Sunday, July 26, 2009
Whirlwind of Seasonal Eats Part 1
Spring is finally here, with a hint of summer this week (high 70's and sunshine)!! But sadly, it is only temporary. In terms of meals from the end of March to the beginning of April, we have cooked meals that have wavered like the wind- from winter, spring, and summer meals.To celebrate the sunshine, we enjoyed many meals outdoors and ate crisp, refreshing, summer/spring-type foods:Raw Buckwheat Pepita Pate with carrots, cucumbers, and collard greens. Very palatable, much like fancy tuna/chicken/chickpea salads. Good with lots of celery seed.Raw Creamy Tomato Soup, with fresh red bell pepper, onion, herbs, and garlic for enhanced flavor, and with avocado for richness.Fresh corn on the cob. We're ready for more sweet corn to make some corn soup. But for now we enjoyed the corn with some buttery olive oil on it.Tempeh BLT's (no bacon of course), based off of this recipe. Awesome. We just started experimenting with tempeh, and it is so versatile, nutritious, and tasty. We love hearty healthy sandwiches, and the marinated tempeh with avocado and red onion was delicious!Cheezy Quesadillas with pinto beans, based off of this recipe. This was almost too rich, slightly sweet. We love the idea though and feel this is a great idea to branch from. We are making cheezy hummus quesadillas when our parents come up to visit this weekend.and Tofu Scramble Fiesta Wraps, with potatoes, black beans, salsa, avocado, onion, bell pepper, and jalapeno. For breakfast, we made a refreshing Raw Buckwheat Porridge with fresh blueberries and sliced oranges on the side. Zesty, fresh, and flavorful! For a nice snack, we chomped on Kettle's Baked Potato Chips (the best potato chips, and baked, too). And, we savored some Homemade Root Beer Banana Ice Cream.Stay in tune for Part 2 of "Whirlwind of seasonal eats" post - about the winter eats. :)-LK
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Heartache
My best friend Joe had open heart surgery this week. We have been good friends since 1968 when we met in 3rd grade and bonded over the Partridge Family.He developed childhood leukemia in the early 70's and was one of the first group of kids to survive. The chemo lightened his hair permanently but it also damaged his heart...as he was to discover a few years ago.The operation had some twists and turns that sent him back into surgery. His heart stopped twice.He will have one more procedure, remain in ICU for a few days then off to a cardio rehab center. He is 46 years old.We're not kids anymore. Although we are still eating the same amount of candy.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Beyond Obama’s Probationary Period
by Butler Shaffer
The 100-day cone of silence suspended above the Obama administration has been lifted and has thus far proven as uneventful and meaningless as the feared consequences of Y2K. As for any significant media criticism of the new administration, you need not spend time before the television set or searching the editorial pages of your favorite dying newspaper for evidence of same. As it has long been the mainstream media’s purpose to promote – rather than question – the political establishment’s scheme of things, it will prove to be as round-heeled as it was in the post 9-11 period.
Thus far, I see nothing to indicate a reversal of the arrogance of power for which George W. Bush was rightfully criticized, and which was a principal reason for Obama’s having been elected to the presidency. The empty slogans of change and hope were largely interpreted by most Americans as anybody but Bush! But with Obama’s continuation – and escalation – of the war system; his inconstant positions on torture; the continuing insistence on governmental secrecy; his urging of the Supreme Court to overturn an earlier decision restricting police interrogations unless a suspect’s lawyer is present; and his uninterrupted efforts to further socialize the economy – all of which were vigorously undertaken by Mr. Bush – it is apparent that his campaign promise of change had nothing to do with the destructive policies he had inherited from the previous reign.
This is not to suggest that his presidency has been without any meaningful alteration of the past. His rhetorical style is a great improvement over George W. And he has upgraded the cosmic significance of the presidency from what it was under his predecessor. Mr. Bush, as you will recall, only talked with God – the dominant voice in the conversation was never revealed – and he was the deity’s alleged choice to be president at times like these. Mr. Obama has escalated the presidency to the ultimate heights of deification. Photos of the man surrounded by a halo suggest the mindset seen in earlier civilizations in which the ruler was regarded as a god-king. A reverence for political rulers is a most dangerous practice.
