OMG, What Is That Thing?

Right. So, this weekend, with some degree of trepidation, my wife and I sat down to watch "Cloverfield." Trepidation, because, well, "LOST" doesn't really do it for me. The trailers were cool, but that's their whole purpose, so, I take them with a grain of salt.

Now, I will begin by saying that I can understand why Cloverfield didn't do as well in theaters as they'd hoped; if you followed the marketing at all, or watched the first 60 seconds of the movie, you know exactly how it's going to end.

I will say secondly that I feel profanity has a proper time and place; often it's overused in movies. I would have to say, though, that when a horrifying (and it is) and unexplained (and so it remains) monster rises up out of the ocean and begins demolishing New York, that might be an appropriate time for it; I'm fairly sure I would have sworn a whole lot more than the characters did, and that change - for me - would have added to the already magnificent authenticity the filmmakers built into the film. They could have gone for the R, instead of settling for PG, and for me it made it just a tiny bit less of an experience.

That said, and all hyperbole from critics aside, this movie is solidly in my top ten favorite monster movies of all time. Other than the language, it feels tight, authentic, and a couple of times scary as hell.

Wisely, the screenwriter opted to leave the monster a total mystery; no hints whatsoever are given as to the origins or purpose of the creature, other than the obvious "it's really pissed off." No dreary expository sequences here, but again, this is authentic; Joe Schmoe - or in this case, the movie's narrator, videographer, and main character, Hud - wouldn't KNOW what the monster was, until some kind of maybe-months-down-the-road press release; he'd be, just like in the film, too concerned with staying alive and getting evacuated.

Unusually, the military fares quite well in this movie; not in a weaponry sense - one soldier openly tells Hud "whatever it is, it's winning," which isn't very reassuring - but in the sense that the screenwriter understood something of America's perceptive dichotomy quite well. See, in the movies, Hollywood typically portrays the military as either a vast cabal of crazed warmongers, or a stumbling collection of jackasses; whichever they feel like this week. The popular perception of the actual servicemembers, however, is quite different, and the screenwriter used this to add even more authenticity to the film, by simply portraying the soldiers doing the things soldiers are actually trained to do; that takes one layer of expected Hollywoodism out of the film from the get-go, and it works wonders. There's one fantastic scene where the monster is charged by a platoon or so of foot soldiers, rifles blazing, trying desperately to draw its attention away from the civilians who are cowering in doorways and behind cars long enough for the civilians to escape; at that moment, you really, really buy this movie completely.

I will also say that - in this single, specific instance - I applaud the use of the "shaky-cam" to portray events; I will say it again, that it simply sells the movie. The authentic feel of everything in the film is what makes it convincing. This technique has been used, thus far, in only three movies I've actually enjoyed: 84Charlie MoPic, the Blair Witch Project, and... Cloverfield. It makes this film immediate, blisteringly convincing, and just outright sells you the story, the characters, the movie, from top to bottom. As I said before, this movie resides firmly in my list of the ten best monster movies ever made.

For your edification, the other nine are, in no particular order, The Host; The Howling; King Kong (the original;) Gojira (the original, unexpurgated film;) The Thing; Them!; The Fly (Cronenberg's version;) the original, uncut version of Mothra, and An American Werewolf In London. So, take that for what it's worth.

"Principles"

Since I began posting my thoughts on the web several years ago, I have often posted my thoughts in a form which, while certainly expressive of my viewpoint, has been perhaps less than articulate, and sometimes somewhat unprofessional. The thing is, we're coing into a time in our history when we MUST be able to articulate our core views; we MUST be able to understand the viewpoints, and principles, of others; and in fact, especially in a time of misdirection and dishonesty like this, we must be able to present our core values in such a way that they're clear and easily understood.

Accordingly, I am opening a new section on my site; using the "principles" tag, and the Tagged Content box feature of Multiply - as you may have noticed I've done with everything else - in which I will be posting articles intended to do just this; elucidate my core values, the bedrock principles by which I make decisions, in such a manner that others cannot misunderstand them.

Now, don't worry; in the rest of my site, you may continue to expect your regularly scheduled ranting and vitriol; this is simply an initiative I'm undertaking myself.

But if you're interested, I urge you to do the same thing; for this one section, this one idea, wear your heart on your sleeve a bit. Create a section for "principles" on your page. Post into it those things that you use to guide your decisions; the rules by which you live your life. This is not about politics; this is not about religion; this is about what you believe is right and wrong, and why.

Almost more importantly, if anyone else joins me in this, read what people post in these sections. You may not agree; but if you DON'T, be polite; try to disagree logically; try - really hard - not to simply scream at people, or disagree based on "I feel." Try really, really hard to have a reason for what you say, or don't.

Be respectful; when someone shows you who they really are deep inside, you owe them that much. But I urge you to join me. Be brave; the worst that can happen is that people will disagree with you; and frankly, people who would disagree with you about the base principles by which you live your life aren't people you'd likely hang out with, anyway.

You don't have to do this; hell, it may end up being just me, all alone; but if so, that's ok.

Just So's You Guys All Know...

