Required reading

Rapidly Collapsing U.S. Foreign Policy by Herschel Smith. Portrays Obama's foreign policy performance so far as uglier than Helen Thomas in a thong.

Another candidate for 'Atlantis'

might actually be the original candidate for Atlantis. The Sun has the details:

THIS is the amazing image which could show the fabled sunken city of Atlantis.
It shows a perfect rectangle the size of Wales lying on the bed of the Atlantic Ocean nearly 3½ miles down.

A host of criss-crossing lines, looking like a map of a vast metropolis, are enclosed by the boundary.

They seem too vast and organised to be caused naturally.

And last night the possibility of an extraordinary discovery had oceanographers and geophysicists captivated.

The site lies 620 miles off the west coast of Africa near the Canary Islands — a location for Atlantis seemingly suggested by the ancient philosopher Plato.

He believed it was an island civilisation sunk by an earthquake and floods around 9,700BC — nearly 12,000 years ago.

The “grid” showed up on Google Ocean, a Google Earth extension that uses a combination of satellite images and marine surveys.

Last night Dr Charles Orser, curator of historical archaeology at New York State University — and one of the world’s leading authorities on Atlantis — called it “fascinating”.

He said: “The site is one of the most prominent places for the proposed location of Atlantis, as described by Plato. Even if it turns out to be geographical, this definitely deserves a closer look.”

[...]

Bernie, 38, of Chester, said: “It looks like an aerial map of Milton Keynes. It must be man-made.”

Google today claimed the criss-crossing lines were sonar data collected as boats mapped the ocean floor.

But the internet giant said “blank spots” within the lines could not be explained.

A spokeswoman said: “Bathymetric (or sea floor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the sea floor.

“The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data.

“The fact that there are blank spots between each of these lines is a sign of how little we really know about the world’s oceans.”

This is the image in question:


This does seem to fit Plat's descruiption of being beyond "the Pillars of Hercules" (Straits of Gibraltar). And the Canary Islands have been a listed as a possible location for Atlantis, as have the Azores.

Anyone who knows me knows I am the consummate romantic, but getting my romantic hopes up invariably leads to heartbreak. That is probably where this lead will end up as well.

I can't help but think there is an explanation for this. Crisscrossing currents, or pixellation of the images come to mind.

If anyone wants to check for themselves, The Sun has shown the area in which to look:


Count me whelmed.

The power of nukes

If war with Iran does come, the mullahs' nuclear program may be the driving force, but not the cause, as this ominous blurb suggests:

Keep an eye on Bahrain. Over the last month, Iranian rhetoric against the continued independence of the tiny Arab island nation has really picked up, with repeated declarations that Bahrain isn't independent, but really just a province of Iran. (Historically, Bahrain was part of Iran until the Portuguese separated it in 1522; it later became a British protectorate and a 1970 plebiscite confirmed the Bahraini desire to be independent). Iranian authorities have recently suggested seating Bahraini representatives in the Iranian parliament, categorizing Ahmadinejad's trips to the island nation as provincial trips, and broadcast interviews with Bahraini Shi'a predicting revolution within a year. Yesterday, Bahrain stopped allowing Iranians to travel to the island, and announced they were cutting off oil imports from Iran.

Of course, much of this may be simple rhetoric, but then again, so was Saddam Hussein's Kuwait-is-our-19th province rhetoric until he made good on his threats.

Bahrain is more complicated because of the U.S. navy's presence on the island.

Iran's nukes have given the mullahs a shield allowing them to intimidate their neighbors. This is an example.

I don't get this

Today in the criminal trial of Steroid ... er, Barry Bonds, the
federal judge ruled as inadmissible hearsay several positive drug
tests and calendars from Bonds trainer Greg Anderson.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible because Anderson would not testify
as to its authenticity to establish it's foundation. Anderson has
refused to testify in the Bonds case, choosing prison instead.

And yet there is an exception under the hearsay rules for witnesses
unavailable to testify. Which means dead, incapacitated, missing or
refusing to testify.

This sounded tailor-made for the exception.

So the second-biggest disgrace in baseball (the first obviously being
Don Fehr) will probably walk.

I love WKTU but ...

Right now I am listening to streaming audio from 103.5 KTU, The Beat
of New York, aka New York City's Feel Good Station.

They are playing "Killing Me Softly" by the Fugees.

How does "Killing Me Softly" qualify as "feel good," let alone for the
flagship dance station of the US?

No right to smoke

Let's see how many of my libertarian friends I can anger with this post.

Several states and municipalities, including Indiana and Indianapolis, are considering prohibitions of smoking in public places. By "public," I do not mean government buildings but places of public accommodation such as restaurants, bars and workplaces. I won't comment specifically on any of the proposals out there, but only generally. As will become apparent, I generally support such prohibitions.

