Lou Pinella's return to Seattle and SafeCo Field last night was, in a word, terrific. The crowd roared "Lou!" lustily. Lou's voice cracked with emotion as he thanked the fans during a brief ceremony before the game. TV shots of the crowd showed more than a few fans wiping a tear or holding hand-made signs expressing their thanks and love for Lou.

Lou spent ten years as Seattle's manager. Ten years doing anything is a rarity these days. Lou committed himself to building a successful organization, and demanded commitment to that same goal from his players and coaches. He is responsible for the team's ability to continue to succeed despite the departure of Tino Martinez, Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.

Now the torch has been passed to Bob Melvin and his staff. It will be a testament to Bob, and to what Lou started, if the team continues to perform at the high level Lou set over the next decade. I hope that the fans will continue to turn out and show their love for the team.

Strong, vocal fan support can't be overrated. Anyone who's seen the energy of the Yankee fans during the playoffs can see how the Yankee players turn it up a notch time and again while often playing down to the competition during the regular season. Even the Angels fans with their annoying "thunder sticks" were a force to be reckoned with during the 2002 World Series.

Here's to you, Lou. May we all help carry the torch you lit for many years to come.

I'm delighted that Blogger fixed whatever was wrong with my blog. Thank you.

Thanks of another sort; with a much deeper meaning, go to the men and women of the armed forces. As a veteran, I teared up watching the President's speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln tonight. I served during an era when the military was vilified--hated as "baby killers". We weren't then, and we aren't now. Instead, we fight for freedom. Only the will of our leadership affects the outcome. In my day, Vietnam was not a war, but a battle of attrition. Only during the operation named "Linebacker II" was the Air Force allowed to project its true power. After less than two weeks, the North Vietnamese dropped their objections to the shape of the table, and other trivial matters, and earnestly agreed to an armistice so that their entire government would not disappear in a rain of iron bombs.

Today's warriors fight with a mixture of new and old. My favorite airplane, the mighty B-52, can perform close air support missions thanks to the JDAM and other precision guided munitions. The B-52--the BUFF--is older than most of its crews, and is nearly as old as I am. I expect it to serve longer than I will.

Tonight's speech reminds us of the dedication of our best, our young men and women, to the cause of freedom. We did not seek this conflict. Al Qaida and Saddam underestimated our President, and our nation. The President declares us victorious in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in the war against terrorism. That war goes on, as does our resolve.

God bless America.

I don't know why I bother, but I occasionally watch The West Wing on NBC. Tonight's episode included a conversation between a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and "Toby Ziegler" about reinstating the draft in order to somehow make the military more racially and economically balanced. They also said that military service was the only choice for some; the other choice would be a McDonalds uniform.

Well, according to this article, it appears that the composition of the military is diverse. It may not match the exact ratios of the racial composition of the nation according to the census. However, everyone enlisted serves by choice. There are no deferments for the elite; no draft dodgers. The level of professionalism of today's force is far greater than the Vietnam era military.

I became a computer programmer while serving in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. I learned my skills well enough to join EDS, then a company known as Raychem, then Doelz Networks (a data communications startup), Apple Computer, GO Corporation (a pioneer in pen-based computing), and finally Microsoft. I would never have achieved what I did without that founding experience in the Air Force.

I served with all sorts of people during those years. It was tough; Vietnam had just ended, the economy was bad, almost anything was more popular than the military. However, if anything, our isolation had a positive effect. All of us felt a strong bond with one another. It was the closest experience to the feeling that I get from my family that I've ever felt.

NBC doesn't provide e-mail addresses for The West Wing on its web site--at least, that I could find. I'd certainly like to give them a piece of my mind on this issue. Shilling for Charlie Rangel's loony draft reinstatement idea makes no more sense in Bartlett-land than it does in real life.

Perhaps their overt left slant during these times accounts for their ratings decline. Or perhaps it's for this reason href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/merron/021024.html"

So the die is cast. Saddam and his sons—plus, I imagine, some of his other toadies—must either leave Iraq within the next 48 hours, or there will be war.