...Barack Obama has come up with the solution to high gas prices.

He wants to raise taxes on all oil sold for more than $80 a barrel.

Thus demonstrating his total lack of understanding of basic economics.

See, companies don't have huge vaults of money in which the execs swim like Scrooge McDuck; they use any and all money they make IN THE BUSINESS. When you increase taxes on a raw material crucial to the company's operations, that cost results directly in an increased cost to the consumer.

Raising taxes never, ever, ever helped anyone, anywhere, anytime, throughout all of human history.

Lowering taxes has never failed to do so.

Try eliminating the federal gas tax, and requiring the states to eliminate the state gas taxes; and maybe, making stock trading of oil "options" illegal; then you might make a dent in the gas prices.

But no; we're too busy mandating ethanol from corn, so we can drive up food prices - hurting the consumer - while the ethanol lowers fuel efficiency - hurting the consumer - to actually do anything productive, like develop nuclear power into an energy source capable of providing municipal power without oil, nationwide; trust me, if the only major fuel usage of oil was in cars, gas would be a lot cheaper - that HAPPENS when supply exceeds demand.

As long as we keep burning millions of barrels a day in oil at power stations, oil will cost an assload of money. This is just reality; wind power, water power, and solar power are too environment-dependent and inherently unreliable. The sole technologically feasible replacement power source we currently have available is nuclear power.

The reactors available today, however, are NOT like the ones from the 50's and 60's. There's no more meltdowns - they never reach a critical mass in themselves, so they can't - no more overheated waste water in the rivers and streams and tidal pools to kill fish - modern reactors can be cooled with helium, thus eliminating the hot water entirely - and they produce far less "waste" material than the old, inefficient reactors used to. Plus, we've now developed sufficient technology to safely dispose of reactor waste in any number of ways.

The objections people have to nuclear power are based, frankly, in an abysmal lack of actual knowledge about the technologies available, and fanned by the hysterical shrieking of wackoes who started opposing nuclear power in the 60's, and have never stopped, despite the fact that the technology has grown and changed immensely.

There's nothing immoral about using nuclear power.

There's nothing environmentally dangerous about using nuclear power.

There's nothing smart about NOT using nuclear power.

And refusing to use it is keeping gas prices at ludicrous levels.

But Obama's right; let's raise taxes on the oil companies. Surely, despite the mockery of all of human history, it will work THIS time.

Well, Hello There...

Everybody welcome the new First Lady of Russia.




Right; Just so you know, Vladimir Putin has apparently secretly divorced his 50-year old wife Ludmilla, and is marrying 24-year-old model and gymnast Alina Kabaeva.

After seeing that video, I simply can't imagine what his motives might have been.

Political Rambling, Just For You...

As you guys can see from the list, this one's kind of a closed party.

See, I've been thinking about some things, and commenting on one of Lee's posts tonight really kinda crystallized for me the things I've been rolling over in my mind.

This is kinda political heresy for the Right, I suppose, but I think for all the good work they did, and all the great thinkers involved, the Framers missed the chance to articulate the core principle by which our government was founded.

Stay with me here.

A TAX SUPPORTED government MUST provide benefit to ALL its contributing citizens, with ALL the monies collected.

This is because taxation is inherently armed robbery - the state saying to you, at gunpoint, "Pony up, slick. We gotta pave I-95." And without benefit returning to the citizen, it is merely that; robbery, writ large and legalized.

WITH benefit returning to the citizen, however, it is an exchange - the heart and soul of the social contract.

But WHAT benefits, of the ones available, are morally justifiable? See, as the base of citizenry, and the area they occupy, grows, the government finds itself more and more limited in terms of what it can do that provides benefit to everyone.

Roads? Yes; they're essential - at least at our technological level - for the economy, and for defense of the nation against foreign invaders, and as such, provide benefit for everyone.

The military? Yes; defending the citizenry against foreign aggressors is part and parcel of why governments were formed in the first place, and protection against foreign enemies is DEFINITELY something from which all citizens derive value.

Likewise the courts and police; they defend against domestic enemies - Lee, we're coming gradually back to what I was talking about in my minor, and unintentional threadjack of your excellent post, soon, I promise - and thus again provide something from which all citizens derive value.

"Social programs" ?
Not so much. Currently over half of the federal budget goes to so-called social programs, and those programs are inherently incapable of providing value for everyone; a program which gives "free stuff" to poor folks, has to get its money from someone who isn't poor; this is income redistribution - socialism - at its finest.

Now, as you scale the government down towards the local level, it will have an easier and easier time providing benefits to its citizens, and thus can do more things.

For example:

My borough has a contract with a local company to dispose of all our garbage. This is paid for directly from town funds, which are based in a local per capita tax that's fairly mild - I think $25 per year, per resident provides the entire town budget. As a local function, that's perfectly fine. Every citizen in my town derives value from the contract, and so, it's ok.

If, however, it were federally funded, then we would have a problem, because some guy in Nebraska does not drive one thin dime's worth of benefit from my town garbage pickup here in Pennsylvania.

