Tomorrow I'll be spending my day at the Marine Corps Marathon in DC. With several tens of thousands of people actually running the race (which in case anyone wasn't aware, is over 26 miles long), a lot of support is necessary.

Keeping the information flowing is very important. To that end, over 100 Amateur Radio operators will be providing communications support. We'll have operators at every mile marker, at all eight aid stations, supporting the coordination at the "head tent" near the Iwo Jima memorial, and some of us will be on our bicycles, patrolling the course for runners who need help. We'll be communicating with each other on a wide variety of frequencies, divided into about a dozen main and backup networks.

The forecast for DC tomorrow is beautiful, so I hope to have a great time. On the one hand, we always hope that nothing will happen that will require our services, beyond the routine. But on the other hand, if something happens that requires rapid, efficient communications, we'll be glad we were there.

I'll let you know how it went.

Well, sorta. The students at my daughter's middle school voted today for President. Disregarding the unrealistic candidates, the result was Kerry 45%, Bush 54%.

Since the school is only three years old, it has no track record in calling elections. But they gotta start somewhere!

David, have you read Michele lately?

Tip of the ol' tam-o'-shanter to Bill.

Just got home from having dinner with Citizen and Mrs. Smash. They're in the DC area for Smash's 10th Reunion at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Due to the last-minute nature of the arrangements, it was very lightly attended, just the Smashes, Lora and myself. It would have been great to meet some more DC-area bloggers, but that's okay. We'll do that another time, but it was great to meet the Smashes and Lora in person.

What he said.

Shut up and watch the video.

Via OTB, Hip-Hop Debate.

James is only mildly amused, while I thought much of it was hilarious. Even though I've got about a decade on young Doctor Joyner, I'm much more adolescent in what I find amusing.

Oh, and be sure to hover your cursor over the "bit players" alongside the candidates. While the Democratic ones and Powell are uninspiring, Cheney and Rice add something to the action.

Verizon has announced their intention to expand their rollout of fiber-based broadband services to six more states. Already underway in parts of Texas, Florida and California, Verizon will deploy new fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) in parts of Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.

"Verizon fiber all the way to the homes and businesses of our customers means they will have the highest-speed computer connections available from anyone," said Paul Lacouture, president of Verizon's Network Services Group. "No other company is offering this cutting-edge data service, and the reliability of fiber also means unprecedented dependability as well."

...

Verizon's FiOS broadband Internet access services offer download speeds of up to 5 Mbps (megabits per second), 15 Mbps and 30 Mbps, with upstream speeds of up to 2 Mbps for the first two products and 5 Mbps for the third. The 5 Mbps service sells for $34.95 per month, when purchased with a package of Verizon services, and $39.95 when purchased separately.

This effort will involve hiring between 3,000 and 5,000 new employees by the end of 2005, and Verizon expects to make an $800 million capital investment in FTTP this year.

These plans include Loudoun County, where I (and Kevin and James) live. 2Mbps up and 5Mbps down? They also plan to provide a wide variety of services (for which I'm sure we'll pay handsomely) that rely on a fat pipe into the house.

I can't wait, although Verizon hasn't announced any kind of meaningful timeline.

Remember how, in the 2000 Presidential election, the word on everyone's lips was "gravitas?"

It occurs to me that the word for the 2004 election is "nuance."

Okay, I know it was only last night that I said I'm bowing out of political discussions for at least the next week and a half, but that was before I learned of this via my friend Bill at INDCJournal:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Note: emphasis added.

I'll express my reaction by posting the email I wrote to The Guardian in response to this article:

I'm stunned. I can understand people vehemently disagreeing with U.S. policies, and hoping for his defeat in the election next week. It illustrates the irrationality, and at least in this case, utter deficit of moral responsibility, to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States.

That Charlie Brooker would think such a thing is bad enough. That he writes it down, and then The Guardian publishes it, is absolutely reprehensible. The Guardian is morally bankrupt.

I have no doubt that my reaction will not faze you in the slightest. But you must know that those who follow a moral code of honesty, integrity and respect for the lives of others hold your organization in disgusted contempt.

This was exactly my point last night. The total disconnect with rationality and morality by some have shocked me. And should shock you. I can only hope that what I'm seeing is skewed toward the irrational.

That those who occupy the same political quarters don't declaim and shun these lunatics is what scares me, though. I thought it was bad enough when people started seeing fraud in every politically-based action, and the shrill shrieks started pervading the atmosphere. Now we have someone advocating assassination of the President of the United States. Where will it stop?

Update: The Guardian has replaced the target of the above link with the following:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

I'm heartened that The Guardian is responsive to its readers, but I still have a couple of problems:

1. The reaction shouldn't have come as a surprise to The Guardian's editorial staff. Brooker's statement was more than "flippant and tasteless," it was immoral and irresponsible. I have to question the judgment of an editor that can't perceive that without reader feedback.