The aftermath of the President’s speech leaves a bitter resolve in the pit of one’s stomach. The most solemn duty a President can perform is to send America’s sons and daughters to war. The President and his advisors have determined that Saddam possesses weapons not seen on a battlefield since WWI—if then, and that he must be disarmed either voluntarily or by force, and according to the polls, most American’s agree with him. Nearly 300,000 American, British, Australian, Czech, Bulgarian, Albanian troops and support personnel—and with the inclusion of other support arrangements, a force comprised of about 30 countries or more in total—are arrayed against Saddam’s regime. All of these forces will act at a time of the President’s choosing, should Saddam not leave immediately.

How must Chirac and the weak leadership of Germany feel tonight? Defiant? Maybe. Fearful of being caught out in lies? Possibly. It appears that Saddam is at least giving the appearance that he will use chemical and biological weapons by issuing chemical/bio protection suits to his troops and moving artillery and chemical/bio capable shells near to our troops in Kuwait. If Saddam’s officers are foolish enough to use them, several things will no longer be in question, if they ever really were:
1) Saddam lied repeatedly when he claimed to have destroyed any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This past weekend, Saddam spoke to Iraqi TV viewers
admitting that Iraq had such weapons for "defensive purposes" against Iran.
2) World opinion will switch overwhelmingly in favor of the coalition of the willing, led by the US.
3) Should the war crimes trials be televised, they will rivet viewers to their sets beyond anything seen ever, including the "O. J. trial".
4) Chirac and his "coalition of weasels" will lose all credibility among those who give more than a cursory thought to these issues.
5) Tony Blair’s popularity will rise, and his career will be secure.
6) Should the war be fought successfully, and should the President be able to use his popularity to pass his stimulus package in Congress, he will be unbeatable in 2004.
7) Kim Jung Il will pull in his horns somewhat. The presence of one Trident submarine, which I can only imagine is somewhere in the Sea of Japan right now, is enough of a counterforce element to trump Kim’s two fission technology nukes. Add to that the failure of Kim’s recent ballistic missile test, the movement of Air Force fighters and bombers to the region, the movement of anti-missile weapons to Japan, and the face-saving shipment of food stocks from the UN to the region, it seems reasonable to expect that Kim will remain quiet for a time in the face of a display of American military power unfettered by the indecisive controls of a LBJ or a Bill Clinton.
8) France should be held accountable by any country whose soldiers or populace suffer casualties from chemical or biological weapons or through any additional preparations that Iraq made as a result of the delays caused by French "diplomacy". Now those are reparations I’d like to see paid in full.

I just watched part of Bill Maher's show on HBO. The estimable Dennis Miller was on, along with Arianna Huffington and a strikingly beautiful woman listed as a “Fox News analyst”. Well, I’ve seen Dennis on Leno, and he could have laid Huffington out flatter than Saddam will be in a week’s time, but he didn’t. A gentleman’s discretion? Or just letting the statements of the hypocrite speak for themselves?

Apparently Huffington owned a SUV last year, but now, she says, no one should own one. Oh, that’s good; the elitist deigns to tell us what to do again. She tried to help her husband, Michael Huffington, become a Senator from California in 1992—they were unable to buy the seat. I’ll let Paula Poundstone take it from here.

Obviously, Arianna has found the Democratic party’s point of view to be the most advantageous to her now—at least, she reasons, she can get the most TV time by pretending to be a Democrat.

Although Dennis didn’t “lay the smack down” on Arianna as fully as I think he could have, I’ll take 1 Miller over 50 Huffingtons any day.

Where can criminals score big heists easily? Why, from jail, of course!

It's not quite the equal of the theft of the Salvador Dali painting from Rikers Island men's prison in New York, but Seattle is trying its best. A sum of $10,000 in cash--part of a $20,000 bond from an accused drug dealer--was stolen today from a jail safe here.

This “editorial” is crap.

