Friday, November 03, 2006

Belated Post

A great deal of interesting news has come out while I havebeen away.

It is election season and while the Republicans might holda majority in the house and senate, it will not be a very significant one. The Republican party has by and large betrayed itself with a hear no evil seeno evil speak no evil attitude towards its own members. I am still a great believer in the Republican party, but only a Republican party that has much higher standardsof practice when it comes to member accountability. Regardless of external ethics rules, the party needs to police itself internally much better. Politicians should be careful about how they profit while in office, and while I think they have the right to be enterprising, they should maintain a levelof propriety that is above reproach.

Politicians have incredible access to money, power and avenues to increase those that normal citizens do not [Harry Reid Land deal]. While Harry Reid did nothing illegal, his actions were not above reproach. No Harry Reid's actions rise nowhere near the level of say Jack Abramoff and Co. But they were still not the cleanest of actions.

Tom Delay has been accused of some crimes, but so far nothing has come to light that substantiate the allegations. We shall se where that leads.

Mark Foley, well that was a landmine. He voted for a bill that became a law making his actions illegal. Well thats just stupid. So now he is a creep on par with Jon Mark Karr. He is out of office, and is also an alcoholic... Well great. The House leadership...what did they know? Well just as much as the FBI who also sought to do nothing about the origianal alleged emails. The IM's were something sandbagged by someone, some pranks others apparetly real.

I hope the public can screen the candidates betterthemselves. The funny thing is that even wives sometimes don't really know their own husbands and vice versa, so really getting to know your elected official can be an astronomical task. But it is our duty as citizens to keep these people accountable. Each election, each press conference, and each session of Congress.

due dilligence is the price we pay for having a representative government.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

2 cents

Liberals see American political conservatives as a greater threat than jihadists. Their axis of evil is not Iran, Hamas or Chavez, but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. How utterly simplistic and small-minded they have become, like foolish children whose world is so small that they are more angry at parents than vicious despots they are unable to comprehend.

How true it is that prosperous civilizations eventually die because the bored among them have pushed the envelope so far that nothing remains but self-destruction, suicide -- born of national self-hate. Children spoiled by their parents usually end up hating their parents, biting the hands that fed them. And spoiled citizens usually end up hating and turning on the very country that gave them everything.

- Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Monday, September 11, 2006

Stuff

Well I haven't posted in over a month due to starting TWO new jobs. Beware for MercNet Logistics LLC is near to becoming a reality ;).

As for the real topic...

Afghanistan has clearly been sidelined as a major US priority over the media driven debacle in Iraq. This is a shame since Afghanistan has far more public support and deserves more attention which the warlords growing poppy are happy not to have. Of course the question is, as far as poppy farming goes, what can they grow instead of poppy that will give them the same guarantee of income? I don't rightly know, but chances are that matters would be better if major nations such as the USA began geting rid of farm subsidies and normalized prices of their goods on the international market. Farmers would be saddened and probably heavuly lobby good ole congress to pay em not to do work again. Sure i'd like Congress to pay me not to work so the intrinsic value of my services would rise... (work 4 hours get paid for 8 because I'm paying Congress back with 2hrs of that money as a favor/kickback).

