The US Government's Data Mining Program

Unless you're living in a cave, you've probably heard about the US government's classified data mining program known as PRISM. First discovered when we learned that the US government required Verizon to tun over all of their customer's call data on a daily basis, PRISM is a NSA intelligence program that, well, we'll let the NSA's leaked slides explain for themselves.

Why my two-year old is calling adult services on the iPhone

I'm pretty steamed about this. My two-year old daughter, like most children, loves playing with our phones. We try to limit the time, but when she plays with them, we do have age-appropriate applications for her. One of these applications is the Baby Flash Cards application by eFlashApps, LLC. We downloaded the free version to try it out and our daughter loves it. Here's what one of the animal flash cards looks like:

There are several interesting things to note about this. First, the "previous" and "next" buttons are new. This app used to be far more user-friendly: you could swipe or double tap that picture to get to the next animal. Guess which is easier to use for a baby? Obviously the prev/next buttons are going to be very difficult for a baby to navigate, but you notice how they are so close to that ad?  By making the app harder to use, the company made it much more likely that your baby would click on the ads when using free version.

And you know what? I sort of sympathize with the company on that one. It's not a nice thing to do, but when you use the free version of an app, you accept this sort of thing. It did mean, however, that we were not going to buy the application. If it's hard to use when free, there's no point paying for it.

 It was hard enough for our daughter that we were going to get a different flash card app, but our daughter got the hang of those buttons (a younger child might not of), so we let it slide. We figured that for learning English (we live in France), if she sometimes clicks an ad, that's a small price to pay.

We were wrong.

If you look at the above screenshot, you'll notice the ad at the bottom. I'm not typing out the URL or even the name because I don't want that company to get more exposure, but here's what their Web site looks like:

If you're reading this, there's a good chance that you don't read French, but you can guess whether or not the above Web site is age appropriate for a two-year old (the buxom brunette has dialog about buying a sex toy). This is some Web site about making prank phone calls. However, it's worse than you would imagine.

The ad on the iPhone doesn't go to this Web site, it directly makes a phone call. And it charges €1.35 to do so ($1.76 USD, if you're curious).

That's right. An advertisement on an iPhone advertisement targeting babies charges you for phone calls for an adult-oriented service.

Our call logs on the phone indicate that this is not the first time our daughter has "dialed" this number (the first time that we've found is last Friday).

I'm guessing that eFlashApps didn't do this deliberately, but I'm not sure. My wife points out that different versions of this ad are showing up on different pages of this app. Even if the company didn't do this deliberately, by making their user interface harder for babies to use, they made it easier for this to happen. I'm not sure how Apple managed to approve an advertisement that can make phone calls to an adult-oriented service, but given that it wound up on a baby application is pretty rotten.

Meanwhile, can someone please tell me where on the Apple Web site I can flag an app/advertiser for inappropriate content?

These are the men who will choose the next pope

Who will replace this man?
Photo by Kancelaria Prezydenta RP

I went and started digging on the backgrounds of the men who will vote for the next Pope. It's pretty horrifying, particularly in light of the Catholic child abuse scandal. While many of the Cardinals seem like decent people, some of them are absolutely horrifying and the large number of men who've protected pedophiles is disgraceful. I've tried to be fair in choosing some to call out, but virtually no one who has an interest in this matter could call me fair. I'm likely either too harsh or too lenient. I've elected to leave out some of the controversies and focus on the more serious ones. The fact that there are this many disgraceful men choosing the next Pope is heartbreaking.

Note that I've only listed clear controversies. Some have contraversies that were harder to verify and others have probably skeletons that are hard to dig up. I've also skipped some mention of Cardinals who support controversial figures.

It's important to note that there are some very, very decent men in the Catholic Church. In particular, I should point out Cardinal Wuerl, whose famous "zero tolerance" policy for child abuse and stance on putting victims first should be applauded. Don't let this list lead you to believe that all Catholic priests are criminals. Instead, ask yourself "why does the church tolerate this sort of behavior?"