Once again, as a former Georgian, I am ashamed to have asked my father to vote for Carter for Governor. I voted for Ford for President, at least.

Let’s examine the “editorial” in more detail. I’ve copied Mr. Carter’s New York Times “Op-Ed” in plain text; my comments are italicized.

Just War — or a Just War?


By JIMMY CARTER


Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

Our nation fought two wars against England, and counted France as an ally. No “NGO” authorized our revolution according to Mr. Carter’s criteria. No restraints were placed on the efforts of the combatants other than their willingness to suffer losses and expend treasure. Little in the way of international law existed at that time, other than “to the victor go the spoils”.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

This is my favorite paragraph. Mr. Carter cannot resist a slap against his former colleagues in the Southern Baptist Convention. Little has been written about the opinions on the ward that the Southern Baptists hold in the mainstream press, at least the press that appears outside of Plains. Perhaps some readers of this “editorial” will be curious enough to find out what those religious leaders believe we should do, or not do, as concerns Iraq.

I was in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. Mr. Carter was concerned with weighty defense issues such as repainting parking lots for diagonal parking instead of straight in parking, at least as far as I can recall at Randolph AFB in Universal City, TX. His “leadership” left the Shah of Iran to the mercies of the Iranian mullahs, resulting in the first religious dictatorship in the region. He showed impotence in the face of a clear attack upon US diplomats, allowing them to rot in Iranian custody for over 400 days. If ever a President was presented with the causus belli for “a just war”, it was him. President Reagan would have used our sovereign power to rescue those people immediately, as would both Presidents Bush 41 and 43.

Mr. Carter is a coward who cloaks himself in self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I love seeing him nailing together homes for the poor and needy; he should stick to what he knows. Appropriate application of military power is as foreign a concept to him as how to focus on large strategic concepts instead of piddling details.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

Mr. Carter would have done nothing to stop September 11th even if he had precise knowledge of the events on September 10th. Endless wrangling and delay has created a split between the US and its “allies”—France, Germany, Russia and China—who are acting like opportunistic hucksters. When the war is over, and the records of the Saddam dictatorship are opened for all to see, the source of Saddam’s war material and technology in recent years will be found among these four “allies”.

Israel exists today because it acted in 1967 before the Arab nations could launch their attack. Israel was nearly destroyed in the Yom Kippur war because it failed to take action on information available to it before the Arabs attacked. America was thrust into WWII by an attack that may have been foreseeable, but was not prevented by measures to alert our forces or assume defensive postures to warn the Japanese that a sneak attack would be impossible. By Mr. Carter’s “logic”, our policemen would have to wait until a gunman fired on them before using force to defend themselves.

Would Mr. Carter have us wait until Saddam reaches the level of North Korea, the level where clear possession of weapons of mass destruction would embolden him to thumb his nose at the world and dare us to act? Where he could pursue his mad dreams of becoming the second coming of Saladin and arming terrorists to attack the US with his WMD, or to threaten our national interests in strategic places throughout the world? Aren’t twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions, meek cruise missile attacks and responses to anti-aircraft radar enough to have exhausted anyone’s reasonable definition of diplomatic efforts?

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

No sane person wants war for the sake of war. No sane person wants innocent lives to be lost by accident. The weapons that we will use are many times more accurate than those used in the Gulf War. However, Saddam deliberately positions some military targets near civilian sites in the hope to deter us, or to create “photo ops” to discredit us as indiscriminate killers.

It is the nature of war that some innocent lives will be lost. Our apparent strategy is to use massive firepower to shock and overwhelm Saddam’s forces in order to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion with minimum loss of life on both sides. I pray that we are successful in that regard more than anything.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

Nope. Apparently Mr. Carter was playing with his slide rule during War College. Our attack must be massive. It must cause the world to gasp in awe. Dictators and terrorists the world over must know, once and for all, that the way to engage the free world is not down the path of war, but through serious negotiation with real outcomes.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The last time Congress had the fortitude to declare war was in WWII. The resolution that authorized the President to act after September 11th is as close as we’ll come to such a declaration. The people voted last November, Mr. Carter, and they didn’t give the Democratic Party majorities in either house of Congress, nor in most state houses.