Afghanis should be angry at us for not delivering on our word as we should have. The initial war effort was a spectacular success. The US Military is truly the best conventional fighting force on Earth at this point in time, and I am very proud of that. Sadly between the first Bush and later Clinton defense cut backs our Military is thin. Rumsfeld is doing a magnificent job at making it more streamlined, so that what forces we do have are more mobile and efficient. Yes we have quality troops, pilots and sailors, but we still do need quantity. Drone ships,planes and tanks will help to make up some of the difference as well as automated defense systems, but those are still only ancillary to bots on the ground. Clearly no one has learned from the history of the Roman Republic, and later Empire. The USA is not conuering larger swathes of territory than it can control via domestic measures, but still the barbarians are at the gates and we try and "talk reason" with them, as if both our interests are served by coming to a consensus. Well the Afghanis do not have the same interests as say... George W. Bush. George, like the much renowned Woodrow Wilson, thinks we ought to make the world safe for democracy. This goes against the right of self determination. We are no better for "imposing" democracy on anyone than we would be for backing dictators that were pro-US in the Cold-War. If a people are not willing themselves to fight for their own freedom, then they do not deserve it.
In Iran, suposedly there are many who wish to take up arms to overthrow their current government. How much less expensive for us would it be to arm them, provide some measure of intel and political support than it would be to invade them? ure a movement like that would take a decade or maybe more to grow in to a successful entity, but we do need to be patient.
Afghanis are still by and large aligned with their "tribes", social groups, or other entities that we associate with pre-agriculture/urbanized societies. Yes Afghanistan has cities, but they are nothing like even in Iraq. Telling Afghanis to love democracy is like telling oragnized crime to love Federal Distric Attorneys. What I mean by that is that they will love it as long as they can game the system and seek some kind of partiality or advantage whether by getting an agent in place, or paying off the agent. Thats not to say that those in the USA don't have those same ideas, but the pressure for doing this is lessened in a society that is more concentrated on the individual than large family groups or ethnic lines.
How do we win in Afghanistan? I can't say that I have the only answer but I believe part of that answer is to create a Middle East Economic Development Zone (MEEDZ) where the nations in that area can enter in to a cooperative free trade zone. Develop a trade law system that encourages investment, and legal standards for equitable employment. That doesn't mean that there shouldbe a minimum wage, as the price of labor should be market driven, but there should be even standards for hiring, firing and adjudication of cases in the employment arena. We should help them set up a base for their legal system, but they should develop a body of law independent of what we have. So what does Afghanistan have that it can do cheaper than anyone else in the world at the moment? Heroin. What can it do? Well I don't know, but that can be analyzed by Wolfowitz in his position at the World Bank. If the Warlords could be seen as "Govenors" rather than Warlords I am sure their public relations would be better. Afghan law could even maintain that provinces could choose the govenor based on any criteria that they passed. A provincial sub-seetion of laws would be similar to US State Election laws becuase we also do not have sweeping federal election laws. Some exist yes, but by and large each state has its own set of election laws. translating this theory in to a provincial system might be of some advantage. Govenors could be hereditary, or elected, or appointed by the provincial legislature/national legislature. Leave it up to the provinces to have a "congress" and create charters dictating the base rules, set up provincial courts and jurisdictions. The Afghani national government would control disputes between provinces, but leave alone any internal matters.
People are by and large easier to deal with in small groups or homogeneous populations as there are fewer conflicts of interest and less of a diversity of opinions. Let us treat the Afghanis as people rather than some abstract entity that we think to be homogeneous. Let them draw their own provinces based on ethnic or racial lines, or however they see fit. Work out national election balance similar to our own federal system wherethe legislature is bicameral (two houses for those who haven't taken a civics class). Our founders were rather genius when they planned out the final version of our government in 1786. That was changed in a very large way with directly electing the senate (a mistake in my opinion) and one we could set right in Aghanistan.
Afghanis suffer from a lack of law more recent than the 13th century, but that is mostly due to the Russian invasion in 1979 and lasted 9 years. The USA sponsored the rebellion and in effect created Al Qaeda...which has come back to bite us. But that is neither here nor there. That was smart policy by Reagan to fight a proxy war, as that wwas how the Russians played Vietnam with us...supporting the North with weapons and intel. The USA's biggest issue is like any world power; over confidence/arrogance. When we were finished with those militia we had armed and operated with, we cut them loose; not bothering to follow up and consolidate matters politically. We got what we wanted to a degree...lots of dead Soviets, but we didn't necessarily GAIN anything from it, and we left the Afghanis treading water.
Could the US have swoped in as a trade partner, without acting like an economic imperialist? Maybe but that is tough in a society that prizes competition over cooperation. Our economic policies should be culturally sensitive, and sometimes even restrained capitalism like ours can be a shock. and yes we are restrained quite a bit in our commercial practices now. However the Afghanis once again need to modernize their domestic trade law to something that they can accept and modify over time as wants change.
What can the US do now? Everything we should have done in 1989. It is still not too late to be fair.

yes... in the end we should be judicious in all that we do.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

amazing

It's is amazing that you can be called a hate monger for saying something bad about the Jew, but you can kill them for decades and they call you freedom fighters. - Vetinari

Monday, July 31, 2006

A recent story about the Gitmo guards being "abused" by the prisoners reminded me of what civilian prisons are like. The inmates collect semen, blood, feces and urine, make a cocktail, ferment it and hurl it at guards. Yes it is one of the more vile aspects of being a prison guard, and you do have to check for any diseases that could have been transmitted via bodily fluids.

I have criticized Bush's handling of Iraq, the economy in terms of government spending, and there are other issues where he and I differ, but I still prefer him to Kerry. Having said that, the interrogators have had more than enough time to extract a reasonable amount of information from said detainees. It is time to either release them, or make them disappear. Yes I said it, kill them and hide the evidence. Those are the only two choices if you can't charge people held for 4 years or mroe without a trial. Release em or cover it up. Frankly it would have been smarter for the administration just to have killed them on the battlefield. I don't know what intelligence was gained from some of them, and perhaps it was significant. Of course that information won't come out until I am nearly dead and my decendents are well on in their years.

There are many ways to fight a war, but by and large the leaders of Al Qaeda (that are left...) and other terrorist organizations think that the Unite States and its allies are weak. They think this because we are unable to take casualties, we value human life too much. So we must ask ourselves, is it bad to value human life over say a strategic objective, or even a tactical goal in war time. I would say that it depends on the objective. In some areas a force would want to do things quietly and efficiently and other times a force may want to achieve something via a more bloody conflict in order to impress upon the enemy the seriousness of the situation.

The last time the US got serious was during the battle of Falluja in Iraq. And even there, we told all of the civilians to evacuate. Most that could, did including a great deal of terrorists. However many of the terrorists stayed behind to fight the US forces. They all died, we took some casualties, but our soldiers fine training and leadership gave them a victory to be proud of...for what it was. Falluja was a failure of strategy not tactics. Yes many terrorists were killed, but the people were allowed to return. The city should have been flattened and cleared. They should have been put on notice, but we showed them mercy to a degree that is nearly unparalleled in human history. Now one might ask, 'But Justin...thats inhumane destroying their homes, their places of business and all they have built!' My reply is a simple "yes, it is horrible and a regrettably necessary action." The conversation with a friend would proceed nearly as follows...