Now, as far as the courts - this is where we go back to my inadvertent, but heartfelt, threadjack of Lee's post - go, our system is completely bonkers. This stems from the lack of understanding, at a national level, of the moral obligations of a nation-state; the state is obligated to ensure the security - note I did NOT use the term "safety" - of its citizens. Government should be in the business of cops and soldiers, not warning labels.

The courts, cops, and prisons are part and parcel of this obligation; however, in their current incarnation, they don't fulfill any purpose at all. See, we've taught ourselves to believe that the purpose of the courts and jails is to "punish" or "rehabilitate," rather than protect the citizens.

Ok, a brief digression. One of the things that we do wrong in this country is that we define way, way too many things as "crimes." Crimes - in a literal sense - are actions which directly or indirectly harm others. Harming yourself, morally speaking, is fine; you have a right to your life, and inherent in that life is its conduct, and ending. However, you are totaly free to do as you want PROVIDED that it does NOT interfere with someone else; infringing on the rights of others is a "legitimate" crime. Stealing, for example, because it deprives others of their property, which is implied in their right to their life; the right to life implies the right to sustain that life, and ownership of property is required for sustenance, which means that if you steal, you are in a moral sense, if not necessarily a literal one, taking the food from my table, and thus potentially my life.

Rape is one; use of force against another is denying that other the right to liberty. Murder, obviously. Assault. Not very many things, though.

At any rate - to conclude the digression by feeding back to the point - the purpose of the courts, under a morally-designed government, is to protect the citizens under that government, by recompense for accidents - fines, etc. for accidental things - and for "legitimate" crimes, prison.

Now, remember I said we had in mind the concept that "punishment" or "rehabilitation" was a legitimate goal for prison, and that we were wrong about that? Mkay; as I said in Lee's blog, capital punishment is impossible without investing in the state control of a citizen's right to life; that cannot be allowed of any government; governments with the power of life or death over their citizens inevitably become dictatorships.

Life imprisonment, however, is fine; because you're not ending someone's life; they still are allowed their natural span on earth; they're merely required, through their own actions, to spend it away from the rest of society.

Exile doesn't work, because of the porous borders, and because it frees a known criminal upon the unsuspecting citizenry of a neighboring nation, there to prey upon them at will, the guilt for which our government would then bear.

So, my idea for a prison system would be one in which far, far fewer things are accounted "crimes," but those things which are actually criminal result in life imprisonment.

That is a morally justified, and justifiable, use of the state's power; anything else would either be ineffective, or morally wrong, and using a moral evil to "correct" a moral evil undermines the fabric of the society itself.

Okay, I'm done rambling now. Right now, this post is private; if you guys think it's interesting enough to warrant it, I will make it public, as is my norm; but this time I wanted to see what you guys thought first.

Because This Just Pisses Me Off, Part One Of Two

Right. We all know about attorney-client privilege, that clause in the law that says that an attorney can't be ordered to incriminate his client by revealing information the client revealed in confidence.

But I bet you never heard a story like the sordid tale of Alton Logan.

See, Alton Logan is in jail. Serving a life sentence, without parole, for a murder he did not commit. He is 54 years old, and has been in jail for TWENTY-SIX YEARS.

His life is utterly, irrevocably destroyed. There is no way to recompense him for what has been done to him; he has lost nearly half his life to the prison system, and they STILL HAVEN'T LET HIM OUT.

He is innocent.

Want to know why he's in jail?

Because the attorneys for the ACTUAL killer of the police officer of whose murder Logan stands accused, held the real killer's confession in silence, under the attorney-client privilege, for 26 years.

The real killer just died; so now, in a pointless attempt to seem like they serve justice, the attorneys have revealed the truth: that their client, Andrew Wilson, was guilty of the murder of Lloyd Wickliffe, and Alton Logan was in fact an innocent man.

The article makes interesting reading, as the two lawyers describe in detail the tortured reasoning they went through to try to justify their decision to send an innocent man to jail for 26 years, rather than violate the confidence of a man who was, at that time, on death row for two other murders. Wilson was convicted of shooting two other police officers; Logan had no police record and was by all accounts a decent, hard-working citizen.

To protect the "rights" of a killer, criminal, and general non-contributing scuzzbag, these two lawyers sentenced a good man to death in prison.

Now, 26 years later, now that the evidence that might have been available to confirm Alton Logan's innocence is long gone, now that the witnesses are unrecoverable, now that virtually no-one is left who knows, or cares, about this travesty, NOW, these two hardworking public servants come forward to offer a piece of information that might have made all the difference in the world AT THE TIME: a signed affidavit, from both lawyers, stating that Andrew Wilson confessed to Wickliffe's murder.

Of course, in the absence, NOW, of any actual evidence other than that statement, and seeing as Andrew Wilson is dead, and cannot be questioned, Alton Logan will never be released from prison. Despite the fact that he is an innocent man; despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong; despite the fact that he has already paid 26 years of "debt to society" despite owing nothing; despite the fact that the information that could have saved him rested in the hands of lawyers so honorable, so bound by their moral code, that they kept their silence rather than betray the confidence of a convicted murderer; Alton Logan will die in prison.