---

1. Cardinal Roger Mahoney. Fought hard for years to keep word of pedophile priests from the public. Urged at least one priest to not seek counseling over fears that the counselor would tell the police. Widespread controversy over his insistence upon traveling to Rome and voting for the new Pope.
2. Cardinal Godfried Danneels. Protected pedophile priests and urged at least one victim to remain silent.
3. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. Cardinal Re has defended the Vatican's decision to excommunicate two doctors who performed an abortion on a 9 year old who was abused by her step father.
4. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. He's a very disgusting piece of work. Amongst his many charming comments, he blames homosexuality for priest's pedophilia.
5. Cardinal Sean Brady. Irish Cardinal knowingly withheld information from police regarding a list of children who were being raped by a priest. Widespread controversy over his insistence upon traveling to Rome and voting for the new Pope.
6. Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Was instrumental in paying pedophiles $20,000 each to leave the church quietly rather than turning them over to police.
7. Cardinal William Levada. Has repeatedly denied that there is a pedophilia problem in the church and allegedly shielded a pedophile for nine years, leading to the bankruptcy of the Portland diocese (PDF).
8. Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez. Has referred to gay people as "maricón" (Spanish word for "fag") and  claimed Mexico's Supreme Court was bribed to uphold same-sex marriage laws. He also suggests that women's clothing may be to blame for rapes.
9. Cardinal Polycarp Pengo. Refers to homosexuality as one of the most heinous sins on earth.
10. Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. Compares homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.
11. Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez. Refers to gay marriage as a "comedy" and calls its supporters hypocrites and degenerates.
12. Cardinal Bechara Boutros al-Rahi. Has upset some by refusing to condemn Hezbollah and appearing to support their right to arm themselves.
13. Cardinal Joachim Meisner. A German who created a political firestorm by using a Nazi-Era term to describe art. (Truth be told, this could have been a completely innocent and unfortunate term caused by speaking off the cuff)

---

This list is almost 10% of the men who will choose the next Pope. Note that I've not listed any of the financial scandals and I'm sure I've missed (and possibly mislabeled) some of the scandals involved.

And remember that the Pope they're replacing is Cardinal Ratzinger, the man responsible for enforcing the Crimen Sollicitationis, a secret order from the Catholic church to impose absolute secrecy for sex crimes committed by priests.

Do the means justify the ends for the right to bear arms?

Photo by Joe Fakih Gomez

Given the recent tragedy in Connecticut, where 20 children were brutally murdered, and given that it followed so soon after the theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado, and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (32 dead), the 2009 immigration services shooting in Binghamton, New York (13 dead), the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (6 dead), and so on, the debate about gun control once again comes to the fore.

Some argue that we should not discuss this while mourning, but if this keeps happening, will we ever not be in mourning? A better viewpoint, in my opinion, is wondering how many people have to die before we start asking if there's something we can do about it. If people are dying from salmonella or E.Coli, we immediately demand better food safety, but we're curiously silent about gun safety. The issue is so politically explosive that neither Romney nor Obama were willing to discuss it in the recent presidential election, despite there being multiple high profile assaults with guns during the campaign.

Sadly, the conversation gets derailed over whether or not we should have this right rather than asking what the right itself means. I've written elsewhere about why Americans demand their right to bear arms, but aside from explaining this right to those who are unaware of the cultural background, there's not much I can contribute to this debate. In fact, I won't even try. "And ne'er the twain shall meet" pretty much sums up the problem.

So rather than ask "what should we do", I'll follow along the path of my wife, the political advisor, and ask "what can we do".

When discussing politics, there's a fair amount of debate regarding whether the ends justify the means. It's a fair debate, too. Would it be acceptable to disenfranchise a few people if we had a demonstrably better country for it? Some might reasonably say "yes". Would it be acceptable to disenfranchise everyone if we had a demonstrably better country for it? Some would still say "yes", but most, I suspect, would not. The right to vote is sacred.

However, let's invert the question. Do the means justify the ends? At first this seems non-sensical,  but it makes perfect sense. Even if the vast majority of Americans voted for a constitutional amendment to overturn the second amendment and we had the necessary states ratify the amendment, people still argue strenuously that taking away guns would lead to civil war. Mind you, it's not just the NRA and like-minded folks who argue this; Americans who would love to ban all guns in the United States often admit that this could lead to widespread violence when the government shows up to take people's guns. Even if you feel that guns should be taken away, how many people would have to die before you agreed that it's not feasible? Do your means justify the ends?

