In the wake of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) detonating during the Boston Marathon this past week, major terrorist networks were reticent on responsibility. Four were murdered by the alleged attackers. 183 have been injured. The triumphs and tragedy of this experience are not unfamiliar in modern America. Occurring during a major public event, the multiple explosions signaled a clear desire of mass causalities and publicity befitting the scale of an international network. Without initial confirmation of the assailants' identities, the American government began a massive public manhunt. Success and security were measured in terms of the ability to execute justice as the government dramatically conducted a multi-day, city-wide manhunt ending in the death of one suspect and the capture of another.
Although the official investigation of the alleged crimes and affiliations is in its infancy, it is suspected that these two young men were "lone wolf" terrorists. Their past seems to fit a pattern of "self-radicalization"--a socialization method that results in disaffected individuals seeking out grandiose violent actions against state targets and their citizens. A departure in character from our primary adversaries during the height of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the "lone wolf" profile seems to be more diverse than its SW Asia counterparts. Instead of attending training camps or basement cabals, "lone wolves" and other terrorist affiliates learn their doctrine and skills in relative isolation. Notably, the Boston attackers most likely pursued their indoctrination from the internet, with weapons designs from Al Qaeda's brand of English-language publishing known as Inspire magazine. The publication is devised to aid its readership with their anti-Western radicalization and anti-peace tactics. The magazine featured devices practically identical to those used in Boston.
The Boston attacks arrive in the wake of other less-publicized terrorist incidents. Since 9/11 and excluding Boston, there have been eight instances where a "lone wolf" has murdered citizens for an idealized political effect. This "leaderless resistance" makes penetration and prevention of the attack endlessly challenging. Detection is greatly challenged when one has little interaction to analyze to detect such threats.
The United States GWOT has been effective at destabilizing the structure and personnel of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the past decade. Various leaders and pieces of legislation have expanded government bureaucracy to a degree that intelligence gathering and operations execution are achieving considerable milestones in eliminating enemies abroad. However, those successes will most likely not produce long-term gains, especially for homegrown terrorists. Unlike state actors, terrorist organizations are amorphous and endlessly adaptable. These organizations typically do not have to provide services nor respond to public opinion in order to be viable and remain dangerous to the US and its allies.
The US has to conduct analysis on the best way to combat lone wolf terrorists. Most likely, it will involve more protection of soft targets (malls, schools, events). Given the lack of ability to identify lone persons planning terrorist campaigns, it is up to the federal and state governments to coordinate and innovate on various civilian-protection programs.
31 May 2010
RIDICULOUSpost: voting in absentia, russian-style
We all know that Russia's democracy is not the most vibrant political system among developed democracies, but this is ridiculous:
As you may notice, several deputies of Russian MPs are running around voting for legislation for their absent overlords. During the vote for more stringent federal drunk-driving legislation, only 88 votes of the 449 cast were actually done by the MP in person. In a stunning display of speed and skill, one deputy pressed 9 buttons in the 20 seconds allowed.
Apparently, Putin and Medvedev are none too pleased with their ministers' truancy. However, when they basically appoint celebrity MPs (imagine Michael Phelps, bong and all, in the US Senate), they shouldn't be too surprised with the results.
Democracy at its finest, folks. Happy Memorial Day.
I hope there will be a Stalin-like purge.
19 April 2010
REPORTpost: who doesn't hate syria? oh yea, arms dealers
Fucking Syria. Running around, supplying some clowns with weapons, then those clowns use those weapons where they are not supposed to. Dammit. If the Middle East weren't depressing enough with masses of people in poverty, autocratic ass-clowns destroying human rights, and enough violence to satisfy any Japanese video-game developer: we have Syria.
Syria loves to just find that splinter in your foot, and jam a wooden beam into your face. Does that make sense? Of course not, it's Syria. Just like our kid-brother Israel, it loves to get into a mess of trouble ALL THE FUCKING TIME--especially with our furtive sibling. Typically, when these two squabble, they have to involve innocent, beautiful Lebanon. Lebanon is just minding its own business, trying to clean its own house, and then all of sudden Israel and Syria come bursting in and ruin the souffle that has been in the oven for the past hour.