Dale Coventry and W. Jaime Kunz, the two public defenders in question, deserve to have something said to them.

I'll say it.

You're trying to buy atonement, absolution, with the blood of a man who did nothing to you, committed no crime, and harmed no-one. Releasing this information now is merely cruelty; as lawyers you knew perfectly well that this would bear no legal weight by now, and come too late to do him any good. This man's death is on your souls. Alton Logan is an innocent man, that you have murdered with your silence.

There is, and can be, no absolution for you. You deserve a life of guilt and shame; you deserve a death of ignominy and despite.

For what you have done in the name of your murdering client, for your murder to protect a murderer, you deserve to take Alton Logan's place. You deserve to lose all you hold dear; to see all you love turn to ashes; to fail utterly, in every way, and to remain in prison for the rest of your miserable lives, with the sure and certain knowledge that an eternity of punishment awaits you.

And you should always, always remember that it was YOUR DECISION that made those things happen to you.

There are no words to describe an act this despicable. Your silence spits on the soul of the law; your words trample on the ideas you claim to support; your contemptible attempt to justify killing a man to avoid trouble on the job expresses exactly the evil, slimy, disgusting nature that is why people hate your execrable species.

You don't deserve to have me swear at you; my foulest word is worth more than your best action in life.

Die in a fire.

Because This Just Pisses Me Off, Part Two Of Two:

In Maine, in a few weeks, it may become a Class C FELONY to LOOK AT a child in a public place.

Yeah, you read that right. Apparently, cops got tired of telling people to move along, if they were hanging out by the bathrroms at a public beach and eyeballing the people going in and out; clearly, that makes them sexual predators, so they're trying to pass a law to make it illegal to look at children in public; specifically, "visual sexual aggression towards a minor."

I don't even know what "visual sexual aggression" IS. Can my FRIGGING EYEBALLS rape a woman, even from twenty yards away?

Maybe I'm just an idiot. But if you're in a public place, guess what? You don't HAVE a "reasonable expectation of privacy," because you're not IN fucking "private," thus the term "PUBLIC PLACE."

But, ok.

If there's even a smidgen of a chance that I might get arrested, have a felony attached to my name for the rest of my life, and be permanently registered as a sex offender, because movement attracted my eye and I turned my head in the direction of your precious snowflake, you know what?

KEEP THE LITTLE FUCKERS AT HOME.

If you expect your kids to be like Jennifer Lopez, Ms. "Avert your eyes so I am not contaminated by your gaze," then you have no right to BE in a public place.

Because a public place is there for EVERYONE to use. Not just you. Not just your kids. And sadly, the reality is that unless you can walk around with your eyes closed 100% of the time, you have to put them somewhere; in other words, 100% of the time you're out in public, you're looking at something. Unless you are a very unusual person indeed, you're most likely looking at other people.

If looking at other people is a "loophole in the law," and should be considered "visual sexual aggression," then GO THE FUCK HOME AND STAY THERE.

Then I can go to the park, and look at some fucking trees and shit, without worrying about getting arrested because you let your precious snowflake trample across my field of view.

...None of this, of course, mentions the biggest cause of creepy people lurking near bathrooms on the beach and leering at minors: the gigantically oversexualized "bathing suits" they sell for minors to wear.

I will make no apologies for my opinion that there is no excuse for a 10-year-old girl to be wearing a string bikini. Fuck you. Just like adults, if you dress up your kids like hookers, they're far more likely to get treated that way - only for them, it will be YOUR FAULT AS A PARENT, because they're NOT ADULTS.

Making it illegal to look at your kids when you tart them up and try to whore them out, doesn't make it less your fault. It just makes you twice - hell, ten times - the asshole I already thought you were.

Since The MSM Can't Tell The Truth, I Guess I'll Step Up...

[*Note: This post contains the entirety of General Petraeus' testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (thanks to RealClearPolitics.com for the transcript, and to tonyhubble for the .pdf from which I got the slides,) and as such is long. You Are Warned.*]

Right. Some of you may already know this, but I had the honor and privilege of serving with General Petraeus - now Force Commander in Iraq - when I was in the Army, back when he was an up-and-coming Colonel.

So, I'm inclined to trust his judgement on things military; I know firsthand exactly how intelligent and knowledgeable General Petraeus is, and how high the standards of his personal integrity and honor are.

The MSM, of course, doesn't give a damn about that. All they care about is advancing their agenda. Some of you might have noticed the strange dearth, in the MSM's recent reporting, of stories about Iraq; we've been barraged instead with stories about the environment, healthcare, and the economy.

...I wonder why...

Well, if you were wondering, it may be because the MSM doesn't want to - in fact, CANNOT - admit that the surge has worked, that Iraq is on the verge of being able to stand on its own, despite the best efforts of several neighboring countries to ensure that it remains a bloodbath for the foreseeable future. They can't use the news coming out of Iraq to advance their agenda, thus they will simply not have any news about Iraq, trusting that the American people will forget that we have troops over there, and go "Iraq? What's that?" within months, if they can just wait us out.