"Justin this will only create more terrorists"
"No it won't, and here let me show you why...*puts up slides* Example 1: Nuclear Warfare upon Japan did not create more kamikaze planes or soldiers, Example 2: Firebombing Dresden did not create more Nazis or make the general population more sympathetic to their cause"
"But the culture is different Justin"
"True, but violence is something that they do by and large respect as a sign of power and authority"
"Thats a lie"
"No its not, just inconvenient for you"
"bah I can't discus this any moer with you, you just don't listen"
"You're right, I'm didn't listen and I didn't want to free the Iraqis in the first place. The entire country did not deserve our help, only the Kurds did because they were willing to rise up on their own. And what did they get for it? Poison gas from Saddam (who supposedly doesn't have those weapons and didn't ship them to Syria even though we have documentation stating that he did).
"So you are saying the Iraq war was wrong"
*sigh* "Yes"
"I hear a 'but' coming"
"Yep, but we are there now and it should have been handled differently as I have outlined above."
"but those could be seen as war crimes"
"They are only crimes if you lose, you know that"
"See thats the arrogance that the world hates about us!"
"Yes every nation that gets to be great is arrogant to one degree or another. You see arrogance can be mistaken for confidence, and sometimes both mix. Every nation will fall, yes even the United States, The United Kingdom, Iran, Iraq, everyone's time will come and the differences are when, by whom or what will it be brought about and how fast will it happen."
"That doesn't give us the right to do it!"
"Sure it does, a sovereign nation has every right to violate the sovereignty of any other nation weaker than it, or to manipulate events to favor itself. I know its machiavellian to say those things but power is what it is. Sovereignty is only maintained as long as one is strong enough to keep it, just as your rights are only available to you because brave men and women were willing to give up everything to keep those rights for themselves and their posterity. I hate to point it out, but George Washington et al. were traitors to the English Crown. Yet, they won and so they are patriots. Over time those wounds have healed and our once greatest enemies are our best allies bonded through a common heritage and language."
"You are off topic"
"Right...well no I just went off about sovereignty and gave you examples."
"But that was over two hundred years ago"
"Two Hundred and Thirty Years to be exact"
"Right"
"That doesn't invalidate my point"
"Its a new world out here though"
"Not that new if we are fighting a foe with a mentality from the seventh century"
"Thats not fair"
"Neither is life"
"Darnit"
"You still don't swear do you"
"nope"
"Okay well thanks for listening to me rant and giving me a sound board"
"You're welcome...so whats next?"
"The next post is on Native American Cacinos and how much fun it is to see old white people throw away their money"
"Oh thats good...balance"
"I was joking"
"Crap"

And so Iraq and now Lebanon are now cluster***** becuase politicians cannot make decisions due to media pressures and blah blah blah plus their own spinelessness and the fact that they are purchased by and large by minority groups.

If you think a politician is too corrupt to serve, quit moaning about it and do something...write to him/her, support his or her challenger, or if none exists, run yourself. Whatever you do, don't do nothing.

Bush straighten this stuff out!!

Kerry, get off Bolton's back he's doing a fine job considering all of the crooks he has to deal with.

*rant off*

Middle East: Israel vs Hezbollah (Hizbollah)

This most recent conflict began not with Lebannon actually but with Hamas capturing an Israeli soldier and demanding a prisoner exchange. Hezbollah decided to steal their thunder and not only capture TWO soldiers, but decided to start shooting Katyusha and other types of rockets at the civilian population of Israel.

Meanwhile Israel responded with air strikes on missile launch sites and a ground movement intended to flush out Hezbollah from certain villages along the border. Governments from across the world ignorantly criticized Israel for a "disproportionate" response. Now they didn't say inappropriate respanse so I assume they were congratualting Israel on the proper way to overwhelm the enemy. If they were implying that the response was inappropriate then I have a counter suggestion: Israel hasn't gone far enough.

It is only in the modern times that warfare has been fought in a mannner in which we deliberately try to minimize casualties of the enemy people, not just the military forces. Right or wrong this is a fact. Even in WWII the United States of America and by association its allies deliberately targeted civilians and infrastructure to achive victory. Our bomb sights were primitive compared to today's laser and GPS guided bombs, but they achieved a far different effect back in WWII than the precision munitions today. Bombs hitting civilian buildings such as power stations, bridges and other infrastructures not only hampered German and Japanese military efforts but struck FEAR in to the hearts and minds of those people, which in the end helps with the pacification of the population without a messy occupation. To prove this I will cite the fire bombing of Japan, which killed more people and did more damage than the nuclear weapons used later in the war.

Also on the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000. The bombers used incendiary bombs an set this medieval city aflame.

The United States and Great Britain have never appologized for these morally objectionable acts. In my opinion they should not appologize as it would serve no purpose other than to undermine the "justness" of the war becuase doing these things made us as bad or worse in some cases than the Germans. However war is not a "moral" thing in and of itself, in fact in every case it is the most evil thing nations can inflict upon eachother. What exacerbates the whole problem is trying to fight a less deadly war. If a nation cannot promise death to its enemies on a large scale, there is nofear to resist and eventually drive that weaker nation out.

Power on a national scale is more than just military size, morethan what form of government exists; it is all of those things, plus the will of the people whihc adds up, and the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. To break a national spirit, one must completely shock the people, and use a measure of ruthlessness in order to make them think you really are serious about achieving your goals. Now that doesn't mean there should be wholesale slaughter of civilians, but a measure of fear should be struck into a population.

In Iraq we call it a liberation, but they were never "taken over" by some foreign army. As far as I am concerned only the Kurds in the north were deserving of any effort on our part to separate them from Saddam Hussein. Of course Turkey would have flipped its lid over that issue.

In the case of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebannon (the southern part) the Israelis are showing too much restraint. If as it is projected that Hezbollah consists in some part up to 40% of the Labannese population, then Israel should hve no compunction about striking some fear in to that 40% (perhaps killing up to 30% of that 40% which would be 12% of the population, or roughly 420,000 people) in order to destroy Hezbollah.

A cease fire is stupid until the other side can no longer fire at you.

Be quick, be decisive, and be ruthless.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Private Space Industry

Ever since mankind/human-kind has stared perhaps even glared at the stars we have wanted to go there. Some thought heaven was above us in the skies, which is why we refer to them as "the heavens above" and there are obviously the hells below as well.