The media’s servility to Obama was displayed on the night of his victory when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews told us I’m going to do everything I can to make this thing work – this new presidency. His counterpart at the same network, Keith Olbermann did, to his credit, strongly criticize Obama’s commitment to governmental secrecy, but has nonetheless spent far too much of his time – since January 20th – attacking Mr. Bush for the moral and legal shortcomings of his administration, in a major segment he has referred to as Still Bushed.
Nor can we ignore the pathetic sight of seemingly adult Americans who set the tone of obeisance to the new god-king by participating in a video chanting a pledge of allegiance not to the nation-state – as they had been conditioned to recite in the government school system – but to Barack Obama! This was the same kind of Obama-worship in e-mails from liberal friends of mine who, upon Obama’s election, enthused over their opportunity to work on behalf of his progressive policies.
But what was the progress of which my friends speak? Were they motivated by the same sentiments that underlay Chris Matthews’ previous comment? If Mr. Obama is at least continuing – and, perhaps expanding – the destructive and inhumane policies of the Bush administration, why should decent and intelligent Americans want to get to work to advance his agenda? What is the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush that would elicit such enthusiasm?
It has been clear that what Mr. Obama’s candidacy truly represented could be reduced to two factors: (1) to satisfy the anybody but Bush thinking that permeated American society – a trait which virtually any Democrat would have satisfied – and (2) his race. He had the opportunity to become the nation’s first black president, an accomplishment that would far exceed John F. Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president. To many, Obama’s primary qualification for this office lay in the fact that he had more melanin in his system than did John McCain. To this day, the words first black president continue to echo and define his accomplishment.
I do find some encouragement in this. While I have no interest whatever in whether the president is black or Caucasian; a man or a woman; an Asian, Laplander, or even a resident of Connecticut – my preference is for the office to remain open for a few terms! – I think there is some significance in the fact that most voters did not consider his race to be a disqualifying factor for this office. At the very least, his election should quiet the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, and other black political activists from continuing to bleat the gospel about the white-racism that supposedly dominates America, a charge necessary to keep their political clientele in line.
But if Barack Obama’s role as president is not to dismantle the oppressive and destructive policies of the Bush administration; and if his purpose, in getting elected, was to satisfy the anybody-but-Bush sentiments, and to become the first black president, then is it not clear that he has accomplished his agenda? There is no more for the man to do! He fulfilled his tasks the day he took office. Is it not, therefore, timely for him to resign and enjoy the judgment of history as America’s most successful president: a man who carried out, as he was being inaugurated, the agenda for which he had been elected?
Of course, this would leave us with Joseph Biden as the next president, and raise the question of what governmental policies he would pursue. But to those whose inquiries are driven by a sense of realpolitik, such a question is completely irrelevant. Biden would promote the same expansionist programs as Obama, who fosters the same basic policies as George W. Bush, etc. Each is but the Puppet-in-Chief of the political establishment; the owners of the corporate-state system who offered to voters a number of candidates suitable to the corporate world’s purposes. The notion that any of these men might strike out on a course of action that deviated from what the owners desired is unimaginable. Of course, Biden could try to get Congress to approve Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential choice, leaving Boobus liberalis to now march, dream, and chant of a day when a woman would become president!
The 100th day did produce some matters of worthiness. Arlen Specter informed us that he was changing his affiliation from Republican to Democrat, an act as meaningless, policy-wise, as would Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders announcing that he was becoming a Democrat. Specter babbled some incoherencies about his ideological and philosophical differences with the Republicans, leaving us to wonder just what possible normative principles separated these two gangs. The only philosophic standard that drives politicians of either stripe was revealed by Specter’s later admission that his switch was due to the difficulties he would have getting re-elected as a Republican! Specter insisted upon the pursuit of self-interest that politicians urge the rest of us to sacrifice for some alleged greater good.