Right. Let's not let them get away with that, shall we?

Since General Petraeus just testified to Congress, let's see his testimony, so we can see what he had to say as the commander on the ground in Iraq, about how things are going over there, hmmmm?

General David H. Petraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq
Testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee

April 8, 2008

GEN. PETRAEUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command.

Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq.

Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.

Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible.

Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.

A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made.

First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of coalition and Iraqi forces. You're well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

A second factor has been the employment of coalition and Iraqi forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaeda-Iraq, and to combat criminal elements and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni Awakening in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected Al Qaeda-Iraq's indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognize that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena. Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis, some former insurgents, to contribute to local security as so-called Sons of Iraq.

With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda- Iraq, the threat posed by AQI, while still lethal and substantial, has been reduced significantly.

The recent flare-up in Basra, southern Iraq, and Baghdad underscored the importance of the cease-fire declared by Muqtada al- Sadr last fall, another factor in the overall reduction in violence.

Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again. Though a Sadr stand-down resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups, and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

As we look to the future, our task, together with our Iraqi partners, will be to build on the progress achieved and to deal with the many challenges that remain.

I do believe that we can do this while continuing the ongoing drawdown of the surge forces.

In September, I described the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This completion continues, influenced heavily by outside actors. And its resolution remains the key to producing long- term stability in Iraq.

Various elements push Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists and criminal gangs pose significant threats.

Al Qaeda's senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction and foreign fighters to Iraq.

Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq's challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports Al Qaeda-Iraq. And Iran has fueled the violence, as I noted, in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups.

Finally, insufficient Iraqi government capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust and corruption add to Iraq's problems.

These challenges and recent weeks' violence notwithstanding, Iraq's ethno-sectarian competitions in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence.

In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and southern Iraq was dealt with, temporary (sic) at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is through political dialogue rather than street fighting.

As I stated at the outset, though Iraq remains a violent country, we do see progress in the security arena.

As this chart illustrates, for nearly six months, security incidents have been at a level not seen since early to mid 2005, though the level did spike in recent weeks as a result of the fighting in Basra and Baghdad. The level of incidents has, however, begun to turn down again, though the period ahead will be a sensitive one.

As our primary mission is to help protect the population, we closely monitor the number of Iraqi civilians killed due to violence.

As this chart reflects, civilian deaths have decreased over the past year to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing that set off the cycle of sectarian violence that tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and early 2007.

This chart also reflects our increasing use of Iraqi-provided reports, with the top line reflecting coalition and Iraqi data, and the bottom line reflecting coalition-confirmed data only.

No matter which data is used, civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.

Ethno-sectarian violence is a particular concern in Iraq, as it is a cancer that continues to spread if left unchecked. As the box in the bottom left of this chart shows, the number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence has fallen since we testified last September.

A big factor has been the reduction of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad, density plots for which are shown in the boxes depicting Iraq's capital over time.

Some of this decrease is, to be sure, due to sectarian hardening of certain Baghdad neighborhoods. However, that is only a partial explanation, as countless sectarian fault lines in numerous mixed neighborhoods still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere.

In fact, coalition and Iraqi forces have focused along the fault lines to reduce the violence and enable Sunni and Shia leaders to begin the long process of healing in their local communities.

As this next chart shows, even though the number of high-profile attacks increased in March as Al Qaeda lashed out, the current level of attacks like this remains far below its height a year ago.

Moreover, as we have helped improve security and focused on enemy networks, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of such attacks. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence, in particular, has remained relatively low, illustrating the enemy's inability to date to reignite the cycle of ethno-sectarian violence.

The emergence of Iraqi volunteers to help secure their local communities has been an important development. As this chart depicts, there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq, Shia as well as Sunni, under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.

These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings and vehicles not lost because of reduced violence, not to mention the priceless lives saved have far outweighed the costs of their monthly contracts.

Sons of Iraq have also have contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosive caches. As this next chart shows, in fact we have already found more caches in 2008 than we found in all of 2006.

Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we're working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.

This process has been slow but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.

Al Qaeda also recognizes the significance of the Sons of Iraq, and AQI elements have targeted them repeatedly. However, these attacks, in addition to AQI's use of women, children and the handicapped as suicide bombers, have further alienated Al Qaeda-Iraq from the Iraqi people.

And the tenacious pursuit of AQI, together with AQI's loss of local support in many areas, has substantially reduced its capabilities, numbers, and freedom of movement.

This chart displays the cumulative effect of the effort against Al Qaeda-Iraq and its insurgent allies. As you can see, we've reduced considerably the areas in which Al Qaeda enjoys support and sanctuary, though clearly there is more to be done.

Having noted that progress, Al Qaeda is still capable of lethal attacks. And we must maintain relentless pressure on the organization, on the networks outside of Iraq that support it and on the resource flows that sustain it.

This chart lays out the comprehensive strategy that we, the Iraqis, and our interagency and international partners are employing to reduce what Al Qaeda-Iraq needs.