So here's an interesting graph, courtesy of the Washington Post:

Image courtesy Washington Post. Claimed under Fair Use laws.

Note that while the overwhelming majority of Americans reject the "No guns, period" option, most Americans support various laws to try to manage this right. Before you cry "you can't take my guns", I have a question to ask: do you think our Founding Fathers, when asserting our right to bear arms (and the legally savvy know that there's a boatload of issues with the 2nd Amendment), would have included nuclear weapons? No? I should be reasonable? Well, how about sarin or anthrax? Those are arms.

Heck, even the "no guns" crowd agrees that exceptions could be made for hunters or for farmers protecting their livestock from wolves or other predators, so on both sides, we have reasonable room for backing away from the most extreme positions.

So in looking at the chart above, we find that the majority of Americans demand their right to bear arms and would not limit individual gun owner but would support:

• Background checks
• Banning semi-automatics
• Banning high-capacity clips
• No guns for felons, mentally ill
• Require gun registration

I'm not arguing for or against any of those positions above, but we need to start talking about the problem and looking for solutions. The United States is far and away the most violent of the major industrialized nations and our gun crime is out of control. There are those who argue that this is the price we pay for a free society and I can only respond: voting rights. If enough people vote in support of the notion of balancing responsibilities and freedom, then managing this right becomes "the price to pay for a free society".

Frankly, I think that's a price I'm willing to pay.

I don't claim to have the answers, but entrenched positions on either side aren't helping America. It's like being an alcoholic: first you have to admit you have a problem.

Update: to those who respond that none of the items in the above list would stop the mass killings, I ask: "what would you suggest, then?" If you say there's nothing we can do about it, then  you're suggesting America is helpless. Is that really what you meant to say? If you don't think the US is helpless, then give some damned suggestions and start participating in the discussion rather than trying to shut it down before it even starts.

How the war on terror was lost

Originally written in 2010 for my old blog, but still relevant.

Eventually, the United States is going to pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The former has a chance of survival as a viable state. The latter does not. Afghanistan lacks roads, schools, hospitals, manufacturing, etc. Hamid Karzai's power base does not appear to extend significantly beyond Kabul. When the US leaves, Afghanistan has a good chance of falling to the Taliban. Even if the Taliban do not succeed, Afghanistan does not have a good chance of prospering. Decades of war with the Soviets and US have removed any hope of this. Even without the Taliban, Afghanistan will still continue to produce and harbor anti-Western terrorists. As will Pakistan. As will Saudi Arabia. As will Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Oman, UAE, and so on.

How did we get here? What led the situation in the Middle East deteriorate so powerfully that the Western world is under a constant threat from terrorism? What can we do to end this threat?
Contrary to popular opinion, I believe our political leaders know how to end this threat. Unfortunately, the price to be paid is too high for either them or the Western public to accept.

History Matters — To A Point

In 1066, William the Conqueror attacked England and won decisively at the Battle of Hastings. The British, despite their traditional dislike of the French (William was actually a Norman), don't visit significant reprisals against the French (or Normans) for this, though there was a significant amount of resistance at the time. Of course, we know why the British don't throw stones at Normans today: the Battle of Hastings is ancient history. Who cares?

Ancient history matters in that it impacts us today. However, most people don't take up arms for historical reasons, they take up arms for real issues they feel today. They might use those historical reasons for justification, but you're not going to find them acting en masse against others for grievances they don't even remember. For example, if a foreign country dispatched troops to the US and managed to burn down the White House, the Americans would certainly be up in arms. Yet the British burned the White House in 1814 and no one cares. Individuals might start a fight based on old grievances (happens all the time), but for the most part, you don't have long, drawn-out conflicts without some real "here and now" issue being addressed.[1] So what are some of those "here and now" issues?