2. Sorry, Charlie. You can't tout that "ironic joke" crap 'round these parts. You pulled back the veil from your hatred and immorality, got called on it, and hauled out the tap shoes to give us a little dance. You see, we Americans (especially we Texans) aren't nearly as stupid as you think we are.

You pretentious twit.

Update 2: The Commissar explains how this is just a matter of conservatives not being able to comprehend liberal humor, and posits a solution to the confusion.

Da, comrade. We are just too hate-ridden and power-hungry to understand that wacky liberal sense of humor.

Many of my friends, on both the left and right, have recently gone nuts. The anger and vitriol on both sides is, simply stated, over the top. Ill-founded accusations, ad hominem attacks, and inventing ghosts of evil pervade the blogosphere.

I've recently been tempted to post reactions to what I've seen, both here and in comments on other sites. But I've restrained myself for fear of insulting friends.

But some of you guys need to know, you've gone nuts. I'll see you in a week and a half.

I don't follow baseball much, but I keep up with the highlights. When I saw this image over at Allah's, I had to steal borrow it.

I've been meaning to post on this since Saturday, but I haven't been able to get to it before now.

As you've probably heard already, last week 19 soldiers of a fuel platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, a reserve unit from South Carolina, refused to carry out a convoy supply mission from Tallil to Taji. They say that their equipment was too unsafe for the mission and they had insufficient security support for the "suicide" mission.

For its part, the Army isn't saying much, which is expected and appropriate. They're investigating the circumstances of the incident, as well as inspecting all vehicles belonging to the unit to see if they're up to safety standards. The Army also claims that the soldiers involved are not under arrest or restriction.

Folks who know me best know that I'm as hard-nosed as they get when it comes to military discipline. There is absolutely no justification for "failure to obey a lawful order." But there's the rub: was it a lawful order?

Anyone (other than family members; they're allowed to support their loved ones unequivocally) expressing an opinion on this, one way or the other, based on the little information available so far, is being, at best, premature. More facts have to be determined.

But here's the way it breaks for me: if the troops essentially made this story up, either because they were afraid, tired, whatever, and they weren't justified in refusing the mission, then they aren't the kind of folks who belong in the military. Boot 'em, with at best a General OTH.

But if their equipment was in as bad of shape as they claim, if they were ordered into danger ill equipped to face likely attacks, those responsible for those orders also don't belong in the military. In this case, though, hard time should accompany their separation under, at least, a Bad Conduct Discharge, although I believe a Dishonorable Discharge would be the right choice.

After our oath to defend the Constitution, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have one most sacred duty: protect your troops. If you fail in that duty through neglect, impatience, incompetence or selfishness, you have dishonored your uniform. You deserve our greatest measure of contempt.

Update: Reporting on this has dropped off like stepping off a cliff. While I haven't found any update from traditional media since Saturday, through Angela Winters I learn that Black America Web is reporting that the number of soldiers under investigation for this situation have been reduced to five.

Reinstitution of the draft is the issue that just won't die. Smash covers it perfectly. Go read it.

Go on, I'll wait.

Good. Now here we go. This is where my "absolutism" kicks in and I insult everyone who disagrees with me, which I don't often do, but sometimes it's necessary. So, here's my insulting statement.

If you believe that there's any possibility of reinstituting the draft, you're either 1) ignorant of reality (no one reading this qualifies, because you all went and read Smash's post 2) so blinded by your partisanship that you refuse to recognize reality even when it slaps you in the face, gives you a noogie and pulls a nuclear wedgie over your head, or 3) a bald-faced liar, deliberately trying to mislead others with scare tactics in order to achieve political goals.

In case you're wondering, John Kerry is in category 3) above. John Edwards? It could be any one of the three.

Update: Surrendering for the Commissar's Show Trial.

Chad is thinking about starting what one might call an Internet talk radio station. He's asking if bloggers would be willing to participate by submitting audio clips, but I also think it would be good for him to know if folks would actually be interested in listening.

Go read his proposal and let him know your thoughts.

This is a long one, so I apologize, but I need to make up for lost time. Or lost posts. Or something.

One of my lefty friends, Dondo, engaged me over my earlier post on Senator Kerry's position on coalition building in regards to going into Iraq, and in his plans for how he would "finish the job" in Iraq.

The discussion in the comments turned away from coalition building to justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. Don proposed a bet, which you can read in the comments to the above post. I wanted to be well founded in my response, so it has dragged on unanswered for over a week. My apologies to Don for the extensive delay. Many factors have conspired to delay my response, not the least of which is that I'm lousy at research, and therefore I despise conducting it. But I felt it was important not to leave Don hanging any longer than I already have.

