---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Bush stays true to strike-first policy in military strategy report
Iran is considered biggest challenge

By Deb Riechmann
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 17, 2006

WASHINGTON – Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations yesterday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

“The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of Sept. 11: that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize,” national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

“The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy,” Hadley said. “If necessary, the strategy states, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.”

Titled “National Security Strategy,” the 49-page report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

In the earlier report a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

“When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. . . . The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same,” Bush wrote.

The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.

“This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,” Bush said.

He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. The Bush administration is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program.

Bush also had tough words for North Korea, which he said poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, counterfeits U.S. currency, traffics in narcotics, threatens its neighbors and starves its people.

“The North Korean regime needs to change these policies, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people,” Bush said. “In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct.”

Bush issued rebukes to Russia and China and called Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity.

On Russia, Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. “Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts,” he said.

The United States also is nudging China down a road of reform and openness.

“China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,” Bush wrote.

He said these “old ways” include enlarging China's military in a nontransparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad.

U.S. plan to pull forces out of Iceland causing tension

THE WASHINGTON POST

March 17, 2006

The United States plans to withdraw four Air Force fighter jets and a rescue helicopter squadron from its military base in Iceland by September, a move that will leave the island nation virtually without military defenses and has caused diplomatic tension between the two NATO allies.

Bush administration officials told Icelandic leaders Wednesday that the United States would remove the F-15 fighter jets and several helicopters from Naval Air Station Keflavik, a base that has provided for Iceland's security since 1951 as part of a bilateral agreement.

Defense officials said the decision to withdraw the permanently stationed aircraft, more than 1,200 U.S. military personnel and 100 Defense Department civilian employees came after talks about moving assets out of the region to places where they are needed more. More than 600 Icelandic employees could lose their jobs.

“After careful consideration of the global strategic environment, including the new threats and demands on resources, the continued permanent presence of U.S. fighter aircraft at Keflavik is no longer an appropriate use of those assets, nor is it in the best interest of the alliance,” said Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman.

The United States spends about $260 million annually as part of an agreement to help provide for Iceland's defense, but officials in Iceland had been negotiating to pay the bulk of the costs if the U.S. assets stayed.

“We are deeply disappointed over this decision,” said Helgi Agustsson, Iceland's ambassador to the United States.

Officials in the United States and Iceland said they are unsure what the continued defense of Iceland would look like, though they hinted that NATO could have a presence.

Bill proposed to exempt India from U.S. nuclear restrictions

THE WASHINGTON POST

March 17, 2006

WASHINGTON – Bush administration officials said yesterday they expect months of negotiations with Congress over a nuclear cooperation deal in the works with India but asked lawmakers to begin changes now to U.S. laws to accommodate a future agreement.

The proposed legislation, submitted yesterday by the chairmen of the Senate and House foreign relations panels, would exempt India from sections of the Atomic Energy Act that restrict trade with countries that are not party to nuclear treaties. India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, making it ineligible for U.S. civilian nuclear technology.

Yet, according to proposed legislation, the United States will recognize India, once a final accord is reached, as a country that does meet nonproliferation standards because the deal would bring some of India's nuclear facilities under international monitors. Declaring that India meets nonproliferation standards would virtually guarantee congressional approval of the deal.

Republicans and Democrats have hailed White House efforts to improve U.S.-India relations less than a decade after the two nations were estranged over India's nuclear ambitions. But some in Congress are concerned about the agreement, which would provide U.S. nuclear power assistance to India while allowing the country to substantially step up its nuclear weapons production.

“This is round one of a 15-round match,” Undersecretary of State R. Nicolas Burns said after briefing Congress on the legislation. The White House had hoped for quick action in Congress when it first announced a new strategic partnership with India, but the negotiations – both with New Delhi and Congress – have gone much slower.

---

Account frozen...

Is California too complex to govern?

BY DAN WALTERS
THE SACRAMENTO BEE

March 18, 2006

If nothing else, the comic opera collapse of the two-month political quest for a plan to improve highways, levees and other strained and deteriorating public facilities should finally convince Californians that their Capitol is a broken institution, endemically incapable of dealing with major policy issues.

Monday morning quarterbacks are working overtime to blame this group or that politician for what didn't happen. While some of those observations are accurate as far as they go, however, singling out immediate factors sidesteps the larger political malaise, not only on infrastructure but on countless other big picture issues as well.

Simply put, California's dizzyingly dense melange of ideological, geographic, cultural and economic subgroups interacts with a political structure that, in effect, gives every stakeholder a virtual veto power over the product. Under those circumstances, there are only two possible outcomes, both of which are bad. Either the product is a monstrosity that accommodates all demands but collapses of its own weight, or there is stalemate and no product at all.

