Friday, December 7, 2012
My Guidelines For Online Political Debate
I have qualms about posting political screeds online, and I'll often play a contrarian role when left-leaning friends, who generally match my political views, get political on Facebook. To the friends who think I'm just trolling, here's where I'm coming from.
Generally, I argue with people who I agree with more than I argue with people who I disagree with for two reasons; I have few reasonable conservative friends to debate, and I believe that fairness and honesty should be prioritized over politics. The left doesn't have a monopoly on truth and fairness, but I feel like we can and should win arguments without stooping to exaggeration, histrionics or outright lies. A little fact-checking and introspection can go a long way, and I try to play the role of ombudsman for people on my side of the aisle. Please, speak up without shouting down, keep an open mind and play fair, do the research and ask questions.
I try to play by certain rules when wading into political discussions, which I generally enjoy. 1) Don't judge people online, because you rarely know all the facts and you often come across like a bully 2) Don't waste your time responding to fools who say stupid stuff just to get attention – especially on Twitter, (PLEASE IGNORE TWITTER), 3) Calling out sexism/racism/other prejudice online is cheap and plays into an us-versus-them mentality that can be toxic and counterproductive. Especially if it seems like you're leaping to conclusions without evidence.
On Rule #3: Generally, when one of my online friends posts a reaction to a sexist or arguably sexist comment or situation, I recoil, not because I'm sexist (I think we're all a little sexist sometimes, but I believe in full equality and opportunity, full stop, and I believe that we have a ways to go before we get there), but because those reactions lend themselves to a self-righteousness that I find off-putting and a little frightening.
It's off-putting because a common attitude of the anti-sexists is something like “hey, I can spew the hate because this guy's already shown himself to be a hater! It's cool because I only bully bad people and weirdos who disagree with me!” That kind of tone assumes that every reasonable person agrees with you; it shuts down debate by inviting either unquestioning approval or a refutation that only proves how sexist everyone else is.
It's frightening because it lends itself to broad-brush generalizations in which facts go unexamined and people take sides based on ignorance and noise.
To take two recent examples from the Republican “war on women” : 1) Remember the outrage when Lisa Brown said she was censored for saying “vagina” during a debate on an anti-abortion measure? That was essentially a lie (she was prevented from speaking on the bill AFTER it had already passed , and she pissed off Republicans not because she said “vagina,” but because she implied that Republicans wanted to rape her; her full quote was 'I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no!' I happen to think that's a funny and fair way to score political points, but if that's your strategy don't lie about it afterwards and claim that Republicans are trying to legislate vaginas while being scared of the word “vagina.” More to the point, for me, this is frightening because the national conversation afterward became all about one self-serving press conference and a catchy slogan – not a single one of my friends who threw their support behind Brown seemed to realize that this happened in the Michigan state legislature, not the national Congress, and none seemed to realize that the anti-abortion measure had already passed. They were just happy to point and laugh at the craa-azy Republicans, while the craa-azy Republicans were busy legislating away women's reproductive rights in Michigan. The real issues here were completely drowned out by ill-informed political noise. 1) Scott Brown, a moderate with no clear record of sexism, was unfairly targeted by ads lumping him in with the likes of Todd Akin, who he publicly repudiated. Brown's last act in the Senate was co-sponsoring an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow government to set aside larger government contracts for women, putting women-owned businesses on equal footing with other historically underrepresented group in contracting, like minorities and disabled veterans.
I'm probably going to go ahead and be a hypocrite here, and break all of those rules anyway. But I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.
Mets Player Struggles With Definition of Humility, Irony
https://twitter.com/jordany023
His current Twitter status stresses the importance of humility -- and is accompanied by a photo of Jordany Valdespin posing next to a collage of PHOTOS OF JORDANY VALDESPIN!
My mind is Valdespinning....
In another Twitter photo, he wears a Marlins hat, which is a jerkwad thing to do in the best of circumstances. Valdespin wins extra jerkwad points because he plays for a team that directly competes against the Marlins.
Still, I'll be rooting for you, Jordany! Go hit 30 HRs for the Mets next year!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Press Release of the Day: "Look At Me, I'm A Lawyer!"