Syria

Even if we accept the premise that people fight for current reasons and not historical ones, it doesn't render history moot as that can describe the chain of events that led us to where we are now, particularly in matters of territorial disputes. For example, many condemn Syria's long-standing claims on Lebanon, yet many Ottoman Empire maps show Syria, but not Lebanon.[2] Why?

It was the French Mandate of Lebanon which created Lebanon in 1920, by carving up Syria. Lebanon was not granted full independence until 1943. Syria wants Lebanon back. Not only is it a potential invasion route into Syria, but it also has seaports. It would provide both military and economic benefits to Syria and they have a stronger historical claim than many other territorial disputes.

Ottoman Empire (1798 - 1923) Note the lack of Lebanon on this map. (No credit given as I'm finding this all over the Web and cannot determine whom to credit, but this one was downloaded from http://iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/maps08/index.htm).

Like Lebanon, the Golan Heights is a serious issue for Syria. Syria would like Israel to return Golan. They lost it to Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and though Syria has tried repeatedly to resolve this dispute — including offering formal recognition of Israel — Syria views US support of Israel as one of the primary reasons why the Golan Heights have not been returned. Not only are the Heights important militarily, but they cut Syria off from the Sea of Galilee, an important source of fresh water, a critical resource in the Middle East.[3]

Golan Heights Released into public domain in 2007 by "Dp roberson" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golan_heights_rel89B.jpg)

So at the end, Syria views the Western world as having supported the removal of large parts of Syrian territory. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the Syrian description and interpretation of these events, we cannot deny Syrian opinion of these events, part of which is driven by differing value systems and the fact that, unlike most Westerners, they experience the repercussions directly.

This is the most important point to take out of all of this: the opinions and beliefs of Westerners are largely irrelevant to the opinions and beliefs of local people. Westerners would do well to remember that they rarely live in war-torn parts of the world and they're rarely exposed to the points of view of people who are directly experiencing these difficulties.

Other Middle Eastern States

Many other states in the Middle East are upset with the Western world. In the 1950s, Iran wanted the British to share Iranian oil revenue with Iran. Many other countries in the Middle East had worked out similar terms with their current or former colonial occupiers, but the British refused. When the democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mosaddegh nationalised the oil fields, the British approached the US about removing Mosaddegh and this led to the 1953 coup in Iran, the first acknowledged CIA covert action. The monarch, Shah Pahlevi, then assumed control of the country and his increasingly autocratic (and western) rule so alienated the population that he was finally overthrown in 1979. Iranians well remembered that it was a US-sponsored coup that gave the Shah his power.

Shortly after the 1979 revolution in Iran, Iraq invaded, with US military and financial support. Again, the Iranians could see the hand of the US behind their misery.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis saw a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, supported by the US. Hussein was quite willing to kill Iraqis he viewed as a threat, even allegedly using chemical weapons against them.[4] The long US history of supporting this dictator and the US's subsequent invasion of Iraq have convinced many Iraqis that the US cannot be trusted. In fact, it's possible that the US not only supported Saddam Hussein, but also had a hand in putting him to power. The CIA FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) archives are remarkably open and easy to search. However, while there is extensive information about Iraq, there appears to be little information about the 1963 Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq. Perhaps not coincidentally, many argue that the CIA was involved in the assassination and coup which allowed Hussein's Ba'ath party to take over Iraq. This would not be particularly out of character for US actions in the Middle East.

Israel and Palestine

Of course, no description of Western involvement in the Middle East would be complete without mentioning the biggest issue: Israel and Palestine.

The history of Israel is long and complicated, but suffice it to say that Israeli Jews have very valid concerns about their safety and that the Holocaust, while being the catalyst for the creation of Israel, is far from being the cause. For anyone interested, reading about Theodor Herzl is a good start. The history of the Jews has been one of persecution, robbery and murder. The rest of the world has treated Jews abominably and this has continued for millennia. It is far from a recent phenomenon and if the Jews are paranoid, history shows they have good cause.

Unfortunately, when the Zionists decided to find a home to settle, they chose a home which, like most of the planet, was already occupied. Though there is tremendous debate about whether Palestine was heavily populated or whether people even identified themselves as Palestinian, there is little doubt that the Zionists displaced many local inhabitants of Palestine, often seizing their property. In fact, the practice of seizing Palestinian property continues to this day.