As you can see, defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq requires not just actions by our elite counterterrorist forces, but also major operations by coalition and Iraqi conventional forces, a sophisticated intelligence effort, political reconciliation, economic and social programs, information operations initiatives, diplomatic activity, the employment of counterinsurgency principles and detainee operations, and many other actions.

Related to this effort, I applaud Congress' support for additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets in the upcoming supplemental, as ISR is vital to the success of our operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

As we combat AQI we must remember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda's senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability. Osama bin laden and Ayman al- Zawahiri have consistently advocated exploiting the situation in Iraq, and we have also seen Al Qaeda-Iraq involved in destabilizing activities in the wider Mideast region.

Together with the Iraqi security forces we have also focused on the special groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and coalition actions in response.

Iraqi and coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to the promises made by President Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the special groups.

However, nefarious activities by the Quds Force have continued and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq. We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.

The Iraqi security forces have continued to develop since September, and we have transferred responsibilities to Iraqi forces as their capabilities and the conditions on the ground have permitted. Currently, as this chart shows, half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under provincial Iraqi control. Many of these provinces, not just the successful ones in the Kurdish regional government area but also a number of southern provinces, have done well.

Challenges have emerged in some other, including of course Basra. Nonetheless, this process will continue and we expect Anbar and Qadisiyah provinces to transition in the months ahead.

Iraqi forces have grown significantly since September, and over 540,000 individuals now serve in the Iraqi security forces.

The number of combat battalions capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some coalition support, has grown to well over 100. These units are bearing an increasing share of the burden, as evidenced by the fact that Iraqi security losses have recently been three times our own.

We will, of course, conduct careful after-action reviews with our Iraqi partners in the wake of recent operations, as there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases, and some of our assessments may be downgraded as a result.

Nonetheless, the performance of many units was solid, especially once they get their footing and gained a degree of confluence. And certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable.

Underpinning the advances of the past year has been improvements in Iraq's security institutions.

An increasingly robust Iraqi-run training base enabled the Iraqi security forces to grow by over 133,000 soldiers and police over the past 16 months. And the still-expanding training base is expected to generate an additional 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, along with 23,000 police and eight national police battalions.

Additionally, Iraq's security ministries are steadily improving their ability to execute their budgets. As this chart shows, in 2007, as in 2006, Iraq's security ministries spent more on their forces than the United States provided through the Iraqi Security Forces Fund.

We anticipate that Iraq will spend over $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year. And this projection enabled us recently to reduce significantly our Iraqi Security Forces Fund request for fiscal year 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.

While improved Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to defend Iraq or maintain security throughout the country on their own, recent operations in Basra highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to deploy substantial numbers of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice. They certainly could not have deployed a division's worth of army and police units on such short notice a year ago. On the other hand, the recent operations also underscored the considerable work still to be done in the area of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control.

We also continue to help Iraq through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. As of March 2008, the Iraqi government has purchased over $2 billion worth of equipment and services of American origin through FMS.

Since September, and with your encouragement of the organizations and the FMS progress -- process delivery has improved, as the FMS system has strived to support urgent war-time requirements.

On a related note, I would ask that Congress consider restoring funding for the International Military Education and Training program which supports education for mid- and senior-level Iraqi military and civilian leaders and is an important component of the development of the leaders Iraq will need in the future.

While security has improved in many areas, and the Iraqi security forces are shouldering more of the load, the situation in Iraq remains exceedingly complex and challenging.

Iraq could face a resurgence of Al Qaeda-Iraq, or additional Shia groups could violate Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire order and return to violence. External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.

Other challenges result, paradoxically, from improved security, which has provided opportunities for political and economic progress and improved services at the local, provincial and national levels.

But the improvements have also created expectations that progress will continue.

In the coming months, Iraq leaders must strengthen governmental capacity, execute budgets, pass additional legislation, conduct provincial elections, carry out a census, determine the status of disputed territories, and resettle internally displaced persons and refugees. These tasks would challenge any government, much less a still-developing government tested by war.

The Commander's Emergency Response Program, the State Department's Quick Response Fund, and USAID programs enable us to help Iraq deal with its challenges. To that end, I respectfully ask that you provide us by June the additional CERP funds requested in the supplemental. These funds have an enormous impact. As I noted earlier, the salaries paid to the Sons of Iraq alone cost far less than the cost savings in vehicles not lost due to the enhanced security in local communities.

Encouragingly, the Iraqi government recently allocated $300 million for us to manage as Iraqi CERP to perform projects for their people, while building their own capacity to do so. The Iraqi government has also committed $163 million to gradually assume Sons of Iraq contracts, $510 million for small-business loans, and $196 million for a joint training and reintegration program.

The Iraqi government pledges to provide more as they execute the budget passed two months ago. Nonetheless, it is hugely important to have our resources continue even as Iraqi funding begins to outstrip ours.

Last month I provided my chain of command recommendations for the way ahead in Iraq. During that process, I noted the objective of retaining and building on our hard-fought security gains, while we draw down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams. I emphasized the need to continue work with our Iraqi partners to secure the population and to transition responsibilities to the Iraqis as quickly as conditions permits but without jeopardizing the security gains that have been made.