When JFK announced our intentions to get to the moon before the Russians we finally began to crawl to wards leaving our own planet, and yet despite taking our first steps we are still in the cradle nearly four decades since. Not too long ago a company called Scaled Composites won the Ansari X-Prize by developing ans successfully testing a lauch and return vehicle that had a turn around of 48 hours from launch to relaunch.

Richar Branston of Virgin Atlantic billionaire-ism fame has partnered with Scaled Composites to form Virgin Galatic for the beginning of space tourism in a very serious manner.

In other news Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com founder) has made a big step in his new company Blue Origins and announced the prototype design for their launch vehicle and they have begun prospecting a site for launching the vehicle.

The future is here...lets get on board.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

global warming err...well whatever

A story in the Opinion Journal linked HERE is very interesting.

A part of it states :

"So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is."


The rest you can read for yourself.



Women apparently like girly men...well as far as facial features go

http://www.the7am.com/news/articles/?id=25812

just read it...

/sigh

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Ok a serious post, this time On President Apocalypse of Iran

HERE is the full text of the letter sent to President George W. Bush.

I'm going to skip a few lines down so you have an urge to RTFA also...I need to read it before I continue to write this particular post...*whistles innocently*

Well I think it can easily be distilled in to two important statements that are made in the letter, the rest being a preamble or framing to the actual point that he (Ahmadi-Najad) wishes to make.

"The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) "O followers o(3f the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)."

and

"
Mr President,


Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things."

The first statement must be read carefully, and it is not a friendly or neutral statement..so I shall break it down and translate for those of you not familiar with the Muslim pattern of thought and social paradigms.

(3.64) "O followers o(3f the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught.

Ok basically this sentence is what sets us up with the concept of the dhimmi, which is a "person of the book" such as a Jew or Christian who is allowed to worship in his own fashion, but pays a tax to do so, and is essentially a second or third class citizen when compared to a Muslim. So in essence Ahmadi-Najad is saying that he wants to bring everyone in under the umbrella of Islam...

"Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things."

Here Ahmadi-Najad is saying that the triumph if Islam is inevitable you should repent now and join us before we cut off your heads. No I am not exaggerating as this letter follows the format and tone of letters written to heads of state in the 7th century A.D. prior to an invasion of their nations by Muslim armies.

Do not mistake this letter for some calm discussion, or willingness to be open and entertain new ideas. It is clearly anything but. In fact it is more of a threat than anything else. For those that don't believe lil ole me, do a little history research and open your eyes. This is not a letter written in a 20th/21st century mode of thought, rather is it 13 centuries back and a big reason of why it is being misread and misinterpreted by the press and populace at large.

--JC

Mel Brooks was well ahead of his time...

A story about canned oxygen in Japan 7-Eleven's linked HERE made me think of the movie SPACE BALLS and how President Scroob opened a can of perri-air when the city was running low on oxygen >:]

this is just fun stuff

-JC

Thursday, May 11, 2006

quick history of warrantless searches

this was pulled from a wiki-pedia entry linked HERE.

History of warrantless searches

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales briefed Congress on February 6th, 2006 on the history of warrantless foreign intelligence searches:

"This fact is amply borne out by history. This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance — a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence. One source of Washington’s intelligence was intercepted British mail. See Central Intelligence Agency, Intelligence in the War of Independence 31, 32 (1997). In fact, Washington himself proposed that one of his Generals “contrive a means of opening [British letters] without breaking the seals, take copies of the contents, and then let them go on.” Id. at 32 (“From that point on, Washington was privy to British intelligence pouches between New York and Canada.”). And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (28 April 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda."[156]

In 1975, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the Church Committee), a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID), investigated intelligence gathering by the federal government, including warrantless surveillance.[157] The Committee report found the "Americans who violated no criminal law and represented no genuine threat to the 'national security' have been targeted, regardless of the stated predicate. In many cases, the implementation of wiretaps and bugs has also been fraught with procedural violations, even when the required procedures were meager, thus compounding the abuse. The inherently intrusive nature of electronic surveillance, moreover, has enabled the Government to generate vast amounts of information - unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest - about the personal and political lives of American citizens."[158]

The "potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency for operations such as SHAMROCK (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973)" helped persuade president Gerald Ford in 1976 to seek surveillance legislation, which was ultimately enacted as FISA in 1978.[159]

In a foreward looking 1985 report, "Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties," the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment suggested legislation be considered for a surveillance oversight board.[160] Congress disbanded this agency in 1995.[161]

On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."[162]

The REAL story behind the NSA "spying"

The Reuters story linked HERE is very interesting. It is entirely specualtion and accusation. The article lacks anything resembling facts or evidence aside from an unknown source providing allegorical and unsworn testimony.

The real story is that there is not "spying" per se. In fact all that is done is a collection of numbers making calls to other numbers irrespective of who it is. The numbers are then fed in to a data mining system which cross references that with known numbers used by terrorists so that the authorities can find out who the terrorists are speaking with and colluding with. It does not and cannot work in the reverse. This project was already sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Clinton administration and is nothing new except as an attack on the current administration (why thats necessary is beyond me since Bush cannnot serve another term).

There are no conversations archived, the NSA doesn't care what you talk to your grandmother about, nor does it care about your business transactions that you carry out over the phone. Grow up and don't believe everything you read in the national and international papers.

k thx bye

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

White Guilt

White Guilt at opinionjournal.com

linked HERE

My My This Here Evan Bayh

Alrighty then, now this post is going to sound snippy and trite and perhaps even a bit arrogant so be warned. I don't mean to offend, but if I do I apologize well in advance. if you are thin skinned or cling to conventional wisdom like a man/woman overboard to a life raft or floating piece of debris, then you should run away right now. However, if you are willing to accept that reality may be different than you have been told, instructed/inculcated then what comes next is for you. I promise this to be a truly educational post.