On this same day of centuriate importance, we were also told that Democrat Al Franken had finally bested the Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, for a Minnesota seat in the Senate. That an amateur comedian might be outdone by a professional one was not surprising. With the Democrats now holding sixty seats in the Senate, and control of both the House of Representatives, the White House, and perhaps the Supreme Court, it does leave them in what may prove to be the embarrassing position of trying to explain how the continuing collapse of our society was due to Republican obstructionism rather than to their own policies. In the end, Al Franken’s presence – as the sixtieth Democratic member – may cause us to revise T.S. Eliot’s prognosis: This is the way the world ends: not with a bang but a giggle.
Where does all of this leave the GOP and, for that matter, that vacuous body known as conservatism ? Where they have been for more years than even their most ardent supporters will acknowledge: dead, as dead as the parrot in the classic Monty Python sketch. Like the two-brained stegosaurus – whose rear brain was destroyed by a tyrannosaurus rex as its front brain continued to munch on the greenery before it – the Republican party and conservatism are each totally unaware of their terminal condition. The conservative movement does not move, but is ossified. Its leaders can do no more, today, than seek a new image, as though appearances can be concocted that will prevail over substance. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to declare Sarah Palin to be the most prominent and articulate voice for conservatism. He is doubtless correct.
In contrast to Arlen Specter’s pretense of philosophic motivations, one lone principled voice remains within the GOP, perhaps representative of Albert Jay Nock’s Remnant. Ron Paul expresses views contrary to those that now represent a bipartisan commitment to the destruction of a free and productive country. But as his principles run counter to the demands of state power to which both Democrats and Republicans are firmly committed, the popularity of his ideas will continue to find expression in the only place from which a fundamental transformation of society can occur: the minds of ordinary men and women – particularly the young – who recognize that the present system no longer works.
The GOP party leaders will never get the message. I suspect that, even as I write these words, the Republicans are busy searching for their own style of comedians to run for high office. Perhaps, here in California – where Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comic-relief continues to amuse – the GOP could go after the senate seats of Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein by enlisting the noted comedians Cheech and Chong as candidates.
But it is the Democrats and liberals who must await the lesson now being taught denizens of the right. Nor am I optimistic of the consequences. Those who seek – and acquire – autocratic power are unlikely to question themselves while enjoying such authority. This is what corrupted those on the Right in recent years. The political Left has long had an unquestioning attachment to violent statism that will make them reluctant to understand and accept the decentralizing processes at work within the world. From world economic planning to world environmental controls to world governments, the Left is far too enmeshed in the sociopathic premises of politics to be able to do more than generate new slogans.
Conservatives and Republicans are now experiencing the hangover from an eight-year drunkenness on state power. Whatever impact the coalescence of Ron Paul/Austrian economics/and libertarian philosophy may have in bringing America back to sobriety, I do not see such influences accruing to the benefit of morally and intellectually corrupt conservative/Republican forms. In the words of Gertrude Stein – in commenting upon the city of Oakland – there’s no ‘there’ there. The change that will serve the liberty and material well-being of individuals, rather than the power interests of institutions, will arise not from empty sentiments of unfocused hope, but from deeper levels of understanding.
May 9, 2009
LewRockwell.com
The 100-day cone of silence suspended above the Obama administration has been lifted and has thus far proven as uneventful and meaningless as the feared consequences of Y2K. As for any significant media criticism of the new administration, you need not spend time before the television set or searching the editorial pages of your favorite dying newspaper for evidence of same. As it has long been the mainstream media’s purpose to promote – rather than question – the political establishment’s scheme of things, it will prove to be as round-heeled as it was in the post 9-11 period.