Our President, as he said this past week, swore an oath to protect the Constituition of the US and the people of our nation. He is not the president of some toothless NGO, and our foreign policy is not determined by the UN.

If we have to occupy Iraq for a time, I hope that we will do so in the spirit of the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s efforts to restore Japan. The Marshall Plan cost ~$13 billion in late 1940s dollars. I’m sure that you would agree that it was a worthwhile investment in the future of civilization.

As Mr. Carter showed during his presidency, mastery of economics was and is not his strong suit. If the real motivation for the war was “about oil”, the President would only have to leave the situation as it is, without bringing an end to the crisis. The commodity markets hate uncertainty, and the rise in oil prices reflects the uncertainties of supply in the Middle East and in Venezuela. As in 1991, oil prices will decline swiftly once hostilities end and non-Iraqi suppliers bring their production back from temporary suspension.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The Plains press has your knickers in a knot, Mr. Carter. How could the situation NOT be a clear improvement? Another haven for terrorists will be denied them, not to mention technology and funding. The Iraqi people, perhaps the best educated in the region before Saddam turned rogue, will be free to express themselves politically and economically. Our President has said that we will not stay a day longer than necessary. Would you condemn the citizens of Iraq to endless butchery and torture at the tender mercies of Saddam?

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Doing what must be done, despite the wrangling of those who would ensnare us in a bureaucracy run by Poodles, will gain us the respect of our people and of freedom loving people everywhere. Once despots and criminals learn that the United States is a country of principle, and of its word, they will fear to challenge us, and will lose respect among those they hope to attract to their cause. Weakness breeds weakness, Mr. Carter. Do you feel guilty for the weakness shown in your policy towards Iran, and the chain of events caused by it?

I am astonished that members of Congress, including one loony Senator, believe that bringing back the military draft is a good idea. Personally, I believe that the voluntary force has been a boon to our services. It has made overall morale higher, racial tensions have virtually disappeared, and the quality of the efforts made by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are much higher.

One of the "reasons" for reinstituting the draft is to limit the President's ability to go to war! In my opinion, there can be no greater lunacy in these times than to propose anything to reduce the effectiveness of our national defense. If Senator Holling's dallying with Hollywood over copyright--in favor of Big Media--wasn't anti-consumer and against the public interest enough, this proposal should clinch it. The good people of South Carolina need to rid us of this idiot. As for Charlie Rangel, he seems to have lost his way after he failed to help his candidates win in NY. This seems a very cynical way to grab the spotlight again, Congressman. Find another issue to harp on; leave our national defense policy in the hands of those who understand what they're doing.

I listened to Secretary Powell's speech to the UNSC today, and I am impressed. I was already in favor of using force to overthrow Saddam. With the amount of evidence presented today--and we can only guess at the larger mountain of evidence that the government must have in its pocket to avoid revealing national technical means of gathering intelligence--I can only hope that reasonable Americans and citizens of other countries can only conclude that Saddam must go.

Thank God for George Bush, Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush administration. Clinton dropped a few bombs filled with concrete in 1998 after the inspectors were expelled. We now have adults running the show. Saddam, as Arnold said in Raw Deal (1986), "Resign, or be prosecuted".

Please, Saddam, let us prosecute us with the full fury of our armed forces.

The loss of the space shuttle Columbia has affected the entire nation in a profound way. While some are calling for a total reexamination of the shuttle program—and perhaps, its termination—popular opinion seems to be on the side of continuation of the manned space program.

Despite the obvious risks, it seems equally obvious that humans are far better equipped than machines to perform tasks that require immediate decisions based on unforeseen data. For example, the painfully slow exploration of the Mars Lander—remarkable, to be sure—was limited to a tiny area that a man could traverse in a few steps. That same man could evaluate the locations of the most interesting rock formations in moments, not minutes—assuming the Lander’s camera would have been high enough and oriented correctly to see them.