Don wanted to direct the discussion in a certain way: he wanted to bet me some smoked salmon for some equivalent Virginia delicacy (Virginia Baked Ham? I can't think of anything from these parts that could match his smoked salmon) over finding justifications for the war that were borne out versus those that weren't.

Don, while I know your offer was made with a pure heart, I'm going to have to decline. I don't like the terms, mostly because we'll devolve into debates over what's true and what isn't, plus I don't accept at least part of the premise.

I looked at the Bush Administration's rationales for invading Iraq over the course of 13 months; from September 11, 2001, up until Congress's October 11, 2002, vote to authorize our invasion of Iraq. I also limited myself to remarks by the President, the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the National Security Advisor. I know that some will protest that there are many more spokesmen for the Administration, which I acknowledge. But "The Message" comes from the principals; the press secretaries and Under Secretaries and deputies embellish the message, but The Message comes from on high. I'll even grant that the statements of the underlings do and are intended to spin the media reporting. But there are literally dozens of people who speak with the press on behalf of the Administration, both on and off the record. I have to draw the line somewhere, so I chose to focus on the principals mentioned above.

During the initial months following September 11, 2001, Iraq was mentioned to some degree. Over the remainder of the period in question, the rationales for taking action against Iraq grew. This is understandable, since as the momentum grows, the subject is discussed more and more. Also, as resistance grew, the Administration added more and more rationales.

Now, some will leap on the addition of reasons as a measure of desperation or deception. While that's certainly possible, it's also normal for reasons which had already been considered as justification for action to develop over time. I maintain it's unreasonable to think that everything is going to be articulated from the very start. That's just not the way things happen.

So let's examine the justifications that the principals in the Bush Administration proposed for invading Iraq. First and foremost in everyone's mind these days (although it was not necessarily the primary justification, especially as the discussion began in late 2001), was Hussein's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. As much as those on the left may harp on the indisputable fact that no stockpiles of WMD have been found in Iraq, we need to maintain a modicum of objectivity here. Hindsight is a marvelous predictor of the past. All of the major intelligence agencies around the world believed that Hussein still possessed these weapons, and the combined weight of intelligence and other information convinced a broad spectrum of political leaders that WMD stockpiles were at Hussein's disposal. Not only Republicans espoused this position; over time, we heard that Democratic luminaries, such as Senators Daschle and Kerry, believed that Hussein retained WMD capabilities.

Accuse me of partisanship (technically not possible, since I'm not a Republican, but I am a conservative with a smidge of libertarian mixed in, so I'll let it slide), but I just can't see the lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq as undermining that rationale for invading Iraq. Everyone who was in a position to know believed Hussein still had them, and for good reason. Hussein was doing his best to make everyone believe that he could unleash unbearable destruction on invaders and neighbors. In order to hold Iran (and most likely, in his eyes, the United States) at bay, he had to maintain the illusion that he could wreak horrors on anyone who challenged him. He couldn't even allow most of his closest advisors in on the reality. This, in my estimation, is the primary reason why all intelligence pointed to the existence of WMD stockpiles.

So Don (and my other liberal Commie pinko friends), you're going to shake your head in dismay, but I refuse to acknowledge that our failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq undermines our motivation for invasion. Hussein worked diligently to get the world to believe that he could unleash unimaginable devastation on his enemies. And this leads to the next point.

Under more than a dozen different UN Security Council resolutions in reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the subsequent action to expel them, Hussein was required to prove he had rid himself of these weapons. He steadfastly refused to accede to these demands over more than a decade. Regardless of the conditions within Iraq, his refusal to meet the UN demands over the years justified, in my mind, action to force his removal.

Another consistent rationale for invading Iraq was their role in supporting Islamic terrorists. I won't belabor this point, because at this juncture, you either agree or disagree. But it seems clear to me that, in a variety of ways, Hussein was supporting terrorists. From training camps to payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Hussein played a key role in Islamist terrorism.

Okay, this has dragged on too long already, so I'll try to pick up the pace. Rationales for invading Iraq included the threat Iraq posed to the region, the need to liberate Iraqi citizens and the need to remove the entire Baathist regime. These points were stated throughout the period in question.

In 2002, the reasons presented as justification for invading Iraq swelled. They included preserving the peace, Iraq's threat to freedom, human rights of Iraqis, the return of prisoners from the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein's failure to renounce terrorism, the harboring al Qaeda operatives, the possession of prohibited missiles, the subversion of the UN Oil-for-Food program (which appears to explain France, Germany, Russia and China refusing to agree to a resolution explicitly authorizing bringing Hussein to justice), and the phrase that was frequently mistaken as a proxy for "imminent," the grave and gathering danger that Iraq presented to the world.