I get a lot of press releases and story pitches in my work inbox, and, most of the time, I ignore them. Whenever something important happens, self-promoters go on a blitz to cast themselves as "experts" so they can hoodwink some quote-hungry reporter into using them as a source for a story. Everybody wins - the reporter gets his quote, and the "expert" gets more ammo for their next PR blitz ("...as quoted by the New York Times...").
The only problem is that a lot of it is bullshit, and weeding through them often isn't worth the effort.
This is the kind of stuff I get on a regular basis: "Are you writing about the Supreme Court's health care decision? I've got a broccoli farmer who'd love to talk about Congress's power to force vegetable purchases under the the Commerce Clause... Writing about the controversial Keystone pipeline? You should talk to this gas station owner who has proof that Obama wants oil prices to rise so he can usher in his Kenyan-Communist master plan!"
But sometimes irrelevant stuff catches my eye, like this absolute gem from today that practically begs to be ignored.
Rather than summarize the release and tamper with its greatness, here it is, re-posted in its entirety.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2012
New York City Lawyer OK With Being Labeled ‘Obsessive’
Up-to-date legal scholar Michael M. Menicucci approaches 25 years in practice
NEW YORK – New York City attorney Michael M.Menicucci is admittedly obsessive when it comes to being a leader in his field.
“I’m fixated – but in a good way,” said the seasoned legal scholar and principle of Menicucci,Villa & Associates.
Many of today’s legal concerns, he said, involve recent legislative changes that could render case law or once-standard procedures obsolete.
“If staying up-to-date on court decisions and regulatory makeovers for my clients means I’m obsessive, the label fits,” said Menicucci, who is one of the New York region’s foremost authorities on the legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Clients -- ranging from builders and banks to families, large corporations, small-business owners and lawyers -- commonly depend on Menicucci’s expertise in matters of property law; business transactions; partnerships and corporations; regulatory disputes; administrative law; comprehensive estate planning; offshore asset protection; forensic accounting; will contests, and trust and probate litigation.
“A lack of adequate knowledge and experience involving any of these matters could devastate a client’s finances,” Menicucci said. “This is why it’s so important for an attorney to be in the forefront of regulatory changes and court decisions before offering advice, sitting at a negotiating table or entering a courtroom to represent a client.”
A member of the New York State Bar for nearly 25 years, Menicucci launched his private practice in 1988, efficiently growing it into a powerhouse practice. Fourteen years later, his endeavor further blossomed into the law firm of Menicucci, Villa & Asociates.
Earlier, 1985 to 1988, Menicucci worked as the confidential assistant to the borough president of Staten Island. From 1982 to 1985, he drafted and developed federal environmental measures as legislative assistant to then
Congressman Guy V. Molinari.
Menicucci attributes his years of success to a combination of unrelenting due diligence and a work ethic instilled in him by his father.
“There should be no compromise when a client hires you, expecting the very best representation,” Menicucci said.
“You either know the law and do what’s best for your client, or look elsewhere for a less demanding career. It’s that simple.”
Menicucci may be reached at 718-667-9090 or via e-mail at: MMenicucci@menicuccivilla.com
About Menicucci . Villa & Associates
Menicucci, Villa & Associates PPLC is one of the New York region’s leading law firms with an expertise in the legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Based in Staten Island, N.Y., the team of Menicucci, Villa &Associates is widely recognized as one of the top law practices of its kind in metropolitan New York. The firm may be reach at 718-667-9090 or via e-mail at SILawyers@menicuccivilla.com.
CAPTION: Attorney Michael Menicucci is one of the New York region’s foremost authorities on the
legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Media Contact: Barton Horowitz
Relevant Public Relations, LLC
Headquarters: 718‑682‑1509
Mobile: 917‑715‑8761
Email: Bhorowitz@RelevantPR.com
(Hat tip to fellow reporter Bibeka, who passed it along to me).
The only problem is that a lot of it is bullshit, and weeding through them often isn't worth the effort.
This is the kind of stuff I get on a regular basis: "Are you writing about the Supreme Court's health care decision? I've got a broccoli farmer who'd love to talk about Congress's power to force vegetable purchases under the the Commerce Clause... Writing about the controversial Keystone pipeline? You should talk to this gas station owner who has proof that Obama wants oil prices to rise so he can usher in his Kenyan-Communist master plan!"