The worst part? When the fighting is over, they are all pointing fingers at each other instead of cleaning their own houses, no one is really blamed, and Lebanon still has a deflated souffle.
VOLCANOpost: iceland still laughing their asses off, in a funny accent
Iceland's most excellent revenge continues to play out around the world. We really must admit to ourselves that this all of our fault. Perhaps we could apologize to Iceland by allowing them to annex Canada or something. The videos below continue to detail Iceland's sublime Viking revenge for ruining their government in the wake of the US/EU-caused financial turmoil:
1) Kudos to the UK announcer pronouncing the name of the volcano (SCARYASFUCK volcano, in the English translation) without stammering:
2) Can't you hear the Icelandic sniggering?
3) Iceland has learned from their last attempt at revenge, which didn't go so well:
18 April 2010
REPORTpost: a lib-dem UK?
Nick Clegg, the liberal-democrat hopeful for the UK premiership, is a fun guy. As unlikely as it is, a Lib-Dem victory may spice up the rather dreadfully boring nature of UK politics. And thus, Clegg as a new UK PM could fundamentally change international relations.
Could one imagine a UK that doesn't view itself in a special relationship with the US? Perhaps, but not really.
Could one imagine a UK that wishes it be better integrated with the European Union? Perhaps, but not really.
We cannot imagine them, because they are/were never to be. For the foreseeable future, and no matter what the UK thinks, the "no" answers to the questions above will remain truths. Forces such as culture, values, economics, and tradition dictate their answer. The two major parties in contention for majority in the UK House of Commons will ensure that things stay relatively the same.
If Nick Clegg were to make good on his promises, fundamental posits of international relations would dramatically shift. Perhaps we wouldn't invade countries with little justification if we did not have powerful friends to back us up? Imagine the UK, in coordination with other EU powers, decides to start its own war? Would it be Suez all over again? Or, imagine if the UK were to admonish our human rights record at the United Nations?
This is why it is fun for me. Despite surprise and unpredictability in international relations normally being a harbinger of war or certain conflict, it would be nice to for once not assume that "all things are the same". Whose to say that the shift from a US hegemonic world would be bad? Oh wait, all of these people.
Yet, it is not all fun-and-games for me--Clegg actually has some good ideas. The one that popped out for me was to distrust a Cameron idea of making police commissioners elected officials. Cops in the UK hate the idea, and so should its citizens. We must recall that if the Soviet Union were around today, they would probably be so envious of the amount of government surveillance in the modern British state. Having non-partial, elected officials operate or supervise this system doesn't sound like the best idea.
Calling his main opposition, the Conservatives, "swivel-eyed Eurosceptics", Clegg correctly identifies that if the UK distances themselves from the EU, it would spell bad policy. The EU coordinates important policies; such as, trade, immigration, climate change, and bank regulation--all important areas for the UK and the world.
REVIEWpost: jamie oliver, american hero?
America is the most obese state in the entire planet, even Amazonian jungle tribes know that is a fact. Sure, other industrious states have higher percentages of their populations who are obese, such powerhouse states as, Nauru, The Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands. If you lived in a beautiful tropical oasis, wouldn't you pack on the pounds? Especially because your wife probably resembles a cartoon representation of a cave man. Yet, our country, an actual global superpower, is almost actively ensuring that our children: 1) will be the first generation to have a lower life expectancy than us, 2) decrease productivity when they become adults due to pre-existing medical conditions from their obesity, and 3) become the first generation in the modern era to see what happens when a superpower is degrading because its citizens are too unhealthy to enter combat. Well maybe #3 is irrelevant, now that we fight wars as if we are playing a video game.
Who can blame us? I can. We invented a sweeter, cheaper substance than cane sugar and threw it into practically everything on our warehouse-sized supermarket shelves. "Bigger, cheaper, faster, and sweeter" should probably replace "In God We Trust" for our nation's motto. Too bad the Chinese aren't buying our high-fructose corn syrup, they are smart and sticking with good ole-fashion'd cane sugar (which makes one feel fuller due to the glucose, instead of our corny fructose). How do the Chinese accomplish this feat? They do not have import controls on sugar, like the US. These import quotas ensure that cane sugar has an inflated price, versus high-fructose corn syrup. So in effect, our piss-poor, trade-restricting economic policies keep corn corporations working hard to keep us extremely unhealthy. I think we should somehow sell our corn-syrup to the Chinese so we wouldn't have any strategic competitor woes.