In my opinion, the most deserved criticism of the shuttle program is that the vehicle is too expensive to operate and too limiting for the varieties of missions we should be focused on in the future. Jerry Pournelle, a scientist and science fiction writer whose writings I have enjoyed for many years in Byte magazine and in books has argued for decades that more specialty vehicles should be built according to the purpose they are meant to serve. Here is a sample of the debate on Jerry’s web site:

Whether the concept of a “single stage to orbit” spaceship is realistic or not, these things are true about today’s shuttle program:
1) The ship has a 50,000-pound payload capacity. Most of its missions have lifted less than half that amount. Using the shuttle to loft ant farms to orbit makes far less sense than using a Hummer H1 as a daily commute vehicle.
2) Lifting humans to the space station is expensive in the shuttle, and with no escape capabilities like the old Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo ships had, is very dangerous.
3) The shuttle was built in the era of 8086-based CPUs and decades-old knowledge of aircraft design for high temperature environments. However, the contractors who support the shuttle, and the Congressmen whose states and districts benefit from space, seem concerned only with continuing the status quo. Each shuttle flight costs about $500 million—so expensive that only four or five missions are launched each year, instead of the $5 per week that was promised at the inception of the program.
4) If we can produce a ship that cuts payload-lifting costs dramatically, more private sector companies will be interested in exploring the possibilities of space-based research and manufacturing. That would further cut costs to the taxpayer since businesses would partly defray the costs of flights, not simply feed at the public trough.
5) It is arguable that the shuttle’s famous recoverable and reusable booster rockets have not been a success, and while environmentally PC, are not economical to continue. Sadly, one report on the foam insulator that flaked away from the shuttle’s fuel tank and apparently damaged the shuttle’s left wing indicates that a CFC-free foam was substituted from a more robust foam originally used in order to comply with a NASA goal to use more environmentally safe products. Surely the levels of pollution produced are miniscule compared to the dangers to the crew and spacecraft. Here’s more on the controversy:

NASA’s budget has decreased over the past decade when expressed in constant dollars. Continuing to spend the money in the same way without reexamining the goals of the program and the risks involved invite more disasters in the future, not to mention limiting the returns from diverse approaches and missions. Fourteen of the brightest, bravest humans the world has ever produced have been lost on this spacecraft. We owe their colleagues to provide the safest purpose-built system for manned missions to space we can build. We owe ourselves, and future generations, returns for our investment in space research and exploration that pay dividends for humanity, not just for a select group of contractors.

Hmmm...perhaps this is related to this interesting development. How many casual supporters of the environmental movement would support restricting the military's ability to train and prepare properly for the conflicts that face us around the world? I hope this story gets plenty of attention, and that readers understand the dangers such potential training restrictions are to the safety of the men and women in our ared forces.

Gov. George Ryan of Illinois commuted all of the death sentences of inmates in the state currently serving death sentences on Saturday. As one report termed it, his act “…spared the lives of 163 men and four women who have served a collective 2,000 years for the murders of more than 250 people.”

I understand that the Governor is concerned about the flaws in his state’s criminal justice system and the possibility of error leading to the death of an innocent person, or at least the death of someone who should not be judged guilty of crimes meriting that level of punishment.

I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. I certainly do not want the criminal justice system to put anyone to death who is not guilty of the crime that they stand convicted of.

Our system provides for the right of appeal, especially in capital cases. However, the people of Illinois established a set of laws that provide for the death penalty if the system—the jury, the judge, the appellate courts—agree on the application of that penalty for the crime. Dismissal of those judgments should not be left solely to one man, no matter how well intended--or how guilty--his actions may be.

If Governor Ryan felt that the death penalty was wrong, he should have found a way for Illinois’ voters to affirm or reject his argument. He did not run for reelection as Governor. Apparently, his conduct while serving as Secretary of State might not sit right with the voters. He may be found guilty and serve time in prision himself.

