how to dismantle an atomic bear
30 September 2004
Dear Senator Kerry,
At long last, you have finally begun to articulate a coherent strategy for fighting the war on terror. Before we are convinced of the viability of your plan though, we have some lingering questions to which you have thus far not given sufficient answers. It might be prudent for you to consider addressing such questions during your nationally televised debate with the President this coming Thursday.
Questions such as these:
Was September 11 a unique, isolated incident carried out by a uniquely fanatical group? Or was September 11 an ominous sign of what results from tyrannical government structures, fanatical ideologies, and a lack of freedom throughout the Middle East?
In your view, Senator, is terrorism an issue for the FBI? Or is it an issue for the Department of Defense? In what region, Senator, would the front lines of your war on terror reside? Would America's first line of defense consist of armed soldiers in the Middle East? Or would it consist of FBI officers at home?
Did September 11 primarily magnify failures of America's law enforcement capacities? Or did it magnify failures of foreign policy? Did it result primarily because of a temporary glitch in U.S. law enforcement agencies? Or did it result from America's continued toleration of the authoritarian status quo in the Middle East?
If it is the former, how would President Kerry's strengthening of domestic law enforcement agencies affect our freedoms here at home? If it is the latter, what forceful policy would President Kerry pursue to spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East?
Since you continue to insist that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda, does this mean, Senator, that your war on terror would be waged strictly against Al Qaeda? Or would it encompass the broader terrorist ideologies so prevalent throughout the Middle East?
As a Kerry administration inherits responsibility for command of the war in Iraq, what might be some of President Kerry's objectives for America in that conflict? Will you, Senator, prosecute the war to victory? Or do you want to get out as quickly as possible? You have spoken often of an exit plan. Would President Kerry lead us out of Iraq at the expense of victory? Define "victory."
Please, Senator. These are very basic questions about how you view the post-9/11 era. I advise you to answer them if you want my vote. If you attempt to preserve your notorious ambiguity on these issues, it will be your own loss -- a loss that will be reflected at the ballot box.
Yours most sincerely,
American Voter
29 September 2004
It's like a combination of Risk, Diplomacy, and Command&Conquer all rolled into one.
And on crack.
I spent the weekend playing Medieval: Total War on my PC. The object is to take over Europe through a combination of skillful diplomacy, military tactics, and prudent use of resources. It's addictive primarily because you have to spend a good deal of time and thought on any one particular move. Unfortunately, you can't see the results of that move unless you keep playing. So you keep playing to find that your move wasn't quite as dazzlingly successful as you'd hoped and neither was it a complete failure. The solution is to continue playing until you find that you've wasted the day away on a ridiculous game.
But still, you keep playing. Just a few more moves.
You can play online too. This is especially fun because I find it amusing to trash talk my opponents and befuddle them. Once, I was playing as the Germans fighting against my opponent's Egyptian army in the desert.
"Why did you choose a Christian country again," he asked, "when you knew they tire so easily in the desert.?"
"Infidel!" I responded indignantly. "Jesus is gonna totally kick your ass!"
I lost, of course.
The witness took the stand. He had been spent a good deal of time during the previous evening preparing his testimony with his lawyers. Having witnessed a crime, they were going to ask him to describe from memory the physical appearance of the culprit. Naturally, our witness had wanted to get it right, and so he had been studying photographs of the culprit, noting his physical features, and preparing to verbally paint a corresponding picture.
"Mr. Williams," began the attorney, "where were you on the night of August 26th around seven in the evening?"
"I was in a local drug store on 26th and Meandering Street havig a prescription filled."
"And did you observe any unusual occurrences at that time?"
"A man walked out of the store pushing a large cart of groceries. It was clear to me he had neglected to pay for them because they had not been bagged and because the alarm began blaring loudly as he passed through the doorway."
"Did you get a good look at the man?"
"I did."
"Is he present here in the courtroom at this moment?"
"He is."
"Could you point him out for us, please?
Mr. Williams was taken aback. This was much easier than having to describe the culprit in great detail. He pointed to the defendant.
"Thank you, sir. You may step down."
The lawyer had finished his examination. Mr. Williams walked out of the courtroom. Having been dismissed much earlier than he had expected meant that he had the rest of the morning to spend at his leisure.
He returned home and wondered if he might perhaps find something amusing on television.