Thus far, I see nothing to indicate a reversal of the arrogance of power for which George W. Bush was rightfully criticized, and which was a principal reason for Obama’s having been elected to the presidency. The empty slogans of change and hope were largely interpreted by most Americans as anybody but Bush! But with Obama’s continuation – and escalation – of the war system; his inconstant positions on torture; the continuing insistence on governmental secrecy; his urging of the Supreme Court to overturn an earlier decision restricting police interrogations unless a suspect’s lawyer is present; and his uninterrupted efforts to further socialize the economy – all of which were vigorously undertaken by Mr. Bush – it is apparent that his campaign promise of change had nothing to do with the destructive policies he had inherited from the previous reign.
This is not to suggest that his presidency has been without any meaningful alteration of the past. His rhetorical style is a great improvement over George W. And he has upgraded the cosmic significance of the presidency from what it was under his predecessor. Mr. Bush, as you will recall, only talked with God – the dominant voice in the conversation was never revealed – and he was the deity’s alleged choice to be president at times like these. Mr. Obama has escalated the presidency to the ultimate heights of deification. Photos of the man surrounded by a halo suggest the mindset seen in earlier civilizations in which the ruler was regarded as a god-king. A reverence for political rulers is a most dangerous practice.
The media’s servility to Obama was displayed on the night of his victory when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews told us I’m going to do everything I can to make this thing work – this new presidency. His counterpart at the same network, Keith Olbermann did, to his credit, strongly criticize Obama’s commitment to governmental secrecy, but has nonetheless spent far too much of his time – since January 20th – attacking Mr. Bush for the moral and legal shortcomings of his administration, in a major segment he has referred to as Still Bushed.
Nor can we ignore the pathetic sight of seemingly adult Americans who set the tone of obeisance to the new god-king by participating in a video chanting a pledge of allegiance not to the nation-state – as they had been conditioned to recite in the government school system – but to Barack Obama! This was the same kind of Obama-worship in e-mails from liberal friends of mine who, upon Obama’s election, enthused over their opportunity to work on behalf of his progressive policies.
But what was the progress of which my friends speak? Were they motivated by the same sentiments that underlay Chris Matthews’ previous comment? If Mr. Obama is at least continuing – and, perhaps expanding – the destructive and inhumane policies of the Bush administration, why should decent and intelligent Americans want to get to work to advance his agenda? What is the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush that would elicit such enthusiasm?
It has been clear that what Mr. Obama’s candidacy truly represented could be reduced to two factors: (1) to satisfy the anybody but Bush thinking that permeated American society – a trait which virtually any Democrat would have satisfied – and (2) his race. He had the opportunity to become the nation’s first black president, an accomplishment that would far exceed John F. Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president. To many, Obama’s primary qualification for this office lay in the fact that he had more melanin in his system than did John McCain. To this day, the words first black president continue to echo and define his accomplishment.
I do find some encouragement in this. While I have no interest whatever in whether the president is black or Caucasian; a man or a woman; an Asian, Laplander, or even a resident of Connecticut – my preference is for the office to remain open for a few terms! – I think there is some significance in the fact that most voters did not consider his race to be a disqualifying factor for this office. At the very least, his election should quiet the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, and other black political activists from continuing to bleat the gospel about the white-racism that supposedly dominates America, a charge necessary to keep their political clientele in line.
But if Barack Obama’s role as president is not to dismantle the oppressive and destructive policies of the Bush administration; and if his purpose, in getting elected, was to satisfy the anybody-but-Bush sentiments, and to become the first black president, then is it not clear that he has accomplished his agenda? There is no more for the man to do! He fulfilled his tasks the day he took office. Is it not, therefore, timely for him to resign and enjoy the judgment of history as America’s most successful president: a man who carried out, as he was being inaugurated, the agenda for which he had been elected?
Of course, this would leave us with Joseph Biden as the next president, and raise the question of what governmental policies he would pursue. But to those whose inquiries are driven by a sense of realpolitik, such a question is completely irrelevant. Biden would promote the same expansionist programs as Obama, who fosters the same basic policies as George W. Bush, etc. Each is but the Puppet-in-Chief of the political establishment; the owners of the corporate-state system who offered to voters a number of candidates suitable to the corporate world’s purposes. The notion that any of these men might strike out on a course of action that deviated from what the owners desired is unimaginable. Of course, Biden could try to get Congress to approve Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential choice, leaving Boobus liberalis to now march, dream, and chant of a day when a woman would become president!