But sometimes irrelevant stuff catches my eye, like this absolute gem from today that practically begs to be ignored.
So, congratulations to the winner of today's "Most Transparently Self-Serving Press Release," NY attorney Michael Menicucci, who wants you to know that he has been practicing law for nearly 25 years and doesn't mind being called obsessive.
Is this a Hannibal Burress joke cleverly disguised as a sad PR grab?
Is this a Hannibal Burress joke cleverly disguised as a sad PR grab?
Or did the PR guy just write a bio for the lawyer's website, and say, "What the hell, maybe I can send out a bunch of emails and see if anyone bites"? He doesn't even try to make it relevant to anybody but Michael Menicucci!
That's particularly ironic, coming from a PR firm called "Relevant Public Relations LLC."
Rather than summarize the release and tamper with its greatness, here it is, re-posted in its entirety.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2012
New York City Lawyer OK With Being Labeled ‘Obsessive’
Up-to-date legal scholar Michael M. Menicucci approaches 25 years in practice
NEW YORK – New York City attorney Michael M.Menicucci is admittedly obsessive when it comes to being a leader in his field.
“I’m fixated – but in a good way,” said the seasoned legal scholar and principle of Menicucci,Villa & Associates.
Many of today’s legal concerns, he said, involve recent legislative changes that could render case law or once-standard procedures obsolete.
“If staying up-to-date on court decisions and regulatory makeovers for my clients means I’m obsessive, the label fits,” said Menicucci, who is one of the New York region’s foremost authorities on the legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Clients -- ranging from builders and banks to families, large corporations, small-business owners and lawyers -- commonly depend on Menicucci’s expertise in matters of property law; business transactions; partnerships and corporations; regulatory disputes; administrative law; comprehensive estate planning; offshore asset protection; forensic accounting; will contests, and trust and probate litigation.
“A lack of adequate knowledge and experience involving any of these matters could devastate a client’s finances,” Menicucci said. “This is why it’s so important for an attorney to be in the forefront of regulatory changes and court decisions before offering advice, sitting at a negotiating table or entering a courtroom to represent a client.”
A member of the New York State Bar for nearly 25 years, Menicucci launched his private practice in 1988, efficiently growing it into a powerhouse practice. Fourteen years later, his endeavor further blossomed into the law firm of Menicucci, Villa & Asociates.
Earlier, 1985 to 1988, Menicucci worked as the confidential assistant to the borough president of Staten Island. From 1982 to 1985, he drafted and developed federal environmental measures as legislative assistant to then
Congressman Guy V. Molinari.
Menicucci attributes his years of success to a combination of unrelenting due diligence and a work ethic instilled in him by his father.
“There should be no compromise when a client hires you, expecting the very best representation,” Menicucci said.
“You either know the law and do what’s best for your client, or look elsewhere for a less demanding career. It’s that simple.”
Menicucci may be reached at 718-667-9090 or via e-mail at: MMenicucci@menicuccivilla.com
About Menicucci . Villa & Associates
Menicucci, Villa & Associates PPLC is one of the New York region’s leading law firms with an expertise in the legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Based in Staten Island, N.Y., the team of Menicucci, Villa &Associates is widely recognized as one of the top law practices of its kind in metropolitan New York. The firm may be reach at 718-667-9090 or via e-mail at SILawyers@menicuccivilla.com.
CAPTION: Attorney Michael Menicucci is one of the New York region’s foremost authorities on the
legal details of banking and finance, including federal regulatory-compliance issues; residential and commercial real estate transactions; commercial litigation, and trusts and estates.
Media Contact: Barton Horowitz
Relevant Public Relations, LLC
Headquarters: 718‑682‑1509
Mobile: 917‑715‑8761
Email: Bhorowitz@RelevantPR.com
(Hat tip to fellow reporter Bibeka, who passed it along to me).
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
How much is an apology worth? In U.S. -Pakistan fight, $2.1B
"We are sorry," Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said Wednesday. She's sorry for the deaths of 21 Pakistani soldiers who reportedly fired (repeatedly) at U.S./NATO troops patrolling the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, but she's surely also sorry that the political blowup - fueled by Pakistan's dissatisfaction with previous U.S. apologies - has cost the U.S. roughly $2.1 billion and further recalcitrance from a dubious ally.