Palestine (Filistin) during the middle ages, an 1890 map Public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Arab_Palestine.jpg)

Today the Palestinians, like Jews prior to Israel, find themselves stateless and persecuted. Further, they view the US as being largely responsible for this. For fiscal year 2010, the Obama Administration requested $2.775 billion in military aid for Israel (PDF). This is consistent with US military and economic aid to Israel of billions of dollars a year. The Palestinians see the Israelis killing them with bullets paid for by the US government. They see the strong support of the US government for virtually any action the Israelis take. In fact, the US even opposed an independent investigation of the recent aid flotilla killings carried out by the Israeli Defence Force in international waters. This just further confirms to the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East that the US is not interested in seeing peace in the Middle East, but in maintaining their support for the Israelis.

Again, many Americans might disagree with Palestinian interpretation of events, but that does not change the fact that Palestinians have an opinion and, unlike most Americans, have to live day-to-day with the consequences of US and Israeli actions.

What Does This Have to Do With Terrorism?

The above merely gives one the briefest taste of how the Middle East views the West: constantly interfering in the Middle East for the benefit of the West. This has been going on for centuries. This would likely not be a significant issue today were it not continuing and were the Middle East better off. Unfortunately, neither is the case and this history is used as the justification for much of the terrorism arising there.

Defining Terrorism

Terrorism is a word which is, to put it mildly, abused. Perhaps one of the most unintentionally hilarious abuses is the use of the term intimate terrorism (pdf) to describe partner abuse. A husband who beats his wife is a criminal and a threat to society, but hardly a terrorist. The motivations are different, the goals are different, the appropriate response is different. However, it's easy to misapply the term if it's not defined.

Words do not intrinsically have meaning. We have to assign it. We could, for example, define terrorism as "non-consensual tickling". We don't because that would not be a useful definition. If we want to "defeat" terrorism, have to know what it is. First, however, let's define "defeat".
"Defeat" cannot mean "eliminate" because that's simply not going to happen. Some of the earliest know terrorists were the Sicarii, existing almost 2000 years ago and attempting to liberate Jews from Roman rule. The Hashashin, from where the modern word "assassin" probably derives, were another ancient group of terrorists. Whenever you have a disaffected group which cannot obtain their goals through normal political channels, terrorism is a possibility. It cannot be simply eradicated. Thus, "defeat", in this context, should be read as meaning "minimize to acceptable levels".


Which brings us back to the word "terrorism". Rather than belabour the term at length, I'll just state that for the purposes of this essay, I'll adopt the definition used by Louise Richardson in her excellent book "What Terrorists Want". In short, she defines terrorism as the use or threat of violence against non-combatants for the purpose of bringing about political change. That definition is short and to the point.[5] By having such a simple and clear definition, we can start to concretely tackle the problem.

Note that this definition does not contain any value judgment. Regardless of one's opinions of the Nicaraguan Contras, the 1989 Human Rights Watch Report on Nicaragua, amongst others, clearly states that the Contras murdered civilians in their attempt to overthrow the Sandanista government. If true, the Contras are terrorists by this definition. Or what about the Karen rebels in Burma? They are alleged to have detonated bombs in public markets and Phil Rees, in his book Dining with Terrorists, describes a May 2002 attack where Karen "guerillas" (who forcibly recruit child soldiers), attacked a school bus and killed two Thai teenagers and wounded fifteen. Yet the US State Department does not list the Karen rebels on their list of terrorist organisations, presumably because the US does not like the Burmese government. In short, you cannot decide that someone is not a terrorist simply because you agree with their goals. This makes the entire issue both subjective and futile.

The Dividing Line in Terrorism

To better understand how to deal with terrorism, let's group them into two categories: "significant" and "insignificant". By "significant" we simply mean "both long-lasting and strong societal impact". Here's a rough sample:

Significant	Insignificant
Al-Qaeda	Aum Shinrikyo
Sendero Luminoso	November 17
Irish Republican Army	Baader-Meinhof

It's probably fair to say that victims of terrorist organisations in the "insignificant" column may disagree with the term, but none of the groups in that column had a strong impact (in terms of change) on the political structure of their societies, though some, like the Baader-Meinhof Gang, existed for a long time.