The 100th day did produce some matters of worthiness. Arlen Specter informed us that he was changing his affiliation from Republican to Democrat, an act as meaningless, policy-wise, as would Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders announcing that he was becoming a Democrat. Specter babbled some incoherencies about his ideological and philosophical differences with the Republicans, leaving us to wonder just what possible normative principles separated these two gangs. The only philosophic standard that drives politicians of either stripe was revealed by Specter’s later admission that his switch was due to the difficulties he would have getting re-elected as a Republican! Specter insisted upon the pursuit of self-interest that politicians urge the rest of us to sacrifice for some alleged greater good.
On this same day of centuriate importance, we were also told that Democrat Al Franken had finally bested the Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, for a Minnesota seat in the Senate. That an amateur comedian might be outdone by a professional one was not surprising. With the Democrats now holding sixty seats in the Senate, and control of both the House of Representatives, the White House, and perhaps the Supreme Court, it does leave them in what may prove to be the embarrassing position of trying to explain how the continuing collapse of our society was due to Republican obstructionism rather than to their own policies. In the end, Al Franken’s presence – as the sixtieth Democratic member – may cause us to revise T.S. Eliot’s prognosis: This is the way the world ends: not with a bang but a giggle.
Where does all of this leave the GOP and, for that matter, that vacuous body known as conservatism ? Where they have been for more years than even their most ardent supporters will acknowledge: dead, as dead as the parrot in the classic Monty Python sketch. Like the two-brained stegosaurus – whose rear brain was destroyed by a tyrannosaurus rex as its front brain continued to munch on the greenery before it – the Republican party and conservatism are each totally unaware of their terminal condition. The conservative movement does not move, but is ossified. Its leaders can do no more, today, than seek a new image, as though appearances can be concocted that will prevail over substance. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to declare Sarah Palin to be the most prominent and articulate voice for conservatism. He is doubtless correct.
In contrast to Arlen Specter’s pretense of philosophic motivations, one lone principled voice remains within the GOP, perhaps representative of Albert Jay Nock’s Remnant. Ron Paul expresses views contrary to those that now represent a bipartisan commitment to the destruction of a free and productive country. But as his principles run counter to the demands of state power to which both Democrats and Republicans are firmly committed, the popularity of his ideas will continue to find expression in the only place from which a fundamental transformation of society can occur: the minds of ordinary men and women – particularly the young – who recognize that the present system no longer works.
The GOP party leaders will never get the message. I suspect that, even as I write these words, the Republicans are busy searching for their own style of comedians to run for high office. Perhaps, here in California – where Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comic-relief continues to amuse – the GOP could go after the senate seats of Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein by enlisting the noted comedians Cheech and Chong as candidates.
But it is the Democrats and liberals who must await the lesson now being taught denizens of the right. Nor am I optimistic of the consequences. Those who seek – and acquire – autocratic power are unlikely to question themselves while enjoying such authority. This is what corrupted those on the Right in recent years. The political Left has long had an unquestioning attachment to violent statism that will make them reluctant to understand and accept the decentralizing processes at work within the world. From world economic planning to world environmental controls to world governments, the Left is far too enmeshed in the sociopathic premises of politics to be able to do more than generate new slogans.
Conservatives and Republicans are now experiencing the hangover from an eight-year drunkenness on state power. Whatever impact the coalescence of Ron Paul/Austrian economics/and libertarian philosophy may have in bringing America back to sobriety, I do not see such influences accruing to the benefit of morally and intellectually corrupt conservative/Republican forms. In the words of Gertrude Stein – in commenting upon the city of Oakland – there’s no ‘there’ there. The change that will serve the liberty and material well-being of individuals, rather than the power interests of institutions, will arise not from empty sentiments of unfocused hope, but from deeper levels of understanding.