Clinton's apology has helped re-open the Ground Lines of Communication, military jargon for the ground transportation routes through Pakistan that the U.S. uses to supply its forces in Afghanistan. The routes had been closed since the November border skirmish that killed the Pakistani soldiers, forcing the U.S. to rely on expensive alternatives, such as longer roads through Russia and Central Asia and more airlifts.
In a previous post, "In War, $100M A Month Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry", I talked about the absurdity of a formal apology being a sticking point in the U.S.-Pakistan negotiations. But with overall costs of re-routes exceeding $2.1 billion so far (and disrupting war funding enough that the Department of Defense asked Congress to reshuffle $8 billion in contingency funds), I guess the U.S. decided enough was enough, and that it could extend itself beyond offering "condolences," "deep regrets" and acknowledging mistakes.
Although both the State Department and Department of Defense downplayed the role of the apology in negotiations, Pakistani officials continued to publicly insistent on a more formal apology. And the apology plays prominently in Clinton's official statement today, dominating from the first paragraph.
"I once again reiterated our deepest regrets for the tragic incident in Salala last November. I offered our sincere condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.
As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect." -- Hilary Clinton.
Pakistan's insistence on a formal apology must be maddening for the State Department and Defense Department, who must surely be thinking "but they started it!" (in terms of shots fired), at least on some gut level. Pakistan is so focused on "respect" that they ignore their repeated failures in the complicated and dysfunctional relationship -- from its failure to police its borders for Taliban fighters to its failure to capture Osama Bin Laden (compounded by the later treason conviction for a Pakistani doctor who tried to help Americans discover his whereabouts). At some point, Pakistan, in so many things, needs to figure out that respect needs to be earned, and insisting on it will just get you into pointless and embarrassing fights over semantics.
Clinton's apology has helped re-open the Ground Lines of Communication, military jargon for the ground transportation routes through Pakistan that the U.S. uses to supply its forces in Afghanistan. The routes had been closed since the November border skirmish that killed the Pakistani soldiers, forcing the U.S. to rely on expensive alternatives, such as longer roads through Russia and Central Asia and more airlifts.
In a previous post, "In War, $100M A Month Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry", I talked about the absurdity of a formal apology being a sticking point in the U.S.-Pakistan negotiations. But with overall costs of re-routes exceeding $2.1 billion so far (and disrupting war funding enough that the Department of Defense asked Congress to reshuffle $8 billion in contingency funds), I guess the U.S. decided enough was enough, and that it could extend itself beyond offering "condolences," "deep regrets" and acknowledging mistakes.
Although both the State Department and Department of Defense downplayed the role of the apology in negotiations, Pakistani officials continued to publicly insistent on a more formal apology. And the apology plays prominently in Clinton's official statement today, dominating from the first paragraph.
"I once again reiterated our deepest regrets for the tragic incident in Salala last November. I offered our sincere condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.
As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect." -- Hilary Clinton.
Pakistan's insistence on a formal apology must be maddening for the State Department and Defense Department, who must surely be thinking "but they started it!" (in terms of shots fired), at least on some gut level. Pakistan is so focused on "respect" that they ignore their repeated failures in the complicated and dysfunctional relationship -- from its failure to police its borders for Taliban fighters to its failure to capture Osama Bin Laden (compounded by the later treason conviction for a Pakistani doctor who tried to help Americans discover his whereabouts). At some point, Pakistan, in so many things, needs to figure out that respect needs to be earned, and insisting on it will just get you into pointless and embarrassing fights over semantics.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Government Denies the Existence of Mermaids
Despite the overwhelming evidence on display last week in Coney Island, the U.S. government still denies the existence of mermaids or, indeed, any "aquatic humanoids."
Are mermaids real? Not according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists," NOAA said. In other words, a clown question, according to the government.
But then again, NOAA has lied to us before - remember the Department of Interior-sponsored smash hit, the Day After Tomorrow? Massive flooding, followed by a cold snap that traps the Statue of Liberty in a freshly-made glacier - this was supposed to happen the day after the day after May 17, 2004. Global warming was just a scam to get me to buy a $11.75 ticket!