It never ceases to amaze me the excuses ... er, arguments, smokers and businesses make in resistance to such proposals. As a non-smoker who can tolerate smoke for short periods but doesn't like it, I'll try to respond to their biggest whines.

1. It's the Nanny State run amok. This is one of the big government arguments of smokers, that by banning smoking in public places the government is telling us how to live and taking away our choices. Today it's smoking, tomorrow it's fatty foods, goes the argument.

But this is ridiculous on its face. If I choose to eat fatty foods, as I usually do, it does not physically hurt the person next to me. Smoking does, through second smoke that can foul clothes and cause lung irritation or even lung diseases such as cancer. The person eating fatty foods makes the choice to eat only for themselves; it affects no one else. The person who chooses to smoke makes the choice for everyone around them, who did not have a choice in the matter.

Someone not smoking does not hurt the people around them; someone smoking does. Therefore any balance of harms should benefit the nonsmoker, not the smoker. Any inconvenience should be borne not by the non-smoker, but by the smoker, who is causing the problem in the first place.

2. Let the free market decide. This one is a classic argued by business, particularly restaurants and bars. We will lose the business of our smokers if smoking is banned, they say. The free market should be trusted here, so if there is a market for non-smoking businesses, then the market will respond. Non-smokers don't have to go to a business that allows smoking.

This argument ignores, perhaps willfully, the history of limited prohibitions on smoking. Upwards of 70% of the population do not smoke; some surveys have that number around 80%. Yet until the passage of limited smoking prohibitions the free market was largely unresponsive to the wishes of nonsmokers to not be forced to deal with cigarette smoke. The numbers of non-smoking businesses in Indianapolis, for instance, were statistically insignificant before passage of the Indianapolis ordinance. The case was similar in California and New York City.

Sure, most places had non-smoking sections, but that is about as effective as a non-peeing section of a swimming pool.

So, no, the free market did not work here until government forced it. This is one of a number of east examples where the free market in fact has not worked. Another example would be telemarketing, but I digress.

The thriving social scenes in New York City and California did not collapse with passage of smoking prohibitions. Nor has it collapsed anywhere else it has been tried. Nor will it.

Another argument here is that when people go to bars and restaurants, smoke is supposed to be a part of the atmosphere. For the longest time, though, so were shootings (particularly in the Old West), cockroaches and rats. Should those be allowed, too? Just to keep the "atmosphere" everyone expects?

That's absurd. A certain amount of government regulation is necessary to protect the health and safety pf patrons. This is no different. You shouldn't have to choose betwen your health and a night out, which is what nonsmokers for years were forced to do.

Finally, the suggestion that smokers cannot go a few hours without smoking in a public place suggests that smoking is little more than a drug addiction, which brings me to my final big point.

3. Smoking is no different than any other pollution. This argument is quite possibly the most arrogant of the smokers' arguments, no mean feat. It goes like this: if you're going to ban smoking because it poisons the air of nonsmokers, you should ban cars, factories and power plants, too, because they cause far greater pollution -- poison the air far more -- than smoking does.

That may be true. It is also irrelevant.

One cannot produce a good or deliver a service without causing some pollution. We cannot live without steel, but making steel causes pollution. We cannot get to our jobs without driving or taking transport of some time, which causes pollution. We cannot heat or cool our homes without causing pollution. The list goes on.

That pollution is an unfortunate byproduct of the production and delivery of goods and services. But those goods and services are necessities of any economy. That pollution is not by choice because it is necessary to have the aggregate societal good that comes from the production and delivery of goods and services.

But there is no societal good in smoking. it does not produce a good or deliver a service. It is not essential to a modern economy or society, It is a drug addiction. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be sure, I am not advocating a total prohibition on smoking. People should be able to smoke in their own homes and cars, because those are not places of public accommodation like businesses are.

Remember my creed of government:

It is the purpose of government to protect its citizens in their life, liberty and property from the predations of others, both foreign and domestic, so that civilization may flourish.

In this case, the poisoning of nonsmokers' air by the willful choice of smokers is a predation.

Another sign of the Apocalypse

ESPN is broadcasting a roundtable on soccer, which begs the question
of which is more boring: watching people talk about soccer or actually
watching soccer?

Perhaps the roundtable would have been more entertaining if they had
removed the commentators and just left the table.

Wonder of wonders

On the TiVo'd episode of CSI: Horatio ... er, Miami I'm watching, Horatio Caine actually performs lab work. Imagine that: a CSI technician actually performing lab work. Clearly this is fictitious. Besides, everyone knows David Caruso would never get his hands dirty in a lab ...