May 9, 2009
LewRockwell.com
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Creating A Global Status Symbol
It has billionaires and big ambitions. Now India wants something that no global economic powerhouse should be without: an international symbol for its currency.The hope is that the Rupee sign will become as ubiquitous as the US dollar ($), or that instant emblem of the digital age, the @ symbol.But how easy is it to launch a symbol on the international stage and land a coveted place on keyboards the world over?It doesn't happen very often.Nowadays, designing new symbols involves rigorous testing, says Jasmine Montgomery of design consultancy FutureBrand, London."The Indian Government will have to consider very carefully how the symbol would be used in all its technical applications - how does it look on the web, blown up on posters, on mobile phones." India would not want a symbol that looked bad when it was turned upside down, she says - "like someone's bottom," for example.One of the most recent symbols to make the leap, the € for euro, had a long and difficult birth. Before that, in 1971, the @ symbol was assigned an important international role, as the critical connector in e-mail addresses. A 30-year-old computer programmer named Ray Tomlinson, looking for coding to send the first ever e-mail, surveyed the keyboard on his Model-33 Teletype and chose @ - which is apparently centuries old and has served various different functions - because it was unlikely to appear in a person's name."Read the entire Kathryn Westcott article for the BBC News: India Seeks Rupee Status SymbolThat's Right, HMKMore on The History Of The Euro.Thanks to Mark Fletcher for the original money shot.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Bloomberg tax plan is bad news for business
From NY1:The Council is overwhelmingly opposed to the mayor's sales tax plan, an opposition that turned to frustration after Page's response. One member even noted that Bloomberg keeps touting his job creation plan on the campaign trail."The administration should consult the campaign, because every time I turn on the television it seems that I am reminded that they know how to quantify jobs," said Councilman James Oddo.When asked about the impact of his sales tax plan on employment, the mayor, who regularly rattles off numbers from memory, couldn't offer a hard estimate."This is not good for job creation. I don't know. We have probably done some estimates," said Bloomberg.The chairman of the finance committee says Council officials estimate that 1,200 retail jobs could be lost because of the clothing tax repeal.Council members are floating their own alternatives to the sales tax increase, which would raise the rate by half a percentage point.The proposals include calls to bring back the commuter tax, raise taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, create a mortgage recording tax on co-op purchases and impose an income tax surcharge.Hey Oddo, why did your party endorse this guy again?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Terror Tactics and Techniques for our Times
Stop and think about terrorist tactics over the last decade for a minute, if you would. Al-Qaeda and similar groups tactics, at any rate, if youre confused about what constitutes terrorism and what doesnt.
Weve seen traditional explosive-vest suicide bombings, VBIEDs, regular IEDs, sniping, the use of explosively-formed projectiles, the use of jets as weapons, the use of rockets and mortars and other indirect-fire weapons, and a couple of obscure oddities like camels rigged with explosives. (No, really.)
What kind of surprises me, though, is that when you start looking at specifics, a lot of the most spectacularly successful techniques were only used for a brief period of time.
Ramzi Yousef blew up one plane, and put a hole in another, and that was pretty much it for trying to blow up airplanes in flight (at least until we invaded Iraq and everyone got their hand on MANPADS, and even thats been pretty unsuccessful). Some folks in a boat put a gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole& and nobody seems to have tried that again since. Four jets were hijacked and turned into weapons in September 2001, and& that was it. For a while, EFPs were in the news every day, putting holes in anything and everything they were aimed at. Then& they seemed to just disappear, as far as I can tell. In the early days of the Iraqi occupation, snipers like the possibly mythical Juba killed and wounded dozens and dozens of allied soldiers. There are still snipers, it seems, but nothing like what there used to be.
Why is that?
Some of it might be attributable to shifts in tactics by western forces and governments, but not all of it. Whither the EFP? Nobody ever conclusively answered whether they really were coming from Iran or not, but that several Iraqis were arrested in connection with them, and now you dont get em anymore, suggests, to me, that they were an indigenous product with no outside backing.