But this raises the question of what other majestic creatures whose existence the government will try to hide from us - unicorns? Bigfoot? Your move, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Are mermaids real? Not according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists," NOAA said. In other words, a clown question, according to the government.
But then again, NOAA has lied to us before - remember the Department of Interior-sponsored smash hit, the Day After Tomorrow? Massive flooding, followed by a cold snap that traps the Statue of Liberty in a freshly-made glacier - this was supposed to happen the day after the day after May 17, 2004. Global warming was just a scam to get me to buy a $11.75 ticket!
But this raises the question of what other majestic creatures whose existence the government will try to hide from us - unicorns? Bigfoot? Your move, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Monday, June 25, 2012
For every star in the sky
We could lay on our backs in the grass and write poetry
for the stars
A specific stanza for every one of them
And we’d waste our years just breathing out new words
Breathing out the innocence of speech without intent
The breath that comes as naturally to us as it does to the
grass
Breathing out the idiocy of less-then-a-moment’s thought
The breath that comes and goes without even realizing its
passing
Breathing out the profundity of our souls
The miraculous breath that sustains everything
Breathing out the stupidity of young love
A stanza for every one of them.
How long ago was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Man, two years can make a big difference. The Department of Defense is planning a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event tomorrow.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Hitting Snooze on the Cyber Threatdown?
Is the U.S. asleep at the wheel on cybersecurity? A fair question when the Pentagon appoints General Napper to the top cybersecurity post.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Baseball stuff
Do I love baseball? That's a clown question, bro.
This year, I've been too busy to watch a lot of games, but man, I love all the weird and wonderful stuff going on around the edges.
A couple of quick hits from the three most obnoxious fan bases in baseball, according to a Men's Journal Survey.
2) New York Mets: Johan Santana threw the Mets' first-ever no-hitter, and, true to baseball's crass commercial attitude, the Mets are selling $50 replica game tickets for lucky fans who weren't actually there but want to pretend like they were. After 8,019 games without a no-hitter, I guess the Mets wanted to cash in while they could.
Knuckleballer R.A. Dickey followed up with a two complete-game shutouts, one of them a one-hitter that the Mets are seeking to turn into another no-hitter by trying to turn a bad David Wright throw into an error. Replica game tickets will be discounted to $49 because nobody respects a no-hitter that was awarded on appeal, not even R.A. Dickey.
"I think the asterisk beside the no-hitter would get more attention than the no-hitter, you know?" Dickey told the Daily News. "Plus, you're not pitching the eighth, ninth inning with the pressure of a no-hitter going, you know? It would be a little bit cheap."
New York Yankees: I guess I'm not the only one who finds Nick Swisher unbearable.
“Everything about (Swisher) is annoying, from his mannerisms to his always wanting to ‘bro’ it down,” an unnamed American League veteran told [Men's Journal]. “Being around him is just exhausting.”
3) San Francisco Giants: A Giants fan casually hovering past McCovey Cove on a JET PACK to watch Matt Cain pitch? Cain, not wanting to be shown up, went ahead to pitch a perfect game.
BONUS: Check out my friend Ben's awesome page, Dan Uggla Wearing Uggs, the source of my photoshop of the day.
(source: http://danugglawearinguggs.tumblr.com/)
This year, I've been too busy to watch a lot of games, but man, I love all the weird and wonderful stuff going on around the edges.
A couple of quick hits from the three most obnoxious fan bases in baseball, according to a Men's Journal Survey.
1) Philadelphia. Since no Phillies fans have gotten around to intentionally vomiting on little girls this year, it's up to the mascot to pick up the slack in the Philadelphia Department of Jackassery. The Philles Phanatic ("the most sued mascot in sports," according to Wikipedia) was sued last week for grabbing a wedding guest and dumping her into a hotel pool.
"The Phanatic suddenly picked up both Peirce and her lounge chair and tossed both into the pool, according to [the lawsuit].
This isn’t the first time the Phanatic’s been accused of being too fanatical: in 2010 the Daily News found he’d been sued at least three other times in the last decade, once for hugging someone too hard. In 2010, a woman attending a Reading Phillies game with her church group claimed he sat on her legs, making her arthritis act up and ultimately led to a knee replacement, a lawsuit alleged." (Philly.com)
"The Phanatic suddenly picked up both Peirce and her lounge chair and tossed both into the pool, according to [the lawsuit].