After the jump.....


ok first some definitions because words have meanings and I want everyone to be on the same page.

taken from Dictionary.com:

Democracy:
  1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
  2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
  3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
  4. Majority rule.
  5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Republic:
    1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
    2. A nation that has such a political order.
    1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
    2. A nation that has such a political order.
  1. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
  2. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
  3. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

However I am going to revise the democracy definitions by getting rid of the "republic parts" of it

REVISED:

  1. Government by the people, exercised directly
  2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
  3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
  4. Majority rule.
Thats better and far more accurate especially when you study the root greek and latin words from which the two concepts are divided

Republic: "res publica" = The people's things
Democracy: "demos kratein" = The people rule
Thanks to David N. Mayer for the translations

Now that we have a specific set of definitions that do not cross over eachother, and we have the root words defined for us we can actually begin a rational argument based on evidence.








Ok here we go... the website "News & Observer.com" (linked HERE) has an interview with Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). Most of the interview is rather innocuous and what one would expect from a media organization craving access to politicians on friendly terms. However, the third question asked of the Senator was very interesting.

"Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?"

Now I had no idea that there was even a movement for this kind of action, much less members of our government suporting this kind of radical change. On the other hand, given who it is being asked of, it does make some sense.

His answer to the question (for those that didn't RTFA) was:

'A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."'

Hardly a comprehensive argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Mr. Evan Bayh needs a slight education on the % of votes that past U.S. Presidents have won the elctoral college with. Bill Clinton won re-election with only 43% of the popular vote, but a majority of the Electoral College, and a total of fifteen other U.S. Presidents have won office in plurality situations.

Close elections are nothing new in United States history, so saying that becuase we had a close elction we need to abandon a stable and proven system is either ignorant, or clever and I'm not sure which.

One thing that must be examined is how we got to the point where this is actually considered seriously rather than mocked by people who know about the system we use and why it was chosen. The journalist in this article doesn't ask a follow up and pretty much gives the Senator a pass. So..clever or arrogant? I can't say yet.

However I have found others have touched on this subject far more concisely and completely and yes eloquently than I could without massive digressions...

SO I will provide this excellent link to another Blog for any readers to peruse HERE. This article by David N. Mayer is a great place to start.


Now I will just add to what he has said and researched.


Senator Bayh had better do his homework rather than pandering to his constituents. I for one do not want to live in a democracy becuase sooner or later my rights as an individual will be suborned to that of the collective majority. Democracy is but a stone's throw from a tyranny, and if readers don't believe me all they have to do is look at the greek attempt at it, resulting in the tyranical system of government, and also in Germany's election of Hitler and his ascendency to power as the fascist dictator of the Third Reich.

Human nature does not permit the use of Democracy as a form of government that is stable and less evil; for a democractic governemnt must continually get more and more involved in a person's life to remain relevent.

I do worry for our nation should bpeople not begin to wake up and see what has become and what is becoming of their government every day.

Long live the republic

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Super Bernstein to the rescue (sarcasm)

Carl Bernstein hit it big by being one of the two reporters to break the Nixon Watergate scandal to the public. In his latest article linked HERE (printer friendly version for those who want to save this), he claims a series of things that I will outline below in bulleted form to save you the time of plowing through his rocky road of bloviating.

  • The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.
  • More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
  • But the truth is we have no trustworthy official record of what has occurred in almost any aspect of this administration, how decisions were reached, and even what the actual policies promulgated and approved by the president are. Nor will we, until the subpoena powers of the Congress are used (as in Watergate) to find out the facts—not just about the war in Iraq, almost every aspect of it, beginning with the road to war, but other essential elements of Bush's presidency, particularly the routine disregard for truthfulness in the dissemination of information to the American people and Congress.
  • This investigation should be seen as an opportunity to at last rise above the culture wars and, as in Watergate, learn whether the actions of the president and his deputies have been consistent with constitutional principles, the law, and the truth.
  • A voluminous accumulation of documentary and journalistic evidence suggests that the policies and philosophy of this administration that may be unconstitutional or illegal stem not just from Bush but from Cheney as well—hence there's even greater necessity for a careful, methodical investigation under Senate auspices before any consideration of impeachment in the House and its mischievous potential to create the mother of all partisan, ideological, take-no-prisoners battles, which would even further divide the Congress and the country
  • retired army colonel Larry Wilkerson, has attested, "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
  • One of the similarities between Bush and Nixon is their contempt, lip service aside, for the legitimate oversight of Congress. In seeking to cover up his secret, illegal activities, Nixon made broad claims of executive privilege or national security, the most important of which were rejected by the courts.
  • Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their colleagues have successfully evaded accountability for the dire consequences of their policies through a tried-and-true strategy that has exploited a situation in which the press (understandably) has no subpoena power and is held in ill repute (understandably) by so many Americans, and the Republican-controlled Congress can be counted on to ignore its responsibility to compel relevant, forthright testimony and evidence—no matter how outrageous (failure to provide sufficient body armor for American soldiers, for example), mendacious, or inimical to the national interest the actions of the president and his principal aides might be.
  • "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country," Bush added. (The special prosecutor's revelation that Bush himself—through Cheney—was ultimately behind Scooter Libby's leaking to undermine Joseph Wilson has ironically caused Bush more damage among Republican members of Congress than far more grievous acts by the president.)
  • Fitzgerald told the U. S. District Court, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to punish Wilson."
  • The unprecedented generals' revolt against the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is—like the special prosecutor's Plame investigation—a door that once cracked open, cannot be readily shut by the president or even his most senior aides. What outsiders long suspected regarding the conduct of the war has now been given credence by those on the inside, near the top, just as in the unraveling of Watergate.
  • The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush—at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard.