Governor Ryan could have taken one or more of the following actions:
- approve a sum of money to review the DNA and other available evidence for each death row inmate to ensure that no effort to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals was spared. The vote of the legislature, or a vote of the people on an initiative, would have supported his position.
- propose a law or an initiative to ban the death penalty, and to make it retroactive to all those serving on death row at the time the initiative or law came up for a vote.
- sue the state government to declare the state’s death penalty law unconstitutional.
- he could have run for a second term on a “no death penalty” platform to allow the voters to express their will.

Governor Ryan may feel that his conscience is clean. The family and friends of the victims of the murderers whose sentences were commuted must feel rage beyond words. The voters must feel cheated of their chance to express their opinions on one of the most important issues of the day.

For what it's worth, I wrote letters to the editors of both the Seattle P-I and the Tacoma News Tribune in response to articles that ran in each paper last week decrying the use of depleted uranium in military munitions. Now the great Instapundit has heard of the P-I story.

Here's my letter, sent last Friday:

To the Editor,

I agree with the article's implication that contamination of the ocean with radioactive material would alarm fishermen and consumers alike. However, I hope you will take the time to do further research on the actual level of danger to the public.

The article correctly states that depleted uranium remains radioactive for approximately 4.5 billion years. Basically, the time period you refer to is the radioactive half-life of the material. The half-life for a given radioisotope is the time for half the radioactive nuclei in any sample to undergo radioactive decay. After two half-lives, there will be one fourth the original sample, after three half-lives one eighth the original sample, and so on.

For example, Plutonium is one of the most highly radioactive materials on earth--so much so that it is not normally found in nature, but is created by man through atomic fission. Plutonium's half-life is approximately 24,000 years (Knapp, Brian, Nuclear Physics, 1996). The end of the decay process results in a material that is stable, like lead.

In fact, depleted uranium's long half life makes it useful for radiation shielding! Some DU applications include use in medical isotope casks, radioactive source shields, tank armor, and ammunition for the CIWS (AKA Phalanx) and the A-10 aircraft used by the Air Force and National Guard.

The real "danger" of DU is not radioactivity, but toxicity. Uranium is a heavy metal, like arsenic, cadmium, barium, zinc, lead and mercury. Given the small number of rounds fired during the tests you reported, the level of toxic exposure in a given area of the sea is virtually statistically insignificant. Ironically, the lead weights that fishermen use to hold down their baited hooks and nets are much more commonly deposited in the ocean environment than DU. Perhaps your next story can sensationalize that danger?

One of the best articles on the risks of exposure to DU is a recent study by the British Royal Society--the summary is all you need to read.

I happened to see a portion of Sean Penn's appearance on Larry King Weekend tonight--you can read the transcript if you like. Sean and Larry were talking about Sean's recent trip to Iraq. They discussed his reasons for going on the trip, how he came to be invited to go in the first place, his feelings on war, his feelings on News Corp.'s media properties, whether actors should speak out on political issues, and his future as an actor and a director. I came away with several impressions of Sean, and I have a few suggestions for things he should consider as he moves forward as a "political celebrity".
- He feels guilty about his success in what is a frivolous occupation, and wishes he could make a greater contribution to the world.
- He spends lots of time talking with journalists and other lefty friends who he trusts to provide "stubborn facts" for his consideration.
- He has thin skin. Bill O'Reilly's show and News Corp.'s media have really gotten to him.
- He has more than a passing acquaintance with the drug culture. His fractured syntax and thought jumps show some fried synaptic connections are in his brain case. He thinks the drug war was and is a failure, of course.
- Our leadership of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991 means that we are responsible for the terrible burden that sanctions have placed on the Iraqi people.
- Our motives for going to war are suspect, and war may create a new generation of people who hate America. His children may grow up to face that generation at some future day, if mankind doesn't erase itself from the earth in this generation.
- We need to provide more data on the threat to our country. We have the technology--sort of like that "CSI" show--to find his hidden weapons like needles in a haystack.