This isn’t the first time the Phanatic’s been accused of being too fanatical: in 2010 the Daily News found he’d been sued at least three other times in the last decade, once for hugging someone too hard. In 2010, a woman attending a Reading Phillies game with her church group claimed he sat on her legs, making her arthritis act up and ultimately led to a knee replacement, a lawsuit alleged." (Philly.com)
2) New York Mets: Johan Santana threw the Mets' first-ever no-hitter, and, true to baseball's crass commercial attitude, the Mets are selling $50 replica game tickets for lucky fans who weren't actually there but want to pretend like they were. After 8,019 games without a no-hitter, I guess the Mets wanted to cash in while they could.
Knuckleballer R.A. Dickey followed up with a two complete-game shutouts, one of them a one-hitter that the Mets are seeking to turn into another no-hitter by trying to turn a bad David Wright throw into an error. Replica game tickets will be discounted to $49 because nobody respects a no-hitter that was awarded on appeal, not even R.A. Dickey.
"I think the asterisk beside the no-hitter would get more attention than the no-hitter, you know?" Dickey told the Daily News. "Plus, you're not pitching the eighth, ninth inning with the pressure of a no-hitter going, you know? It would be a little bit cheap."
New York Yankees: I guess I'm not the only one who finds Nick Swisher unbearable.
“Everything about (Swisher) is annoying, from his mannerisms to his always wanting to ‘bro’ it down,” an unnamed American League veteran told [Men's Journal]. “Being around him is just exhausting.”
3) San Francisco Giants: A Giants fan casually hovering past McCovey Cove on a JET PACK to watch Matt Cain pitch? Cain, not wanting to be shown up, went ahead to pitch a perfect game.
BONUS: Check out my friend Ben's awesome page, Dan Uggla Wearing Uggs, the source of my photoshop of the day.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
In War, $100 Million a Month Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry.
$100 million – that's how much the U.S. spends each month to reroute Afghanistan war supplies around closed ground routes in Pakistan, in part because U.S. leaders continue to refuse Pakistan's demand for a formal apology for the November deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers killed during a mistaken-identity border skirmish with NATO air forces.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta put a number on the costs of alternate shipping routes for the first time in Wednesday testimony to Congress. While Panetta said that both sides have a made progress towards a deal to reopen the supply routes, called the Ground Lines of Communication - or GLOCs - in military speak, he stressed that the apology isn't the only sticking point.
“The U.S. had made clear that mistakes were made, and they were made on our side, they were also made on the Pakistani side. We've expressed our condolences for the mistakes that were made," Panetta said. “That alone isn't the only issue that's being discussed and that needs to be resolved in order to get the GLOCS open."
In a Tuesday press briefing, Pentagon spokesman George Little similarly avoided the word “apology,” saying that U.S. leaders had “taken responsibility” for the deaths, and “expressed our deep regret and condolences.”
When pressed on why the U.S. wouldn't apologize and asked to confirm it was a sticking point in negotiations, Little implied that a formal apology was still under negotiation.
“Well, again, this gets to the contours of the negotiation, and I wouldn't get into the specifics of what we're discussing or not discussing with the Pakistanis,” Little said, “Whether or not an apology is part of that mix is not something I'm going to discuss in a public forum.”
The Department of Defense investigation into the border skirmish chalked it up to poor communication, fueled by a lack of trust between U.S. and Pakistani forces. U.S. forces near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border came under fire, and acted in self defense and with appropriate force, before being informed that their adversaries were Pakistani, not insurgent, forces. After the skirmish, Pakistan kicked the CIA out of an air base that had been used for drone strikes and shut the U.S, out of trucking routes to Afghanistan.
Until now, military leaders had been reluctant to put a price on the costs of rerouting supplies, probably concerned that Pakistan would use that price against them in negotiations to reopen the GLOCS.
Is there any hope of rescuing the dysfunctional relationship between America and Pakistan? Let's review a list of greatest hits from the past year or so: 1) Bin Laden was found hiding deep in Pakistan 2) the Pakistani doctor who helped U.S. forces locate Bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason 3) Taliban fighters continue to hide in Pakistan, and U.S. drone strikes continue to kill them (and nearby civilians) in Pakistan 4) 24 Pakistanis are killed after firing on NATO forces near the Afghanistan border.