As in September, my recommendations are informed by operational and strategic considerations. The operational considerations include recognition that: the military surge has achieved progress, but that that progress is reversible; Iraqi security forces have strengthened their capabilities, but still must grow further; the provincial elections in the fall, refugee returns, detainee releases, and efforts to resolve provincial boundaries disputes and Article 140 issues will be very challenging; the transition of Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces or other pursuits will require time and careful monitoring; withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year; and performing the necessary tasks in Iraq will require sizable conventional forces, as well as special operation forces and adviser teams.

The strategic considerations include recognition that: the strain on the U.S. military, especially on its ground forces, has been considerable; a number of the security challenges inside Iraq are also related to significant regional and global threats; a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the efforts to counter malign Iranian influence.

After weighing these factors, I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown in the surge to the combat forces and that upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and over time determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit.

This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable, however it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so far and sacrifice so much to achieve.

With this approach, the security achievements of 2007 and early 2008 can form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq. This is not only important to the 27 million citizens of Iraq, it is also vitally important to those in the Gulf region, to the citizens of the United States, and to the global community.

It clearly is in our national interests to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.

In closing, I want to comment briefly on those serving our nation in Iraq. We have asked a great deal of them and of their families, and they have made enormous sacrifices.

My keen personal awareness of the strain on them and on the force as a whole has been an important factor in my recommendations.

The Congress, the executive branch and our fellow citizens have done an enormous amount to support our troopers and their loved ones. And all of us are grateful for that.

Nothing means more to those in harm's way than the knowledge that their country appreciates their sacrifices and those of their families. Indeed, all Americans should take great pride in the men and women serving our nation in Iraq and in the courage, determination, resilience and initiative they demonstrate each and every day. It remains the greatest of honors to soldier with them.

Thank you very much.

Now, I would like to add that despite the MSM's attempts to portray Muqtada Al-Sadr's forces as a significant threat, it only took the Iraqi government forces about six days to crush their pitiful attempts to resist us, and turn things around into an Al-Sadr-requested cease-fire.

As well, one of the significant issues facing any nation-building is the attempt to win the hearts of the people; especially when dealing with Islam, an ideology which takes advantage of the circumstances of its adherents to teach them to behave in barbaric fashion. The signs are good that we're meeting our goals there, too. (Even the NEW YORK TIMES admits it. The Second Coming must be near.)

I guess what I'm getting at, here, is that the train of lies is coming, inevitably, to an end, brought low by the simple fact that the reality does not care about political agendas, and the tide of events will not be denied - despite the MSM's many, many attempts to do so.

We're winning in Iraq.

God bless America.

[*Edited to make the pics into links to the original 1024x768 versions, in case you can't read the tiny tiny font.*]  

A Surprise, That Turned Into A Real Treat...

So, this week, we happened into a bit more money than we usually have, and because my wife and I don't usually get to go anyplace for dinner that costs more than about $30 or so, we figured it would be nice to see what some of the other restaurants in the area had to offer.

We'd been kinda playing with the notion of going to Hoss's - that's http://www.hosss.com/ - for a while, based solely on Tara's sister saying "they're nice, but too expensive."

Ringing endorsement.

Now, I know you guys expect me to give forth a rising tide of bile and vitriol, but actually, I have nothing but good - and plenty of it - to say about this restaurant. Brace yourself.

The first thing we noticed about the place was that the parking lot was HUGE and FULL in comparison to the restaurant itself; we were a bit put off by this, because we thought we might be waiting in line a while. Thankfully, I was wrong; there were only a couple of people ahead of us, and we got seated in maybe 3 minutes - not a bad time WITHOUT a line at most places. The setup, if you haven't been there, is a bit different from most places; you order your entree' at the register on the way in, and then get seated. Honestly, I would have enjoyed a bit more time to look over the menu, but as it turned out, I made out alright.

The girl at the register - Sara - was very nice, and made a good first impression; smiles and courtesy can be in short supply, and she made a refreshing contrast to the thundering herd of overly-made-up, wooden-faced teenyboppers who seemed to have most of the other greeter jobs. I'm sure they're very nice, but Sara seemed much more enthusiastic than anyone else I saw at the door.

We got seated, and had a high-chair for His Majesty, Drooly Throwstoysonthefloor the First, brought out with a minimum of fuss, which let us get settled in to our table - smartly, they put us in a back corner, so that our noisy baby would disturb fewer customers; as someone who formerly used to gripe about other people's kids, I like to see that kind of attention to detail; it bodes well for other aspects of the restaurant.

Now, I'd ordered a ribeye steak, with blue cheese topping; this comes with unlimited access to the soup and salad bar, so after Tara got her salad, I trudged over to the bar with - how can I put it - limited enthusiasm.

It's not that I hate rabbit food. It's that most restaurants make only lackluster efforts to keep the salad bar stocked at all, much less fresh.

