported finding 'blood all over the floor,' 'dirty pans,' 'dirty grills,' 'dirty salad bars' and 'rotting meats ... and vegetables' in four of the military messes the company operates in Iraq.

Is this what's meant by "supporting our troops?" Is gouging taxpayers for all manner of goods and services, thereby reducing the resources available to protect the country and our troops patriotic? Does it help us win against the terrorists? Nailing Halliburton to the wall over these abuses is the most patriotic act I've seen since this bloody farce began. God bless you, Henry Waxman.


 
I wonder...

...whether the "man on the property, apparently realizing the game was up, pointed out a bricked-in wall inside the basement of a small house" is going to get the $25 million reward for his information leading to the capture of Saddam.


Thursday, December 11, 2003
 
Definition of Terms

In general, I could probably save a lot of time just by agreeing about everything in advance with Atrios. I would have saved the time it took to agree with his characterization of the miserable failure, as wholly, thoroughly, and unremittingly, unelectable.

(Is Natalie Cole one of ours? Maybe we could get Mad Kane to whip up a little something for her to sing.)


Sunday, December 07, 2003
 
Flawed By Design

The always-insightful Robert Cringely strikes again, this time on the subject of electronic voting:

Now here's the really interesting part.  Forgetting for a moment Diebold's voting machines, let's look at the other equipment they make.  Diebold makes a lot of ATM machines.  They make machines that sell tickets for trains and subways.  They make store checkout scanners, including self-service scanners.  They make machines that allow access to buildings for people with magnetic cards.  They make machines that use magnetic cards for payment in closed systems like university dining rooms.  All of these are machines that involve data input that results in a transaction, just like a voting machine.  But unlike a voting machine, every one of these other kinds of Diebold machines -- EVERY ONE -- creates a paper trail and can be audited.  Would Citibank have it any other way?  Would Home Depot?  Would the CIA?  Of course not.  These machines affect the livelihood of their owners.  If they can't be audited they can't be trusted.  If they can't be trusted they won't be used.

Now back to those voting machines.  If EVERY OTHER kind of machine you make includes an auditable paper trail, wouldn't it seem logical to include such a capability in the voting machines, too?  Given that what you are doing is adapting existing technology to a new purpose, wouldn't it be logical to carry over to voting machines this capability that is so important in every other kind of transaction device?

Cringely promises to answer this question in his next column. While he's at it, I'd also like to know why Diebold and the other electronic voting machine manufacturers so stubbornly refuse to admit that auditability is a desirable attribute of electronic voting systems. If they were concerned with the bottom line, like, say, businesses, they could turn this controversy into whole new contracts to retrofit their machines to generate paper. If, as Cringely posits, the companies adapted voting machines from existing systems, every one of which already leaves a trail, it should be a very lucrative piece of cake. Why aren't they chasing this easy money?

via /.


Wednesday, December 03, 2003
 
Memo to those who think killing or capturing Saddam will stop Ba'athists from attacking occupation forces:

It won't.

These guys aren't fanatical dead-enders; they want to survive and prosper. As the main obstacle to getting American troops out of Iraq before the 2004 elections, they have enormous leverage over the postwar planning process. Besides, they're the only organization that can take the reins of the Sunni Triangle and prevent a catastrophe after we're gone. The one absolute non-starter would be a re-emergence of Saddam, because it would destroy Bush politically.

If we don't take him out, they will.


 
Shorter David Broder

"Stupid Americans will choose symbolic bullshit over substance every time."


Monday, December 01, 2003
 
Humpty Dumpty Redux

I can't pinpoint exactly where it came from, but I've developed a strong suspicion that the Bush administration plans to let Afghanistan's government fail. We let Al Qaeda escape the country ages ago. So long as we've got bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, Caspian petroleum will be safe. We're not willing to pay the price of turning the country into an actual democracy anway; we're just wasting our time and money there.

Once Karzai is ousted, the arguments will run something like this:

1) See? The "terrorists" are still at it. Given that the Taliban and the Ba'athists are the exactly the same, it's a wonder things haven't been worse for us in Iraq. Therefore, our record there should be upgraded to "successful."

2) The Afghanis did this to themselves; they allowed it to happen. Even though we invaded, set up a government and put (some) money towards rebuilding the country, they didn't want democracy bad enough to fight for it. It's not our failure, it's theirs.

3) Every (certain to be highly publicized) death during the ensuing civil war is a reminder of how much better things are for those who toe the U.S. line.

4a) We need to commit even more troops and resources to Iraq because setting up democracies is hard. (But don't see #2, and ignore everything we told you before the war.)

>or<

4b) We need to cut our losses and get out of Iraq. They're just not civilized enough for democracy. It's stupid to have our troops' lives on the line trying to do the impossible.

Rumsfeld's putting the onus on NATO for keeping a lid on things in Afghanistan, but I don't see it getting very far without active U.S. involvement. Implosion is looking a lot less like an if than a when.