Those terrorist groups were just some I thought of off the top of my head. Now pick a few more and figure out whether you would put them in the "significant" or "insignificant" column: the Weather Underground, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Basque separatists, various US militias, and so on. While there will be disagreement over which group belongs in which column (and even disagreement over my list), there is one common attribute that "significant" groups tend to have: public support.

We're not arguing that Muslims support Al-Qaeda. The vast majority do not support Al-Qaeda's behaviour, but some (particularly in the Middle East) are at least sympathetic with its motivations. This leads to a ready-made recruiting pool. Further, attempts to investigate groups with a modicum of public support means the group can hide amongst people without fear of being turned in. It's also easier for the groups to raise funding.

The various incarnations of the Irish Republican Army had the same advantage: easy to fund, plenty of recruits and a sympathetic populace. In fact, many Irish who disapproved of the IRA's tactics also strongly disapproved the British Government's tactics. There would not be a strong motivation to turn a criminal over to another group you viewed as criminal.

The Weather Underground, by contrast, simply did not have enough public support to continue. They were responsible for arson attacks, bombings, and riots, but when the US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the Weatherman gradually stopped activities. Support from the populace, whether tacit or not, is the key to a long-lasting terrorist group which can make an impact.

Policy Implications

Louise Richardson, in "What Terrorists Want" describes an public relations campaign waged by the US government. Information was distributed throughout the Middle East to educate people about America's freedom of speech and religion. In the US, it was explained, you can vote for whom you want and set about making your fortune. As the campaign was winding down, polls showed that public opinion about the US had not improved. Invariably respondents stated that they already knew that information and that's not why they hated the US.[6]

The actual issue, of course, is largely that the Middle East sees the Western world as constantly interfering with the Middle East for the benefit of the West. In fact, US-led military action in Iraq led to an increase in terrorism by reinforcing the negative stereotype of Western behaviour. However, military action per se is not necessarily a problem. The Arabic world was largely silent about the US invasion of Afghanistan. It was the invasion of Iraq, against world opposition and clearly another Western effort to install a "friendly" government in the Middle East which reinforced negative opinion.

A PR campaign will not allow the West to "defeat" terrorism. Military action merely reinforces the problem. Instead, the only long-term way to deal with the issue to to address the underlying concerns. However, if people in the Middle East have legitimate concerns about Western behaviour, terrorists share this concern. This leads us to the crux of the problem: even if Western politicians admit their mistakes and try to redress these grievances, they will be accused of "appeasing" the terrorists, no matter how legitimate the grievances are. Fox News, in particular, has long rallied against "appeasement" and welcomed many guests who accuse the Obama administration of said offense. As a result, the best way of addressing the issue of terrorism has effectively become off limits in the minds of many.

The Conundrum

From the dust jacket of the book "Dining with Terrorists", Phil Rees writes:

When George W. Bush screamed, 'You're either with us or against us' in the 'war on terror', he eradicated the right of anyone to question his logic or challenge his new list of 'terrorist' organizations.

Though Bush did not scream and the quote is slightly off, the basic sentiment is correct. Not only has the US laid down the law regarding how people must respond to terrorism, it has also effectively walled off the only favourable route for dealing with the issue. There is not only no conceivable way bring about "defeat", but the US no longer has the financial resources or public support to try to install friendly governments abroad. Those who oppose Western policy in the Middle East now know it's only a matter of time before the US admits that their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have failed. The US will remove her troops and with them, the rest of the world will remove theirs. Afghanistan will fall and Iraq might do the same, particularly if aided by Iran — a country with good reason to fear a strong Iraq.

While the Bush administration worsened an already bad situation by invading Iraq, it is hardly their fault. The people of the Middle East have seen the Western world colonize the Middle East, tear apart nations, repeatedly and violently install pro-Western governments, prop up corrupt regimes, support an almost constant state of war and unilaterally support Israel's attacks on Palestinians. Given that worldview, is it any wonder that the US invading Iraq merely made the problem of terrorism worse? Until the West starts leaving people in the Middle East to their own devices, anti-Western terrorism will continue. The "war on terror" was lost a long time ago.