Random thought

Isn't Jimmy Carter giving advice on foreign policy like Ryan Leaf
giving advice on playing quarterback in the NFL?

Once again

The Russians are not our friends:

The U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban suffered two logistical blows Tuesday as the president of Kyrgyzstan announced that he'd shut a U.S. airbase in his country and insurgents in Pakistan blew up a bridge, disrupting the main U.S. supply route into Afghanistan.

The developments were the latest reminders of the vulnerability of the long and complex transportation system on which the 60,000 U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan depend for fuel, ammunition, construction materials and a great deal more.

The announcement by Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev that he will close the Manas Air Base also gave President Barack Obama a first taste of the challenge he faces from Russia, which is trying to restore its clout in countries that were part of the former Soviet Union.

Bakiyev made his announcement in Moscow, not in his own capital, shortly after the Russian government reportedly agreed to lend Kyrgyzstan $2 billion, write off $180 million in debt and add another $150 million in aid. The timing and place of the announcement indicated the Kremlin's involvement.

"It's a direct challenge to the new American administration. Russia is going out of its way to close an American base," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based military analyst.

Manas is the main transit point through which U.S. troops fly into and out of Afghanistan. As such, it is vital to plans to send 30,000 more American troops to stabilize Afghanistan. A U.S. Air Force Web site calls it "the premier air-mobility hub" for U.S. and allied operations in Afghanistan, with about 1,000 military personnel from America, Spain and France stationed there.

A senior U.S. military official said the U.S. military hopes Bakiyev's decision is not final but is the latest gambit in what has been a lengthy effort to squeeze more money out of Washington.

"There is a long list of things that he wants, some of which we can't do, like debt relief, relieving the debt he owes other governments," said the U.S. military official. "The bottom line, we hope, is that this is simply a card being played as part of the negotiating process. Obviously, we don't want to lose Manas."

Another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said Bakiyev had been trying to play the U.S. off against Russia for months in order to secure more funds. The official could not be identified by name because he was unauthorized to speak to reporters.

The U.S. has been paying Kyrgyzstan about $63 million a year to use Manas. The money is part of some $150 million in annual direct and indirect U.S. aid.

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, said senior Kyrgyz officials had assured him that there were no discussions between the country and Russia about closing the base in exchange for aid.

The senior U.S. military official said the base is also used to "bed down" U.S. tanker aircraft used for mid-aid refueling operations over Afghanistan.

Bakiyev explained in Moscow that the decision had been made because "we have repeatedly raised with the U.S. the matter of economic compensation for the existence of the base in Kyrgyzstan, but we have not been understood," Russian media reported.

Bakiyev said that after the base opened in 2001 the understanding was that "it was one or two years that were being talked about. Eight years have passed."

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 touched off 30 years of war, and Moscow is again turning into a player in Afghan politics. Two days before Obama's inauguration, the Afghan government said that Russia had accepted a request from President Hamid Karzai for military aid.

And last month, the Kremlin said it would open transportation lines through Russia to Afghanistan to help U.S. forces circumvent the violence-plagued route across the Pakistani border.

Although he didn't cite the base closing, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a point of saying in Moscow that Kyrgyzstan and Russia "are open to coordinated action" with the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.

Analyst Felgenhauer said the message from the two actions was clear: The Kremlin is willing to help the American military in Afghanistan, but only on the condition that the U.S. recognizes its authority in central Asia.

Or, more simply put, "we will not allow their bases in our sphere of influence," said Felgenhauer, a critic of Kremlin policy.

Hot Air:

Just two weeks after supposedly agreeing to expand supply lines into Afghanistan, Russia cut one of the more important supply lines available to NATO. Vladimir Putin gave Kyrgyzstan over $2 billion, and the Central Asian country not-so-coincidentally booted the US from their air base [...]

Two weeks ago, Kyrgyz officials assured David Petraeus that they had no discussions with Russia about Manas. Two weeks and one presidential inauguration later, the US and NATO have lost a major supply route for their fight in Afghanistan, and Putin has a new BFF in Bakiyev. The Kyrgyz PM says that the US would not adequately compensate his country for the base, but that sounds pretty strange for a nation that gave such assurances before Obama took the oath of office.

Lawhawk:

Has Russia done an about face? It certainly appears that they're twisting the screws and testing President Obama.

Our options in this area are very limited. As I've pointed out repeatedly, deploying extensive military assets to Afghanistan is not only impractical but dangerous, since the country is landlocked we have no secure way of supplying such a force. Russia is demonstrating the vulnerability of our forces there now.

STILLERS!!!

You know the world is coming to an end when

Matt Millen qualifies as a football analyst for a major TV network.