    There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived.

ok thats a lot and most of what I have left out is either exculpatory, neutral or irrelevant to The Bush Administration directly.

Bernstein touches on several matters
  1. Electronic Surveilance Programs/FISA/Article II War Powers
  2. Senate vote to investigate illegal activities
  3. Bush Administration has been overly secretive and deceptive to the public
  4. Anecdotal evidence (journalistic) indicates that something might have happened that causes concern...
  5. Ex-Military commader calling Bush Admin a "cabal"
  6. No respect for Congress
  7. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson
  8. Ex-Generals criticizing Rumsfeld
  9. The System has failed and congress needs to grow a pair
OK that was my succinct summary of the article as I see it.

now on to each issue varying from 1 by 1 until the end of the article or I fall asleep (just for all of you COBOL fans)


ok so point 1
Bush Surveiled US public illegally without a court warrant.
Patently false; no evidence that such warrantless searches (which may or may not have happened) ever targeted a US citizen. No documentation exists despite the massive leaking within various branches of the federal government. If anything did happen (no evidence just allegation) then of course there should be an investigation. Foreign surveilance did happen without warrants initially (which is allowed by FISA law as long as the attourney general keeps the US Congress apprised of what is going on). Also the mandatory buh buh buh but Clinton/Reagan/Carter/etc who have all done exactly the same things.

Point 2:
The Senate should vote to investigate Bush Administration's Illegal Activities
Also a silly thing since there have been no proven illegal activities to insinuate that there have been. Its nearly libel to write such things, but its all been prefaced by the fact that this is an opinion/commentary collumn. Now...Alleged illegal activities would be accurate.

Point 3:
The Bush Administration has been the most secretive in history
Utter myth: The Bush administration has been one of the most forth coming administrations in history. However Bush does not hold many state dinners, or press galas or fancy parties that the washington press and diplomatic corps are used to. The press feels left out of a social scene that they were included in previous administrations deeply. The press can't get leaks and scoops as easy so they call the Bush Admin secretive. Its just silly.

Pint 4:
Journalistic evidence and documentation of illicit/deceptive activities.
If by journalistic and documentary Bernstein means unfounded allegations and forged documents then I agree...ample evidence indeed.

point 5:
Ex-ARmy Colonel and the Bush Cabal...
This makes me laugh so hard..I picture Bush, Rove, Rummy and Cheyney performing some pagan fertility rite over the body of Condoleeza Rice (yes I know its a bit graphic but it makes me laugh).
As to the statement that Bush doesn't listen to anyone who opposes what he already thinks (i.e. suffers from a massive case of "group think") I say, and this is my opinion, Prove that statement with memorandums and other documentation since proving a negative is impossible. Innocent until proven guilty ;).

point 6:
Bush Administration doesn't respect the powers of Congress and bullies Congress.
Lies: Bush has not vetoed a single bill passed by the US Congress; Bush has done nothing except give respect to the congress, he let Ted Kennedy write the oft cited No-Child-Left-Behind Act and other opponents of his do similar things in an attempt to be concilliatory to his opponents. In addition he has reformed the intelligence services and begun cleaning out the entrenched bureacracy that led to intelligence failures prior to 9/11/ USS Cole Bombings/Federal Building/Kenya/Lebannon/1st World Trade Center bombings (also Al Qaeida by the way)
Congress bellyaches all the time about not being consulted about this and that when its perfectly obvious they are either lying or being forgetful (i.e. pre-war intelligence)
The Sensate Select Committee on Foreign intelligence recieves the SAME intel briefings as the president on day to day matters and on important threats. The president gets the information first because he is the Chief Executive Officer and Congress has oversight powers, not executive.

Point 7:
Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson
Not secret/not CIA/Not undercover/Not a sanctioned trip abroad for intel purposes
Also: not leaked; Executive Order allows the US President to declassify any information he deems appropriate because he is the EXECUTIVE...he does not have to go through a Congressional Committee to evaluate what should/should not be declassified. The US Congress could in fact write such a law requiring the President to do so, but they have not.

FACT: The entire document was marked secret all over it and not just her name

FACT: The independent council is not pursuing the leak because he has admitted there was no crime there; now he is pursuing "Scooter" Libby for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Oddly enough this is what Clinton was guilty of and every one says that it doesn't matter. It sure matters during the Bush admin apparently...but I thought everyone lied in court so its okay to do it. *sigh*

Point 8:
The Ex General revolution
Bernstein has no idea how the uppr tier of the Officer corps works. Officers are far more political than we give them credit for in public. There are Military official swith varying points of view and ideological standards from left to right. Rumsfeld has been cutting the fat out of the military bureaucracy and also slashing pet projects of many generals. Rumsfeld has transformed the US Military, or at least laid down the framework for this tasnformation during his tenure. Of course he stepped on some toes, and now that the generals are no longer under the UCMJ they are attacking him because they are angry that he stepped on their toes. "He's unfit"

"why is he unfit"
"cause I don't like him very much"

*sigh* grow up

point 9:
The system has failed and congress is weak
The system has not failed, but Congress is weak. If congress wants the troops out of Iraq they can refuse to fund the military and the troops will have to come home. But they will not take a tough stand because they are more interested in staying inj power than they are in doing the "right" thing. They would rather hedge their collective bets and just snipe at the President or eachother just to stay in Washington. Congress has been steadily decreacing in power since President Lincoln made the Presidency what it is today.