So, this place was a shock to me; everything was full, and obviously fresh, and while I was there, no less than three servers buzzed around it like busy bees, refilling things and wiping away spills; there was a 30-second or so holdup when the soup section ran out of bowls, and a girl showed up with a huge tray of bowls, apologizing profusely for the wait. I didn't really feel like that was necessary - they were obviously busy - but they were also obviously trying really, really hard, and enthusiastic, and it was a sign of good workers, and more importantly, good management.

So, I got a plate of salad covered with really, really good blue cheese dressing - what can I say, I like blue cheese - and a bowl of what turned out to be equally fantastic New England clam chowder, and headed back to the table. It's an interesting phenomenon - at least if you're me - that up here, because we're IN New England, they call it "Boston" clam chowder; everywhere else, it's just "New England" style.

Anyway, I will note here that our server, Jess, was keeping up with a steady stream of my no doubt annoying questions - sorry, Jess, I'm just like that - and somehow managed to keep our glasses filled without ever letting us hit the bottom of one, while still waiting on other tables, which is rare enough that it's noteworthy; usually, you can rattle ice for 15 minutes before someone wanders over to see how you are, and if you're ready to leave yet.

I had time to wolf down my salad, and was almost finished with the chowder - nearly perfect timing, actually, which while I'm sure it was serendipitous, was pretty slick - when our entrees showed up.

Right.

Now, I'm from Texas; I grew up believing that steak is the be-all and end-all culinary experience; I know how to cook steak; and I have eaten in some awfully expensive steakhouses. Given an option, I will gladly eat steak 3 meals a day.

So, as is usual when I try a new steakhouse, I was prepared for the worst, but hoping for the best.

I will note here that it's a hell of a lot easier to screw a steak up than it is to really get one right. "Well done" at most restaurants either isn't, or results in a thick layer of charcoal on the outside of the steak.

None of that here. I was treated to a steak that was possibly the best-prepared I have ever had in a restaurant; it was perfectly cooked, tender, no pink, but not dry at all, and most notably tender ALL THE WAY THROUGH, which is DAMNED hard to do; if you manage to cook a steak all the way through, there's almost ALWAYS a tough bit around the outside, but not this time.

So, having discovered a new place where I could be a regular customer, I waved Jess over and asked to talk to the manager. I told her pretty much what I just told you, and asked - I know it's an imposition, especially on a busy night, but I felt it was important - if I could talk to the cook, whoever it was, that made my steak.

Happily, the manager said she could spare him for a minute, and went back and got him.

So, Fred, a fiercely mustached kid about 26 who looked too tattooed to cook a steak - and frankly, looked like he had been having a rough night - came over, and I got him to pull up a chair for a minute. And told him that that was the best steak I'd ever had in a restaurant, and on a par with restaurants that charge four times more than Hoss's does, and thanked him, and shook his hand. He deserved every bit of it - hell, that guy deserves to have a hell of a lot more people do that than I suspect actually can be bothered to these days. I hope - I don't know, but I hope - that it helped pick up his night a bit; he sure as hell made mine, I'll tell you. Steak like that is worth putting money in a can for a month to get.

Hoss's isn't wildly expensive, but my wallet only holds so much; sadly, although I did try to be generous, I wasn't able to leave as good a tip as I would have liked; I managed more than 15%, but frankly if I would have gotten 30, it wouldn't have been good enough. That was a fantastic experience, from end to end; the food was worth a hell of a lot more pennies than it cost us, the service was stellar, if no doubt unappreciated by the folks around here, and everyone I talked to in the restaurant without fail managed a smile and a positive attitude.

For those of you who work for other restaurants, I will give you a tip. That's how to do it. Because even if you're having the shittiest day ever, the customer DOES NOT KNOW THAT, and all they get is the service you choose to give them. Maybe you don't feel like smiling, but if you go ahead anyway, chances are they will have a better time - and that pays off for you, in tips and smiles and repeat business. If you growl, they won't come back, and it won't matter to them what happened that day to make you that way.

From what I saw, the staff there was busy enough that they had every right to be a bit stiff and harried, but I saw no evidence of that whatsoever.

On the way out, We saw Sara again, who smiled at us (again,) thanked us for our business (again,) asked if we enjoyed everything (we did) and looked completely surprised when I asked her if she minded me mentioning her, on my website, by name.

If you read this, Sara, I hope you're not disappointed. The greeter and the cashier - both odf which, in our case, were you - are the two most important people in the restaurant, from the customer service point of view. The person that welcomes you into a restaurant gives you your first impression, and those usually don't change; and the cashier, if they're nice enough, can make up for it, even if the service was terrible.

In this case, we were blessed with great service the whole time we were there - thanks, Jess - and so you didn't have TOO much work to do to keep us happy; but a smile, and a good attitude, and obviously caring whether or not we had a good meal, are a hell of a nice way to leave the restaurant.

I think it's obvious that I was very, very impressed; the management at that place is absolutely on point, the service and food are fantastic, and as I told my wife: "I would give this place six stars, if Multiply would let me." They won't, so I made this a blog post rather than a review, but I'll tell you what. That restaurant will see us again.

If you're ever in Lewistown and in dire need of a steak fix, stop by Hoss's, and ask (nicely) if Fred will cook you a steak. They're worth the trip. Including airfare.