Part of having to study for exams in college is the art of being prepared for anything. But does "anything" really mean "everything"?
In most classes, learning all the material covered in both the textbook and lectures is an enormous challenge. It is usually a losing battle, a fight for the hard-working student with no imagination.
It is an illusory challenge that the shrewder student will decline to meet. One need not meet climb such a high wall when it is simply much easier to go around it.
Because, in reality, college is not about learning the material. It's about learning only the material that will be on the exams. And the real challenge is to learn what might be on them. A professor who really wants his students to learn all the material he has covered will provide few subtle hints. He will emphasize no single concept over another. He will discuss the format of the exam but say nothing of its contents.
They don't do this at UNT.
In my current political science class, I did 0% of the textbook readings, showed up for fewer than 40% of the lectures, and studied for roughly two hours morning of the exam.
I aced it.
The teacher had provided a review sheet. The challenge of guessing what might be on the test didn't really factor in at all, and so preparing for the test was reduced to a mindless process of memorizing random facts.
Also, it was multiple choice. No essays. No short answer. Verbal picture painting not needed. One need not know just what the answers are, but rather only what they are not.
I finished my test in 20 minutes and went home.
24 September 2004
I am reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I have purchased Super Monkey Ball 2. I play Medieval: Total War incessantly.
Oh yeah, and I have some classes too.
In one large lecture that I attend on a monthly basis, students are assigned seats in order to expedite the return of graded assignments. I had a dispute with one student who claimed I was in her seat. I explained that I had been in that seat on the very day that seats were assigned (we were instructed to use the seat we were sitting in), and told her that if she had happened to claim that seat during the past two weeks when I had been absent, then that was her problem -- then that's not my problem.
"You mean you haven't been here for two weeks?! How do you keep up with this class?" she asked incredulously.
"Oh, I don't need to."
"The Rangers got it goin' on!"
This was the slogan fans used in 1996 to rally behind a young team whom no one ever expected to win more than 80 games. They won their division. They did it with spunk and grit. They fed off the low expectations. And they surprised everyone. In later years, the Rangers had much better teams, but none of them quite riveted the DFW area like the '96 team did.
We have another one of those teams this year. Prominent area sports writers forecasted a 100-loss season for this year's Rangers.
They were wrong.
They don't have their star second baseman. Half their bullpen has been suspended. And many of their great young players who shined in May and June have looked quite lackluster lately.
The Rangers just swept the first place Oakland A's in dramatic fashion. Down 4-3 with two outs in the bottom of the ninth, David Delucci hit a 2-run double to win it, bringing the Rangers within two games of a playoff spot with ten to go. They'll play almost all of their remaining games at home. The A's and Angels don't have nearly as friendly a schedule.
The Rangers have won 10 of their last 13. They're 7-2 since ChairGate.
Playoff tickets are going on sale Saturday. I'm getting some.
We'll be playing A-Rod and Yankees in the first round.
Team payrolls:
New York Yankees: $189.8 million
Texas Rangers: $54.8 million
Prediction:
Rangers win series 3-1.
22 September 2004
"No kitty!! Bad kitty!!"
It's an outburst that occurs every time I go over to LynnieBeth's house. LynnieBeth likes to yell at her kitty. It really never grows old.
This is what it sounds like.
21 September 2004
LynnieBeth is really cool. This is her blog.
20 September 2004
I resolved to use my cancelled class time to finish an assignment for an upcoming class -- an assignment for which my teacher will not take a grade anyway. So forget it (21 days and counting... one textbook remains unopened/unwrapped).
So I'm sitting here in the computer lab writing a blog entry for lack of anything better to do.
Robert Novak has authored a column today, the revelations of which I find to be stunning.
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
Novak's contention is that high-level policymakers within the Bush administration have concluded that remaining in Iraq no longer serves the practical ends of the United States. Having removed Hussein's Iraq as a threat, the Bush team is now content to let Iraq drift into civil war, the outcome of which might result in an authoritarian Shiite regime, but in any case would be far preferable to having let Saddam Hussein remain in power.
It's been clear for some time that events have been in motion that will eventually force the United States to make substantial changes: the increasingly strained and overstretched armed forces, the gathering crisis over Iranian nuclear development, and the Iraqi front that continues to tie down such a significant part of the military.