---

1. Territorial conflicts are sometimes an exception, but they engender a sense of lasting injustice which creates a "here and now" feeling.
2. Many of those maps also show a territory named Kurdistan.
3. Syria and Israel have come close to agreeing to a return of the Golan Heights before, but disagreements over the Sea of Galilee (PDF) have scuttled the issue. Though not brought up in the analysis, I've noted that Israel's insistence upon control of the Sea of Galilee would ensure that they have control of much of the fresh water that the Golan Heights relies on. Thus, returning the Heights to Syria without giving them control over the fresh water would effectively give Israel control over the water supply to the heights (in addition to denying Syrians fishing and leisure access). As a result, Israel could presumably exert financial control over a large sector of the Syrian economy, something Syria cannot accept. This gives Israel the apparent moral high ground of offering a return of the Heights without worry that said offer can be accepted. Of course, it should also be noted that offering Syria access to Galilee offers another potential route to threaten Israel.
4. Whether Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people is in question.
5. For amplification and some counter-arguments to Richardson's definition, see Terrorism: The New World Disorder. It points out that many of the terms are difficult to assess. For example, are police "non-combatants"? What about military doctors? Firemen?
6. The Christian Science Monitor describes the beginnings of the PR campaign. However, an in-depth Christian Science Monitor article entitled Why do they hate us? should make it very clear that people in the Middle East understand very well the American way of life and Bush's "they hate freedom" has nothing to do with reality.

Romney continues his political free fall

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

Many are already betting on Obama winning reelection, regardless of whether or not they like him.

Mitt Romney
Photo by Gage Skidmore

The only interesting Republican aspirant was John Huntsman, Jr. The former US ambassador to China, Huntsman was vilified by fellow Republicans for cooperating with the enemy — Obama, not China. Something's gone really wrong when people view our president as more of a threat than China. Huntsman sealed his fate by admitting that he trusted scientists on evolution and global warming.

So we got left with Romney. Really, the Republicans didn't have a choice. Despite the fanaticism of his supporters there was no way Ron Paul was going to win the nomination. Gingrich is too volatile, Santorum too offensive even for Republicans, Bachman is batshit crazy and everyone else was pretty much a sideshow. By rejecting the only viable candidate, the Republicans had to make do with what they had and they didn't have much. They're still pretty pissed off about it.

Of course, if Romney had even an ounce of personal charisma,  he might have overcome some of the issues, but he doesn't, so he has to fall back on the issues. Turns out he can't do that, either. For example, his record is pretty much off limits. When he was governor of Massachusetts, here are a few of his accomplishments:

• Same sex marriages began in the state.
• Signed "Romneycare" into law. It's not much different from Obama's health care reform.
• He hired illegal immigrants to do yard work.
• Was pro-abortion, changed his mind, then stated he would uphold Massachusetts' abortion laws, and is now anti-abortion again.
• Endorsed legalization of abortion pill RU-486.
• Actively supported gay rights, including non-discrimination laws and civil union laws.
• Backed the Brady bill (limits access to some firearms).
• Signed a permanent statewide ban on assault weapons.
• Massachusetts fared worse economically than rest of the nation.
• Raised state fees and taxes.
• Dramatic increase in state spending.
• Refused to endorse Bush tax cuts.
• Supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
• Supported government action against global warming.
• Described himself as a social progressive.
• Business career was largely based on ending jobs.
• No foreign policy experience.

Well, I could go on and on, but aside from a few obvious problems, Romney is clearly a man that Democrats could have lined up behind. No wonder the Republicans don't like him. What's worse, now that it's clear Romney will be the nominee, they're beating the hell out of him. The Democrats could practically keep their mouths shut and let the Republicans do the dirty work. You know that you're struggling as a Republican candidate when Rupert Murdoch is publicly badmouthing you.