So there you go, Don. It's not exactly what you were asking for, but it's my position on the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq. I still believe strongly that it was the right thing to do. If I were still on active duty, I'd proudly serve in Iraq. I'm exceedingly proud that my son will most likely be serving there in the coming months.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq, along with our allies that supported us, to include the Iraqis who, once freed from Hussein's boot on their necks, joined us in liberating and pacifying their nation, was the right thing to do. My prediction is that, should President Bush be returned to office next month, history will bear out my opinion on the success of our effort. If Senator Kerry is elected (which I've already predicted will not happen), I'm not so sure.

Okay, I've given you Commies a whole grunch of red meat. Dig in!

My son, the Marine, came up for a visit this weekend, so I've been spending time with him, rather than four of you who read my blog. But I'll be back with you soon.

Oh, and my son's best friend, his wife and daughter came to visit today, so I prepared a boneless leg of lamb, absolutely crammed with garlic cloves, on my smoky charcoal grill, and also charcoal-grilled some vegetables, also with plenty of smoke. Our guests brought a lovely black-bean salad, and some baked potatoes and focaccia bread made the meal complete.

Oddly, I can't see his horns.

Who won? Who cares? The only opinions that matter are the ones that are officially registered on November 2nd.

On the other hand, there's the indisputable fact that this debate was infintely more watchable than the prior two. I think both candidates were able to articulate their positions with equal clarity, and voters can weigh and evaluate their statements to help make their decision on who to vote for.

Watching the debate tonight was truly a pleasure.

My friend James is a rather foul-mouthed chap, so bear that in mind before you follow this link. But it seems that he has proved his prowess with computers this evening.

We prostrate ourselves in awe of your magnificent skills at managing your web site, James.

While I was working yesterday, the AC adapter for my 4-month-old laptop decided it would prefer to issue faint beeps instead of delivering 90 watts of DC electricity to my notebook. While I'm very happy with the battery life of my Dell D800, it still ain't gonna last too long.

So, I'm limited in my Internet access. Not that I don't have other computers, but all my links and applications and, well, stuff is on that laptop. It's painful to browse and blog-surf from my server in the basement.

And Don, I haven't bailed on your challenge, but circumstances beyond my control have slowed me down a bit.

I caught Geraldine Ferraro, the Vice Presidential nominee on Walter Mondale's ticket in 1984, on "The O'Reilly Factor" this evening, and I was reminded of what conservatives called the Mondale/Ferraro ticket back then:

"Wally and the Beav."

I'm so ashamed of myself.

I'll certainly admit that I have no proof of what a Kerry Administration would do if they take office, but I have to mention one misgiving that sticks with me, based on the recent history of Democratic Presidents.

The first time I voted in a Presidential election was in 1976, with my first two years in the US Navy under my belt. As you know, Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford and took office in January 1977. One of the first acts that President Carter took once in office was to pardon those who illegally evaded the draft by leaving the country, mostly to Canada. While I'm officially a "Vietnam-era vet," I actually entered on active duty after the Vietnam war was effectively over. Nonetheless, President Carter's action felt like a shot to the gut. I felt betrayed by my Commander-in-Chief and a former Naval officer. Even for those of us new folks who had only recently entered the service, this was a hard blow to our morale.

The only other Democratic President since Carter was President Clinton. Like Carter, one of the President's first acts involved the military, with the institution of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Again, I felt like my Commander-in-Chief, who indisputably had no clue what life in the military was like, was stepping in with a morale-busting policy for the military.

And just to hit the politically-incorrect trifecta, I still believe that it's a mistake to allow women to serve in combat positions, to include all Navy combatant vessels. For similar reasons, I'm opposed to homosexuals serving in the military. But that's the subject for a different post.

So with that context, I'm left with a concern: what new policy would a Kerry Administration enact to suck the morale out of our troops? Especially since we're in a period where the performance of our troops is vital, I have to say I'm concerned.

Okay, now all my liberal commie pinko friends can lunge for my throat, after they recover from their apoplexy.

...and forbear sesquipedalianism.

Al Gore: The Administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops."

Tom Brokaw: What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad.

There are a lot of psycho nutcases on the Internet. You can see just about any wild claim and accusation here.

But you'd think that a former Vice President and former nominee for President of the United States, and the evening news anchor of one of The Big Three networks could refrain from these kinds of wildly irresponsible comparisons to the scum of the earth (for the terminally stupid, I'm talking about Adolf Hitler and Islamofascist terrorists). And we should respect these men — why?

These two "gentlemen" in particular have proved that their power and influence are mere artifice. With these two simple statements, they've proved that they don't deserve my respect, and certainly not the power and prestige that they enjoy.

I'm disgusted.

As far as we know (so far), time travel is impossible. But in a keen technological breakthrough, Hal and his staff at Hellblazer have managed to actually look into the future, if not actually travel there. They only managed to get a snapshot, but it does give some insight into tomorrow night's debate.