The Bush administration has given few indicators of just what it would do about these rapidly emerging problems. As Novak points out, the United States will have to increase the size of its military or else withdraw from Iraq as other threats gather across the globe. Novak also contends that remaining in Iraq with present troop levels and present military size is an option, but I don't see it as one given that other threats are gathering, particularly in Iran. Novak does not take this variable into account. This is not to say that military invasion is the only way to deal with the Iranian threat. But it is very serious -- indeed, the Washington Post seems to believe that the Iranian threat is approaching the crisis levels -- and would be nice to have all options on the table.
However, leaving Iraq would be, for all intents and purposes, a repudiation of the Bush doctrine, and would effectively put the world on notice that pre-emptive invasion is now off the table for dealing with such threats.
His national security team aside, I can't see President Bush leaving Iraq. For too long, he has campaigned as the candidate of resolve and decisiveness, and for another thing, the President seems to genuinely believe in spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Would he abandon this dream after just three years? Was all the talk of spreading democracy and spreading American ideals, and of fighting for the cause of freedom just empty bluster?
Must go to class now. More later.
18 September 2004
I staggered, half-awake, into the technical writing lab. It was my last class of the day, and having elected to forego several hours of sleep in order to watch "The Village" instead, I was especially tired. I rather enjoyed having class in the lab instead of in the regular classroom, because this meant that I could actually find something entertaining to do while ignoring the lectures. Whereas in the classroom, my only alternative is to stare at my desk, in the lab, I could log on to the computer and browse the internet. And so I did.
Halfway through the lecture, the teacher announced that she would be going around the room, visiting with each of the students individually about the progress of their projects.
"I really ought to at least look as though I've been working," I thought to myself casually.
"Exactly what are we supposed to be working on at the moment?" I asked one of my classmates. I was directed to a class assignment (part of the project) that had been given the previous period, which we were under no obligation to finish anytime soon and could complete just as easily at home. It's really quite annoying when teachers require attendance for things like that.
Exercise #8
Think of a service or product with which you have recently experienced problems. Write a letter to the appropriate person about the problems, and ask for an appropriate remedy. If you cannot find the name of the appropriate person, use the AMS Simplified style (see figure 18.14).
Yawn. What am I doing in this class?!
sigh...
Okay. Here goes.
5835 Far Hill Lane
Frisco, TX 75235
September17, 2004
Crayola, Inc.
Customer Service Department
P.O. Box 48757
Nowhereville, TX 75000
Request for compensation of faulty item
Dear Sir or Madame,
I recently purchased one of your newly released magic markers. Contrary to what I had been led to believe, however, this marker does not perform any magic at all. It cannot make me disappear. It cannot make my broom fly (I've tried it on more than one broom, so I know the broom isn't the problem). It has repeatedly failed even at such elementary tasks as electrocuting my sister's cat or taking me back in time. If this marker performs any magic at all, I have been unable to discover just what it does.
I would like you to either send me a refund for the dysfunctional marker or send me one that works properly. Thank you in advance.
Your most sincerely,
[Kreliav]
I resumed my internet browsing after ten minutes. By and by, the teacher came around to my desk. I showed her my letter. After pointing to a few initial errors that reflected a lazy failure to proofread, she began reading the rest of it.
"That's very funny," she said chuckling, "but that's not actually what I wanted you to do."
What?! You mean I'm supposed to take your class seriously?!
My sister has begun taking sleeping pills. Powerful stuff, apparently. She reported an incident (or rather her husband reported it to her who relayed it to me) that during one such instance she awoke without really waking up, walked into the bathroom where her husband was, and found herself confused that there actually four people in the room (including their reflections).
"There are people in my nose!!" she complained loudly, looking at the mirror and pointing to her nose.
Her husband wasn't sure what to make of this. He had to forcibly restrain her when she grabbed a safety pin and began jabbing herself in the nose with it, apparently in an effort to expell the "people." I don't know if she was successful at this, but in any case, she showed up at work the following day with a large scab on her nose.
I have asked my sister to catalog all such "incidents" that result from her use of sleeping pills. It would make excellent material for a fictional book if I ever get around to writing one.
I have determined that if I spend three more years in school, I could likely graduate with degrees in political science, history, accounting, plus an M.S. in accounting.