There is nothing wrong with companies making money on our poor decision-making. This is indeed America, and I love me some capitalism. I also love making fun of fat people. Yet, there is a terrible dark side to the industry: US children, our future welfare-bread-winners, are the unsuspecting victims of many ill-concieved food and economic policies. Much of the food served in our US lunchrooms are cheaply produced, processed foods. And why is this so? Oh yes, our government. Silly me. Corporations made rich by our candy-stuffing fat asses pay lobbyists to ensure USDA regulations include the terrible foods they produce. Hell, even bake sales are being banned while Doritos sales are encouraged. That is quite grim, my fellow patriots. I do not blame the corporations for these woes, they are doing their job. We are not doing ours as citizens of a republic.
But change may be a-coming, and it is certainly not due to our President nor any member of the government. It is not actually even being initiated by a US citizen.
Jamie Oliver has set out to change our obesity problem in his inspiring ABC show "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution". He wants to do so by making sure American schools serve only fresh food in their cafeterias. This man, a fairly-famous chef from the UK who once had a brilliant show on my personal mecca of television channels--The Food Network, already has changed his home country through food. It is a truly awesome tale. His work has been studied by economists in the UK, and they found that children are more productive in school when fresh foods were basically introduced into their school systems.
The show is spectacular. It is set in the so-called "Most Obese Town in America" (which is technically a mis-nomer because the town is situated within the most-obese tri-county area that includes other local sub-divisions). It has the full cast of characters one would expect from a compelling drama: a loving school cook, the loving school cook's evil doppleganger at the elementary school, the cold government bureaucrat, the local douchebag ultra-conservative radio personality (who in an awesome twist of fate, and show of character, starts to align himself with Jamie's movement), the local corporate bigwig (a "big fish in a small pond" brand of ass), the benevolent teachers, the spot-lighted obese family who needs change, and of course the cute-faced Jamie Oliver in all his naïveté and zest for change. It is truly remarkable to watch what happens, and see how change can come from food.
This show really demonstrates the power of food. Something I have always understood, and rarely been able to express. When one watches this remarkable piece of television, one can wrap their mind around how important food is in our relationships with ourselves, our bodies, our community, and our loved ones. During the first episode, you witness an incredibly obese family bury their deep fat-fryer while the mom cries about how she loves her children with food and simultaneously killing them with such food. Again, it is truly powerful.
The most depressing aspect of this show is the role of the government. Time-and-again, the show features the cold bureaucrat who doesn't wish to derail Jamie, but will stick to ridiculous USDA regulations that only benefit the corporations who helped draft them. For example, the USDA found that calcium is good for children and children legally need to be provided with the corn syrup saturated milk option in order to drink it. Jamie makes an awesome insight: "putting sugar in something will make kids eat it? I could have done that research for free". The ineptitude of these regulations is staggering.
Jamie needs to polish his coup d'état skills, however. As you watch in the show, he is not the most eloquent advocate. At points, he clumsily and tactlessly interacts with the Huntington citizens while pursuing his goals. The most egregious instance? He called the women cooks in a school cafeteria "lunch ladies". Yes, we called our cafeteria cooks "lunch ladies". However, one must admit that term doesn't command an air of respect. If you want garner trust and loyalty, calling someone a "lunch lady" does not accomplish those tasks. Hilariously, the ladies admonished him for that comment, and then he went on to ask, "well, what is your title?". What an ass. He may sometimes forget that he is not an American citizen, and people in West Virginia may not take too kindly to such patronization by a foreigner. An English foreigner, at that.
So Jamie, stop fucking calling these lovely women, who graciously allowed you to boss them around, "lunch ladies". He knows way better than I do that the kitchen is a place of respect, and a place of hierarchy. A general would never degrade his soldiers. But please, keep up the awesome work. America needs this, desperately.
Well, I am going to go back to eating my second box of Mike-and-Ikes now, then smoke a cigarette. Unfortunately, this is the woeful truth.
"Any judge in the whole world would look at the statistics and the evidence, and find any government of old guilty of child abuse" -Jamie Oliver, TED Award Speech
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)