SOme things Bernstein says can be interpreted as being correct in his article, but for the most part it is unsubstanciated allegations intended to lend credit to those allegations. Bernstein should be ashamed to view everything through the prism of Watergate; it has poisoned his mind and he cannot be objective about anything as long as he comes from a point of view that has pre-judged the outcome.

journalism my rear end...

And no I'm no journalist either, just a decent critic.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Why oil prices are nuts, and why it is crazy not to invest in oil stocks

OK

So we have high oil prices (~$71/barrel) and this shows no sign of dropping again soon. The reason is not lack of supply or invetory shortages or a growing demand. The given reason by various unnamed and unsourced analysts is that its is due to the "uncertainty" of supply from Iran and Nigeria for political instability reasons. In addition to political instability transoceanic shipping for the transport of oil from producers to refiners and consumers is at 100% capacity and reserved for the forseable future. Also refineries within the United States are operating at peak capacity.

That explains the costs mainly on the side of the importers.

Now for the domestic side:
Credit Card fees from retailers account for roughly $0.07/$2.00 added on to the price of gasoline that have to be added on to provide an acceptable profit for the retailer.
Refineries again
Natural Disasters: Such as any hurricane, cyclone, earthquake or other infrastructure damaging event due to nature
Mechanical Failure: hey it happens, but its rare
Terrorism: It could happen and this leads to...
SPECULATORS: Here is what really drives the price of oil. Oil futures are traded openly and when people begin buying a large sum of these contracts in the direction of higher prices then you get HIGHER PRICES.

A great deal of speculation is based on emotion; not how things ARE but how they are THOUGHT to be. If there is a rumor of a shortage, speculators begin buying more driving the prices up. THen if information comes out contradicting the shortage of supply the futures are sold short and a profit is made to buy up MORE oil futures and once again drive up the prices.
It is a fun little cycle.

Statistics on the oil industry can be found here for those that are interested in seeing how the oil industry works and also how some other industries operate in comparisson.

As to my opinion on all of this...

If one is a proponent of the european model of economics (high taxes and no growth) then this is a good way to continue. When one looks at the price of oil, one can see the real people gouging you are not in BIG OIL. They are instead in the state and federal government. The government takes revenue from these products and then on top of that does nothing else but add costs to the companies making this product and get in teh way of commerce.

I am not arguing for some kind of deregulation of the oil industry where the state does nothing in the way of environmental regulations. However, the states/federal government should realize that they are harming the consumer. Of course there are those that feel high oil prices are a good thing and will discourage the alleged disproportionate consumption of oil by the USA and this will inturn have a positive impact on the environment.

Funny thing that...

It would be true if the government could ever do with less revenue and a cut in social programs. Mind you these social programs are promoted by the very same people (yes I mean you liberal democrats) that want the higher gas taxes to discourage consumption for the sake of the environment which in turn reduces the amount of revenue (from that tax) that goes to the government which results in budget shortfalls and programs being cut and that will be blamed on the rich for not paying their fair share (whatever that is) or BIG BUSINESS.

The reality of the gas tax based on $/gallon as it is today is parasitic and not symbiotic as it would have been dreamed to be. An example of this happening outside of the oil and gas industry is with BIIIIGGG Tobacco (yes those evil evil tobacco farmers and product producers). Lately people have begun to smoke less and buy fewer cigarettes so the states get less money to fund the health care systems that the tax revenue used to. So get ready for higher taxes in other areas. You should thank smokers for subsidizing your state healthcare, give one a hug if you see him or her.

Oregon is trying to dump the gas tax in favor of a GPS driven toll tax. No need for toll booths or attendants, your in car GPS unit will serve the same purpose...oh and record everything your car does like...break the speed limit and such. *wave good bye to privacy* your car is now evidence against you.

SO don't blame big oil for big prices; blame big government

;)

Monday, April 03, 2006

Africa on the Spit

The continent of Africa has long held the interest of us westerners. Well that was true at least in colonial and imperial times where we imagined the gentleman explorer floating up the nile in to the heart of Africa to discover wondrous place, cultures and "things". We used to thinkof Africans as savages, same as we did with nearly every non-western culture. No they did not develope the internal combustion engine, and yes living in a tribal socity seems backwards to us. Not all Africans live in tribal societies of course, but the ones that are having the most trouble in recent days identify with being as a pasrt of a tribe rather than a larger ethnic or national group.

An example of this would be Rwanda. Rwanda was colonized by the Germans first, then given to the Belgians at the end of World War I (See Wiki article for a decent summary). The racial divide created by at first overt racism, and then pseudo-scientific babbitry stemming from the eugenics movement, created a rivalry and hatred between the two parties. So one party (the Hutu's) decided that they were racially superior and the war...err slaughter was on. Meanwhile the bravely brave United Nations Peacekeeping forces retreated...err move tactically to the rear to insure all of the foreign nationals got out. And by foreign nationals I mean westerners. However, some Rwandans did escape to thanks to their own efforts in calling friends back in Europe. Many thousands of others died or sought refuge in bordering nations.

A more recent example of a massacre is going on in Sudan. Teh African Union has a presence there, but they are under funded and under manned. Now we (the USA) don't necessarily have to pay for it. However, it is time that our European friends who we generously call allies to step up and fix their former colonies. WE put out the brush fire called Kosovo in their back yard and they have had plenty of time to learn a few lessons. Does the USA have any responsibility for Sudan? No, none at all. However, Sudan has oil, not much, and it belongs to the french...which is incedentally why the violence continues. The French in their INFINITE wisdom are propping up the bad guys. Who knew Chirac was crooked? (UN oil for Food Scandal and sanction violations kinda hint at this). So I don't really have a point in writing this. There are two basic options.