"But Paul, you hate school!" my mother protested.
"But I like having lots of degrees," I replied. I've been so unable to make up my mind about a major that I think maybe the solution is just to major in (almost) everything.
My head tells me that what Frank Francisco did (heaving a chair at Oakland fans) was wrong. But I very much sympathize with him, and can't help but think that in his place I would have done the same thing. His heart was definitely in the right place.
I feel bad for him as well. Jail time (and up to four years of it) just seems a bit excessive for throwing a chair at fans who mostly deserved to have their heads beaten in anyway.
Earlier in the week, I can remember putting both John Kerry and the Oakland A's on my collapse watch list. But the two Ranger victories in Oakland did not turn into a streak as I'd hoped, and neither have the two Oakland losses turned into a losing streak. Nuts.
I do suspect that John Kerry is going to lose much much worse than anyone expects right now. Save for perhaps Michigan and Illinois (previously solid blue, but now both hotly contested), I suspect there may not be any blue states between New York and California. It's a red country this year.
14 September 2004
I'm finding myself increasingly aggravated by conservatives and others who can't seem to talk about anything other than domestic spending right now. As far back as late 2001, quiet talk of an Iraq invasion abounded in all sorts of political and media circles. Yet, there is comparatively very little talk today of pre-emptively attacking Iran even as our options for dealing with the crisis continue to dwindle. Have conservatives lost their stomach for fighting the war?
My interest in writing for my school paper has deteriorated with my rising frustration in getting the editors to publish any of my work. Writing 350-word articles doesn't much interest me anyway.
In several of my classes I have taken to doing the assigned reading during lecture. I absolutely can't make myself pay attention for an extended period of time to a professor who lectures straight from the book. My classes continue to challenge and interest me so much that I am beginning to regard them with roughly the same level of enthusiasm that the mere mention of "reality tv" sparks in me (sarcasm alert). Two weeks into the semester, the wrapping remains on nearly half of my textbooks, and I constantly get the impression that I don't belong here particularly whenever I pick up the school newspaper and read a badly-written column, or listen to other students fumble when asked questions that wouldn't have challenged me in high school.
I often neglect to sleep the night before I have classes, preferring to stay awake doing other things instead. There are almost no consequences to this at all, as I don't actually have any good reason to be awake for my lectures.
Briefly this week, I toyed with the notion of switching majors yet again, this time to journalism. Doing so would save me two or three semesters of school, but nothing after that terribly excites me. I like to comment on the news, not so much write it. I want to be Charles Krauthammer, not Bob Woodward; and no one just becomes an op-ed writer straight out of college. Fresh graduates lack the skills, knowledge, and experience for it. It seems to be the consensus at publishing outlets that there are no exceptions to this rule.
There is very little that saves my afternoons and evenings from being atrociously boring, aside from the fact that it's an election year, and there is an abundance of statistics, trends, and other data to analyze pertaining to the electoral outcome. The LA Times has a nice little electoral map to make this easy. I'm thinking Bush will tally at least 300 electoral votes, though my optimistic hopes are that the total will be closer to 350. Pretty much everything seems to come down to Pennsylvania and Florida. Kerry really needs to win both to have a chance, and I suspect he'll win neither.
I keep wanting to hear more about CBSGate. I want to know who the source of the forged documents was -- and I want to hear that it came from the Kerry campaign. The MSM isn't saying much about it. I guess that's okay. It really only interests me inasmuch as I would like to see all of this backfire on Kerry, and see him lose in all kinds of states he is expected to win (New Jersey, New Hampshire, Michigan). For me, it's no longer enough just to see Bush win. I want to see the Democrats suffer a catastrophic defeat, and I would very much like to see the conservatives who constantly feel the need to find something to complain about -- usually so that they can feel objective and intellectually sophisticated -- marginalized into irrelevancy.
09 September 2004
[Kreliav],
I have to say, this is one of the best appeals for leniency I have received. Although I sympathize with your plight, I cannot take your assignment late and still regard myself as being fair with the rest of the class.
Professor G----
Dear Professor G----,
I have a brief but very recent tragedy to relate to you.