Unsurprisingly, he's been labeled an opportunist and, given the huge amount of money he's made and the fact that he's had millions of dollars in Swiss and Cayman Island accounts, he's been taking a lot of heat for refusing to release more than two years of tax returns (one is still not released and the other one is apparently lacking his FATCA declaration). There's also a fair amount of speculation that he won't release because he claimed the 2009 amnesty for having a non-disclosed Swiss account. And it's not just Democrats tearing into him. Republicans left and right have lined up and said that Romney needs to release his returns to avoid the perception of hiding something:

• Republicans George Will and Matthew Dowd said Romney should release his tax returns
• Republican strategist Rick Tyler said Romney should release his tax returns
• Republican Governor Robert Bentley said Romney should release his tax returns.
• Ron Paul said Romney should release his tax returns
• Governor Rick Perry said Romney should release his tax returns
• Bill Kristol said Romney should release his tax returns
• Michael Steel said Romney should release his tax returns
• Republican strategist Ann Navarro said Romney should release his tax returns
• Republican Congressman Walter Jones said Romney should release his tax returns

Note that is not an exhaustive list, but Romney has boxed himself in here. From a Huffington Post report (emphasis mine):

In fact, according to people close to the situation, Romney would drop out of the presidential race before ever releasing further tax returns. It does seem a bit ironic, that a man whose father was one of the champions of transparency with regards to a candidate's finances is now the most blatant offender in modern presidential politics. Even more ironic, is that in general any member of Romney's potential Cabinet (or political appointee confirmed by the Senate) would be required to submit at least three years of tax returns. 

It doesn't help that when Romney was running against Kennedy in 1994, he demanded Kennedy release his tax returns to prove he "has nothing to hide." (Romney has since stated that he was wrong to do so).

So the Republicans don't trust Romney, he can't run on his record, and he is angering everyone by refusing to release his tax returns. Think things can't get any worse? Oh, yes they can. His wife stepped into the fray and said "we've given all you people need to know."

Holy. Shit. Is it possible to have a more arrogant statement?

Romney needs to do something and do it fast. Most polls show him losing the upcoming election, so Romney needs a game changer. With everything about his campaign stumbling, he needs a bit of downtime to reset and hopefully regain some momentum. Until he announces his vice presidential candidate, what better way to reset than a lovely sideshow outside the United States> Having no foreign policy experience, Romney stepped onto the world stage to appear Presidential. He headed to the UK for the start of the 2012 Olympics and plenty of UK politicians were on hand to meet with him. This is a cake walk, right?

It's been an unmitigated disaster.

He forgot Labour Leader Ed Milliband's name, referring to him as "Mr. Leader". He was openly mocked by both Prime Minister David Cameron and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson (they're both Tories and, in theory, strong Republican allies). The British press have been ripping Romney to shreds and given that the Republicans are having a hard time attacking Obama's foreign policy experience, Romney has nothing to call on here. His UK trip has been nothing short of a humiliation.

So his only hope at this point is to have a wildly unexpected political event happen (say, aliens visiting Earth and endorsing Romney) or to choose such a stunningly brilliant vice presidential candidate that that everyone will be in awe. Unfortunately for Romney, VP candidates historically only help in close elections and this ain't one — but they can sink a campaign.

Right now, it really doesn't look like there are any VP contenders who will really help. Rubio might help deliver Florida, but he's very inexperienced. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has strong conservative credentials, but aside from having the charisma of a dead puppy, Jindal admitting that he's participated in exorcisms doesn't help.

There are other candidates, but I doubt there's anyone who's really going to make a difference. It's Romney running for the presidency, not his VP pick. Anyone who runs with him as VP is setting themselves up for the national stage; they know they won't win.

I almost feel sorry for Romney at this point. Watching various candidates such as Mondale, Dole and McCain, late in the election cycle, knowing they were going to lose, was always a bit sad. Even if I didn't agree with them, it wasn't fun watching them soldier on for a lost cause. Romney might be feeling that way already and he's not even the official nominee.

Proofs!

The proofs for my book are starting to come back. They look great. I can't wait for this damned thing to be finished. I'm bloody exhausted. I've written the entire thing and now am now finishing the editing process.

I really should write a post explaining how a book like this gets written.