I should write more
"To become a better writer you probably – and not so surprisingly – need to write more." -- Stephen King.
I should write more. I know, I know, I write a lot for my job as a legal reporter for Law360 -- 1,175 articles and counting, just in the past 21 and a half months. But non-subscribers (i.e., my friends, i.e. YOU, dear, hypothetical reader) aren't allowed to see that stuff, and even if they could, it would probably bore them to tears. Unless they were really into government contracts regulations (and space law! I sometimes write about space law!).
I should write more. That's the subtitle of this blog, which I started in Spain and abandoned there. It was a lot easier to "write more" when I had a 15-hour a week job in a small town with high unemployment and low cost of living. I kept meaning to get back to it after getting my feet on the ground in New York, but I always seem to find more ways to stay just busy enough that writing seems like an awful chore. I am in a band, I work 10-hour days, I party, I play D&D weekly, I'm in a book club ... you know, life. Plus, I just got a computer with games on it. So writing, and basic living tasks have taken a hit. I do laundry less than once a week, despite living in an apartment with a washer and drier (also, a baby, but that's another story). My diet has reverted to college-era fare of Swanson's chicken pot pies, Chef Boyardee ravioli and Hot Pockets -- anything that I can purchase cheap and consume quickly after returning home at 11pm from wherever the day has taken me. (Hot Pocket!).
There's just not enough time in a week to do everything you need to do, and also play Skyrim.
But here's the thing, I still have this blog, so I'm going to use it. Is it still going to be a space for a poem a day? Heck, no. But instead of throwing it away and trying to rebrand myself, I'll keep "The Saddest Viking" name and the "I should write more" theme, and, you know, just write more. Maybe about national security policy, stuff that is interesting but irrelevant to my professional career ("What's the contractor angle?" "This doesn't read like a legal story."). Maybe about music (I'm trying to freelance for the arts section of a Brooklyn paper -- no, scratch that THE Brooklyn Paper). Maybe poems, or bits of stories, or funny stuff I find on the internet. Maybe just stuff I would've posted to Facebook, but in slightly longer form. Who knows? But I know this -- I should write more.
I should write more. I know, I know, I write a lot for my job as a legal reporter for Law360 -- 1,175 articles and counting, just in the past 21 and a half months. But non-subscribers (i.e., my friends, i.e. YOU, dear, hypothetical reader) aren't allowed to see that stuff, and even if they could, it would probably bore them to tears. Unless they were really into government contracts regulations (and space law! I sometimes write about space law!).
I should write more. That's the subtitle of this blog, which I started in Spain and abandoned there. It was a lot easier to "write more" when I had a 15-hour a week job in a small town with high unemployment and low cost of living. I kept meaning to get back to it after getting my feet on the ground in New York, but I always seem to find more ways to stay just busy enough that writing seems like an awful chore. I am in a band, I work 10-hour days, I party, I play D&D weekly, I'm in a book club ... you know, life. Plus, I just got a computer with games on it. So writing, and basic living tasks have taken a hit. I do laundry less than once a week, despite living in an apartment with a washer and drier (also, a baby, but that's another story). My diet has reverted to college-era fare of Swanson's chicken pot pies, Chef Boyardee ravioli and Hot Pockets -- anything that I can purchase cheap and consume quickly after returning home at 11pm from wherever the day has taken me. (Hot Pocket!).
There's just not enough time in a week to do everything you need to do, and also play Skyrim.
But here's the thing, I still have this blog, so I'm going to use it. Is it still going to be a space for a poem a day? Heck, no. But instead of throwing it away and trying to rebrand myself, I'll keep "The Saddest Viking" name and the "I should write more" theme, and, you know, just write more. Maybe about national security policy, stuff that is interesting but irrelevant to my professional career ("What's the contractor angle?" "This doesn't read like a legal story."). Maybe about music (I'm trying to freelance for the arts section of a Brooklyn paper -- no, scratch that THE Brooklyn Paper). Maybe poems, or bits of stories, or funny stuff I find on the internet. Maybe just stuff I would've posted to Facebook, but in slightly longer form. Who knows? But I know this -- I should write more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