The infrastructure scheme was becoming a classic monstrosity – like the 1996 electric utility “deregulation” plan that blew up a few years later, or a half-dozen deficit-ridden state budgets in this decade – but in the end could not enfold all demands and stalemated.

It doesn't matter whether the governor is a dull-as-dishwater, risk-phobic Gray Davis or a larger-than-life, politically adventuresome Arnold Schwarzenegger, whether Republicans or Democrats control the Capitol, how many, or how few, dollars flow into campaigns from interest groups, or whether the issue is infrastructure, education, water or housing.

The bigger and more complicated the subject, the more interests it attracts, with each stakeholder explicitly or implicitly threatening to block everything unless its particular demand is satisfied. And the more politicians accommodate those demands to reach the magic number of votes, the more internal conflicts arise.

Infrastructure is especially prone to being loved to death because it involves a lot of money, public facilities affect private development, and it's a popular cause for voters, who are frustrated by traffic congestion and other effects of our failure to invest wisely. Schwarzenegger's making it the central theme of his election year strategy, seeking some accomplishment to re-establish his standing with voters, elevated it even further.

To add to the tragic irony, the more voters become frustrated with officeholders' inaction on high-visibility problems, such as traffic, the more likely they are to adopt nostrums advanced by self-appointed reformers to “fix” the system. And as those fixes are adopted in the form of ballot measures, often conflicting with past decrees by voters, they tend to make the Capitol even more dysfunctional and raise the level of public disdain even higher.

It's a vicious circle. California is testing whether the American system of government, with myriad checks and balances aimed at making decision-making difficult, works when society reaches an advanced level of diversity – especially when California has added additional hurdles such as two-thirds legislative votes and ballot measures. And so far, this most complex of states is finding out that it simply doesn't work very well.

There is, unfortunately, no indication that Schwarzenegger and other Capitol politicians have learned that trying to accommodate all competing demands is doomed. They'll try anew to fashion a compromise for the November ballot, but even if it happens it will become intertwined with the budget and Schwarzenegger's re-election and could only be another monstrosity.

They and we would be better served if they confined themselves to writing a clean financing plan, hopefully with reasonable user fees as its primary revenues, that is limited to the most pressing public works needs and leaves the final decisions on projects to others, such as the state Transportation Commission.

If there's any hope of reviving the Capitol's relevance, its occupants must have enough guts to keep it simple and to heed Nancy Reagan's advice on drugs to “just say no” to all ancillary demands, no matter what their source may be.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/

http://www.markfiore.com/animation.html

Now I know why I rarely read these things. It's heavy with people using other professional opinion writers and cartoonists to do flaming for them and very short on any philosophic underpinings of people's original ideas. Pretty sad from a so called 'scientifically minded' community.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Now I know why I rarely read these things. It's heavy with people using other professional opinion writers and cartoonists to do flaming for them and very short on any philosophic underpinings of people's original ideas. Pretty sad from a so called 'scientifically minded' community.

Holy crap dude! Did you get up on the wrong side of your life this morning? 4 posts in half an hour in various threads and every one of them either condescending, accusatory or insulting. You're free to post what you like, but I'm concerned for your coworkers, family and dog. I hope they're safe.

---

Without love, breath is just a clock ... ticking.
Equilibrium

Jim, I'm disappointed with the banality and commonplace nonsense postings displayed here. Yes. If you somehow decided you believed that you were a part of what my posts were directed towards then perhaps you are either a/right or b/ paranoid. Regardless, it confirms my view that there is little reason to find intelligent discussion here that is original and well thought out. I'll stick to the science boards and number crunchings. Maybe this is a function of how a natural process drives different viewpoints OUT of certain threads. The more trivial the less empirical or well thought out and more biased it becomes.....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ps I find it funny you didn't understand, or seem to understand, what postion I came from considering your Heinlein post and the name of my small team. At least something in this thread is of comical value short of entire negligence by others. Subtract the current political winds here and you'd see a decidedly different persuasion.....and not one that I would describe as rational either.

[edit-addendum/sp]

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

The level of outright hate and vitriol many of you dish out here toward people and/or positions AGAINST dictatorships is astonishing......

If I were not an atheist I would be praying for you right now.....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

The level of outright hate and vitriol many of you dish out here toward people and/or positions AGAINST dictatorships is astonishing......

If I were not an atheist I would be praying for you right now.....

All I see here is just some petulant discourse devoid of any concrete political content. When philosophy is applied to politics it tends to appear like armchair mental masturbation, possibly interesting, but rather vapid. Perhaps you'd like to share your political views with us?

---

Account frozen...

No thanks...why bother? Pearls to swine. Besides, any poly sci student would know my political beliefs and philosophy anyway without me having to post anything.

[edit--typos/clarity]

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!