Having four classes on Wednesday and a ton of assignments due that day, I managed to get only two hours of sleep the previous night. After class and speech therapy that day, I managed to get home at 6 pm, and immediately fell asleep until 10 pm. I woke up feeling refreshed, or so I thought. After getting something to eat and chatting with my parents (I live at home with my family in Frisco) for a few minutes, I went to sleep again. I set my alarm for 4 am so that I would have time to do my assignment for your class.
Okay, that's nine hours of sleep. You would think that would really be enough. But I didn't wake up until 7 am. My alarm was off and I have no memory of how it got that way. For all I know, you sneaked into my room and turned it off yourself.
I was wondering if you might be merciful enough to accept a late assignment in this one instance. Yes, I know it's not your policy. But Jesus says in Matthew 9:13, "I desire mercy, not [being mean]. For I have not come to call the righteous, but [late homework people]." Also, my grandfather lost his arm defending Texas in World War II.
If it were me and you had a late hw assignment to turn in, I would totally accept it!! So how about if I slip it under the door of your office tomorrow?
Sincerely,
[Kreliav]
07 September 2004
Kissinger's view of World War I is especially intruiging. As early 20th century leftists have it, the European world of faith, duty, and progress was shattered by the war, seen as the logical outcome of those ideals.
Kissinger's view is quite different. Ideals aside for a moment, Kissinger's analysis of the diplomatic situation that prevailed from the start of the conflagration suggests that, at least diplomatically, World War I was handled quite differently than any war in the one hundred years before it. As Kissinger has it, World War I ceased to be a war directed by kings and ministers from chancelleries and became a people's war, as evidenced by the masses in each capital that cheered its coming. As the violence set in and dramatically increased to shocking levels, the costs of the war began to far outstrip any potential benefits that might be gained from it. But quite aside from the amoral system of analysis that underlay the old balance of power system, Europeans began to see the war through a moral prism, attributing it to the evil provocations of their enemies. Had the old balance of power system remained intact, European diplomats would have sued for peace early in 1915. But the rules that undergirded the balance of power system that had brought a century of peace to Europe were no longer in play. And as casualties mounted, Europeans gradually came to assume that the gains from the war would be proportional to the sacrifice they made in fighting it. This made a reasonable peace based on the status quo ante impossible. The spoils of victory demanded by the people of Europe grew to such astronomical levels as to be incompatible with any notion of equilibrium or the balance of power.
Into the vacuum stepped Woodrow Wilson, who was prepared to bring an entirely new international system to the table. To Wilson, it was not the instability by minorities clamoring for self-determination that brought about the war, but rather a lack of self-determination. The war was not caused by a breakdown in the balance of power, but rather by the evil men encouraged to commit unjust but selfish acts by the very nature of the balance of power system. For generations, indeed centuries, Europeans had been trained to react to the rise of threats to the national interest. There was little precedent in their historical experience preparing them to disregard the national interest and react instead to injustice. To Wilson, war was not a legitimate tool of nations seeking to further their national interest. Instead, Wilson called for the defense of peace as a legal concept.
More later.
06 September 2004
"I just couldn't stand to watch it," the woman complained loudly. "I got so angry I just turned it off."
Initially, I was confused. Knowing that she was quite conservative, I wondered if she was talking about President Bush's acceptance speech at the RNC or perhaps someone else's speech.
I was somewhat befuddled until it became clear that she was angry with his big-spending domestic policies.
"There are other things to worry about," I suggested. "The war is the big issue right now."
She responded by running off on a tangent about the financial mess the nation was facing and managed to mix in a suggestion that since I was still young, I had no understanding of such economic issues.
"He reminds me of FDR!" she complained.
"Me too," I said. "FDR was a great war leader."
William Kristol has published an interesting article about the way in which the ideological orientation of the two political parties has shifted over the course of the last century.
The Democrats, Kristol asserts, have embraced the philosophy of Adlai Stevenson and George McGovern, leaving behind the old liberalism of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. The old liberals are today voting to reelect President Bush. The left wing radicalism has won the heart of the Democratic Party, marginalizing the moderates, and ultimately, allowing the Republicans to move closer to the center and seize the mantle as the majority party.
Fascinating stuff.
At the suggestion of a friend who thinks that Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson had nothing in common, I have begun rereading Kissinger's Diplomacy. Kissinger's historical insights are keen and penetrating, and full of the sort of depth one would expect from the master of his craft.