1) Europeans grow a pair and sort this out, or at least fund the AU better.
2) Africa sorts itself out all on its own (not a bad option, though certainly not the best, and for once people might learn something).

Africa is burning, literally, and not for freedom, democracy, or anything but a respite from unceasing racial hatred, slave trading and general misery.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Fallacy of Wilsonianism/ Bush Doctrine

The previous post is obviously not what I believe but is the mental process by which many interventionists think, including our current President. The reason for this is that "self-determination" has become rather confused with "US-Determinism." The Iraqi's did not choose a democracy. We TOLD them that they will have a democracy and they may set it up how they like within that semantic framwork. The same thing holds true for Afghanistan with their "democracy."

Too often do we associate democracies with human rights and high standards of living. Belarus is a democracy but has very little in the way of human rights. Afghanistan's flowering democracy is still based on sharia. And so it is foreign to our own views of a democracy. We should not cry foul when a nation develops a democratic system that is in opposition to ours when we are the ones who told them they are free to set up said government. This smacks of the highest hypocracy and makes me want to vomit.

The whole idea that we should base our diplomatic ties on human rights is absurd form a practical point of view. Case in point, Pakistan. Pakistan is run by a military dictatorship. Yes they promise to have elections but we all know that they are pretty meaningless. Pervez Musharraf is however an ally with us against Al-Qaeda and similar factions. This makes them acceptable. Yes we are pressuring them to adopt more democratic reforms, but this also matters comparatively little since Pakistan's poeple are not exactly deomstrating in the streets for western human rights. We are selling that government f-16 fighter jets and providing them with foreign aid money (bribe money) to help us. Still they balk at allowing our troops to cross the Afghani border in to Pakistan to pursue terrorists (and yes we do it anyway).

Practicality wins out over human rights any day. In a society that is essentially a theocracy we should expect to see women degraded, and free thought stifled as well as the free practice of religion. Quit complaining. And for the love of God and all that is Holy, quit trying to find dragons to slay President Bush. All future politicians who wish to succeed GW ought to learn this lesson at well. George Washington knew about this danger at our founding. Yes we were a small and relatively impotent nation at the time, but entangling alliances are still entangling no matter one's size.

Wilsonianism and the Bush Doctrine are just adventurism by another name, and are merely another way for us to foist our cultural superiority upon the savages. What fun we shall have when the chickens come home to roost.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

The appeal of Wilsonianism/ The Bush Doctrine

President Wilson is famously quoted "The world must be made safe for democracy." Let us presume that being of a a democratic form of government is true. Second let us hold that this form of government is not only the most moral, but also gives us as a people the moral duty to enlighten the rest of the world. Thirdly and lastly let us hold that all healthy human beings are essentially rational. Being the most moral, any non-democratic style of government is a threat not only to us, but to the entire world. The fact that another government has not democratic processes means that it may in fact disagree with us on other issues and may result to the use of force to get its way.

Here comes the Bush Doctrine

THEREFORE we must act to make sure that our democracy and thus all democracies (since we are friends with democracies) are safe from this threat. So we will be morally justified in using military force against a nation that does not (yet) threaten force upon us. We can only assure our safety by using pre-emptive force against a non-democratic state. The citizens of said nation obviously desire to live in a democracy even if they do not know it yet for it is the natural yearning of the human spirit. No rational human being could deny this, especially in connection with what we feel are unalienable human rights. We know what is best for them.

*correlary* Supposedly democracies do not fight one another

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Another Christian on the Bahhbie (well he's been spared this time)

Well after reading many stories about Abdul Rahman, the Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianity, I was happy to see that he was released to the custody of his family rather than being put to death. Sure they had to justfy his release by saying he wasn't mentally fit to stand trial, but sometimes you have to take a win where you can get it. The downside is that now Mr. Rahman has the entire religious community and no small number of devout Muslims in Afghanistan after his hide.

Having said that, its this kind of thing that makes me want to avoid American Adventurism. Yes we went to Afghanistan to "get the terrorists in Afghanistan." So now we want to secure Afghanistan as a pro-western pseudo-democracy, and thats where we run in to trouble. We mainly run in to trouble because Islam as a religion is not tolerant of OTHER religions when the nation's core law is based on sharia. In the United States we have a guarantee of a freedom to practice one's religion without government influence (unless due process otherwise contradicts this such as being charged with the promotion of a crime or inciting a riot). This is quite obviously not the case in Afghanistan.

We should ask ourselves several questions.


  • Should we enforce our value system on the Afghanis?
  • If so, how would we enforce these foreign values?
  • If the Afghanis resist us, what then?
If you are of the Wilsonian mindset as our current President is, then you would at least want to change the Afghani mindset at the governmental level as to how other religions should be treated. Of course these government officials know that their constituents will not accept this as it is clearly a cultural betrayal.

This is the cultural imperialism that is most eggregious to muslims and other ethinicities and religious groupings world wide. It is not so much the big corporations and "decadent" western films as it is our rather meddlesome foreign policy.

I am sure there are voices within the State Department screaming for a more hands-off approach, to let the Afghanis run their own nation, that we have so benevolently given to them.

But as I sit back and look around me, I am glad that I was born in the United States of America, where this is not even an issue. My problem now, is with this nation that I love, exhausting itself by trying to make other nations clones of its own enlightened framework.

-- JC