I think that it would be worth Sean's time to consider these points so that he can feel he's dealt with the issue in a "fair and balanced" way.
- Iraq's citizens suffer under the yoke of a brutal madman who has destroyed their country's economy and world standing. They starve in part because UN sanctions limit trade, and in part because the state treasure that is earned goes to build grand palaces for Saddam--as well as monuments, mosques, and entertainment--as well as to purchase dual use materials and technologies to reconstruct his weapons programs.
- South Africa lived under sanctions for a time, and was embraced as a noble member of the world community when it finally acted to comply with the sanctions placed against it. Iraq could have provided food, shelter, and better education for its people for years had it done the same. It is interesting that there was no outcry by the left against the conditions forced upon South Africans by sanctions. Perhaps that was because that country's leadership was not so evil as to oppress its people while denying itself nothing under the terms of the sanctions, as Saddam's thuggish government does.
- If Saddam is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, will he be more, or less, likely to intimidate his neighbors and threaten Israel with destruction while daring the US and its allies to act? Will his children be safer if we do nothing?
- If decisive steps had been taken in the 90s to stop North Korea--destroying or forcing the destruction of its reactors and nuclear facilities while providing funds to build replacement power generation systems--would we be facing the threat to our interests and our allies in the Far East today? Some might call this the "pay me now, or pay me later" decision.
- I agree with Jerry Pournelle, who says that we should build some "monuments" in the Middle East that show the extent of our power to act as a reminder of our willingness to meet force--whether by armies or terrorists--with overwhelming force. Those monuments should contain a statement that we have no designs on territory and that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they do not export their war to our shores, to our citizens living abroad, and/or to the borders of our allies.
- Unfortunately, despite the paranoia of druggies everywhere, "the man" doesn't have spies everywhere. Our human intelligence assets were depleted in the 70s and further drained under Clinton. Finding Iraq's buried weapons requires feet on the street as well as electronic snooping. But one thing is already apparent: the inspectors aren't able to find the items they found--artillery shells filled with gas agents, manufacturing equipment, etc.--that they found prior to 1998. That's the "baseline" issue that Blix referred to in his full comments that were aired last week by news agencies that reported more than the "money quote". Is the gun beginning to smoke a bit, Sean?
- Scott Ritter is a punk, and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. He took money from an Iraqi stooge to fund his lecture tour. His absence from the airwaves is an indication that even the press find his conversion from hawk to dove spurious.
- If Iraq is polluting the Tigris with 500,000 gallons of sewage a day and can't afford to repair its infrastructure to provide safe water for its people, please ask Saddam about the money he's using for the purposes mentioned in my first point above. Of course, Saddam has already shown his environmental credentials back when he had the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up. Quite a clean up project that was, run by mostly American firms. Made a nice IMAX movie that would be worth your time to watch. Maybe we'll help the people of Iraq rebuild after the war as we helped the Germans and Japanese after WWII, the war my father fought in. What was your comment in the interview? "Probably would have fought in -- would aspire to be able to say I would have fought in World War II. ".

Hoo-rah.

According to a study summarized in an Associated Press article posted on MSNBC's web site, "injuries from gunshots result in $802 million a year in hospital charges nationwide, with nearly a third of victims uninsured, a new study indicates. That made them the leading cause of hospital time spent on uninsured treatment.".

I wonder
- how many injuries from "blunt instrument trauma"--fist, bat, motor vehicle collision, frying pan, trash can lid, etc.--required treatment, and at what cost.
- how many injuries were the result of acts of self defense by the legal gun owners, and how many were by criminals, or with stolen guns--and at what cost.
- who funded the study

If we were as exercised about bad drivers--not just drunk drivers, or even law breakers--but incompetent drivers, as we are against guns, we could save enormous amounts of money--lost commute time, injury, property loss, infrastructure expansion and repair, to name a few categories. Driving is a privilege, and those of us who share the roads with each other should be able to count upon each driver's attention, skill, equipment condition and mental stability to make our time driving safe and sane.