Kissinger sees two competing visions of thought in American foreign policy: the Wilson vision and the Roosevelt (Theodore) vision.
Roosevelt's vision is very much in line with the accepted principles of diplomacy practiced by European nations for three centuries until the system imploded with the outbreak of World War I. In this school of thought, states are seen amoral units that advance no particular ideology, but have the task of defending the vital interests of the nation. In this world, peace is tenuous and can be attained only by the onset of a balance of power -- that is states or coalitions of states become roughly equal in size and power so that the cost of war becomes sufficiently high to deter potential aggressors. The balance of power is dependent to a degree on correct calculations of other state actors. States then, have an obligation to press for their vital interests, as this is seen as contributing to the balance of power by conferring an aura of predictability on all the actors. And war, if it does break out, is not seen to have been caused by evil war-mongers, but rather by a breakdown in the balance of power.
Roosevelt saw a substantial role for America in the world based on these principles. But only Wilson was able to bring America out of its isolation.
Wilson was able to do so because he presented a rationale for interventionism that was consistent with America's faith. Americans held a certain disdain for European power politics. They treasured their ideology of freedom and considered its principles to be universally applicable. They held to isolationism as a principle, seeing their nation as morally above such petty pursuits. Wilson ushered America into the international arena by embarking on a crusade to remake the world order in its own image, an order in which states are held to moral obligations and peace was to be maintained by the collective security of like-minded democracies. In Wilson's order, war would be waged not in pursuit of vital interests, but to eliminate evil with disinterested motives.
"...this age is an age...which rejects the standards of national selfishness that once governed the counsels of nations and demands that they shall give way to a new order of things in which the only questions will be: 'Is it right?' 'Is it just?' 'Is it in the interest of mankind?'"
I would have a hard time believing TR would have described the USSR as an "evil empire."
But I'll continue reading (though I intend to skip his chapters on the Concert of Europe. I've read those before), and post more notes here as I have time.
After watching Spirited Away and Princess Monoke, I've concluded that Japanese fantasy really has a lot to offer U.S. audiences. The depth of the imagination of the writers is quite extraordinary. However, as far as the storytelling goes, U.S. audiences will often be looking for something to grab hold of. There is no coherent central conflict to which the audience can anchor itself, often leaving it confused and disoriented. It is as though in American movies, the audience is led by the hand out into the deep waters -- until it thoroughly understands the main conflict of the movie and its characters -- and can swim on its own. Japanese writers prefer to fling the audience into the ocean without the proper prerequisites that American audiences are accustomed to having.
02 September 2004
They're not going to publish my article. It's too long. They don't publish anything more than 325 words, meaning mine was too long by roughly 500.
What follows below is my second attempt.
Kerry Slam Dunked by GOP Optimism
It's the end of the road for Senator Kerry.
Blinded by its own failure to appreciate American ideals and the American psyche, the Kerry campaign has just been slammed to the ground by an iron fist of GOP resolve and optimism.
Disturbed by the glaring fact that a substantial portion of the Democratic Party sees America as an evil, imperialistic power bent on trampling the world's poor and oppressed, Kerry spent most of his convention attempting to convince ordinary Americans that he actually loves his country, and would lead the nation with something he has never actually demonstrated in twenty years in the Senate: moral resolve.
He now finds his lead crumbling in virtually every key battleground state.
Rather than convincing Americans that they have nothing to be ashamed of, the GOP convention has made Americans positively proud of who they are. Republicans tend to grasp that Americans cherish their national identity and believe strongly in America's inherent goodness and decency.
They tend to be just as naive as ordinary Americans, recognizing that a dominant characteristic of the American psyche is an overwhelming tendency to dream big dreams and to fight relentlessly for their fulfillment with an unceasing optimism and an ever-resilient immunity to despair. They share that quintessentially American outlook that suggests that, for free people, the only true barrier to the fulfillment of their grandest dreams is a lack of faith and determination.
John Kerry's moral resolve, by contrast, derives not from the inherent goodness of America's ideals, but from the approval of spineless nations who root for American failure. He can't bring himself to support grand ideas and big dreams -- such as the expansion of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East -- primarily out of fear that they might not be feasible, and would probably irritate the French anyway.
That is a losing platform, and in November, John Kerry will be a losing candidate.
America is no place for the morally uncertain, the faint-hearted, or the pessimistic.