But that doesnt explain why additional USS Cole-style bombings have never happened since, or anywhere else. (Even the Tamil Tigers, as crazy a bunch of extremists as youll ever come across, and who had pitched battles with the Sri Lankan navy - and usually won - never resorted to blowing up boats full of explosives in the process.) Oh, navies made changes in tactics following the attack, but as far as Im aware, nobodys even tried since.
There are still terrorists willing to martyr themselves for the cause, but it seems like everyones pursuing low-budget, minimal-planning instant gratification. Its weird, really.
Im not complaining about the lack of successful, high-profile terrorist attacks in recent years, mind you. I just find it weird that the IED and the truck-bomb seem to be the enduring terrorist techniques of our time, is all. Oh, theyre effective, Ill grant you that, but so were a number of other things that, as acts of terror, were subjectively much more effective. (Sure, a VBIED could be anywhere, on any road, anywhere in the world, at any time& but how much do you really worry about that? Probably rather less than you do about the airliner youre on being hijacked and turned into a missile, or the ship youre on being captured by pirates or being blown up by terrorists. As tools for striking fear and terror into the hearts of infidels the world over, the IED and VBIED are, when all is said and done, kind of meh by now, you know what Im saying?)
For that matter, its been a couple years since any terrorists surprised the rest of the world with a new or novel tactic or technique. Why might that be?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Weve seen traditional explosive-vest suicide bombings, VBIEDs, regular IEDs, sniping, the use of explosively-formed projectiles, the use of jets as weapons, the use of rockets and mortars and other indirect-fire weapons, and a couple of obscure oddities like camels rigged with explosives. (No, really.)
What kind of surprises me, though, is that when you start looking at specifics, a lot of the most spectacularly successful techniques were only used for a brief period of time.
Ramzi Yousef blew up one plane, and put a hole in another, and that was pretty much it for trying to blow up airplanes in flight (at least until we invaded Iraq and everyone got their hand on MANPADS, and even thats been pretty unsuccessful). Some folks in a boat put a gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole& and nobody seems to have tried that again since. Four jets were hijacked and turned into weapons in September 2001, and& that was it. For a while, EFPs were in the news every day, putting holes in anything and everything they were aimed at. Then& they seemed to just disappear, as far as I can tell. In the early days of the Iraqi occupation, snipers like the possibly mythical Juba killed and wounded dozens and dozens of allied soldiers. There are still snipers, it seems, but nothing like what there used to be.
Why is that?
Some of it might be attributable to shifts in tactics by western forces and governments, but not all of it. Whither the EFP? Nobody ever conclusively answered whether they really were coming from Iran or not, but that several Iraqis were arrested in connection with them, and now you dont get em anymore, suggests, to me, that they were an indigenous product with no outside backing.
But that doesnt explain why additional USS Cole-style bombings have never happened since, or anywhere else. (Even the Tamil Tigers, as crazy a bunch of extremists as youll ever come across, and who had pitched battles with the Sri Lankan navy - and usually won - never resorted to blowing up boats full of explosives in the process.) Oh, navies made changes in tactics following the attack, but as far as Im aware, nobodys even tried since.
There are still terrorists willing to martyr themselves for the cause, but it seems like everyones pursuing low-budget, minimal-planning instant gratification. Its weird, really.
Im not complaining about the lack of successful, high-profile terrorist attacks in recent years, mind you. I just find it weird that the IED and the truck-bomb seem to be the enduring terrorist techniques of our time, is all. Oh, theyre effective, Ill grant you that, but so were a number of other things that, as acts of terror, were subjectively much more effective. (Sure, a VBIED could be anywhere, on any road, anywhere in the world, at any time& but how much do you really worry about that? Probably rather less than you do about the airliner youre on being hijacked and turned into a missile, or the ship youre on being captured by pirates or being blown up by terrorists. As tools for striking fear and terror into the hearts of infidels the world over, the IED and VBIED are, when all is said and done, kind of meh by now, you know what Im saying?)
For that matter, its been a couple years since any terrorists surprised the rest of the world with a new or novel tactic or technique. Why might that be?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
