Not only a historic moment, but I think this was one of Obama's best speeches.  I'm glad that he's finally tackled a number of key issues head on, giving us a bit more information as to what "change" he intends to happen if he is elected President.

I'm reminded of a speech of McCain's a few months back where he outlined how America would be different at the end of his first term - I remember how grandiose many of his visions were.  Obama's visions seem to be very different from McCain's - more attainable and realistic in my opinion.  Of course, we can never take a politician at face value, nor can we always believe they will be able to deliver everything that they promise; it's just not possible.  However, I do believe that Obama has proven this evening that he has his feet planted firmly on the ground, and not his head in the clouds.  I appreciated his nod to the many issues which Democrats and Republicans generally differ on - abortion, 2nd Amendment rights and gun control, gay rights - and I appreciate the fact that he is willing to come to reasonable terms with such issues.

I haven't yet made my decision of whether to support Obama in November or not, but I must admit that this speech this evening has given me much more to think about.  I am definitely one step closer to Obama this evening. One can only hope that if Obama is elected President, that he will not only lead by example, but that he will willingly tackle the many issues that face our current political landscape - from the continued issues with lobbyists, to getting rid of earmarks, to finally cutting the ties between the coffers of big business and the pockets of the Washington Bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, I caught only the last few minutes of the speech, but thanks to the modern technology of the internet, I was able to see a number of video clips, giving me a better indication of the overall points he made.

So, what say you?  Who saw the speech, and what did you think?

Being that I did cast my ballot in the Primary election for Hillary Clinton, it has been difficult for me to so easily put my support behind Obama.  As with many people across this country, I've been extremely skeptical of Obama's mantra of "Change" whilst not really hitting home to the general public how he intends to incorporate such a policy shift.

I believe that Hillary's speech earlier this evening was by far one of the most eloquent and invigorating oratory's I've ever witnessed.  While the McCain camp has already come out with a statement claiming that Hillary did not change her opinion that Obama is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, I think she did make it quite clear that she'd rather we had someone who's willing to learn how to do the job properly, than leaving it to someone who's set in their ways and is unwilling to look at alternative options.

If nothing else, Hillary proved tonight that she is in full support of progress, not regress.  To me, she put things into perspective when asking her supporters essentially are you in  this for me, or are you in this for our Country? McCain is not in support of progress.  Sure, he has a few aces up his sleeve, being the "maverick" he is, but is he really the man we want in office?  Clinton made a very important point that we cannot better our society without reaching for new ground.  Stagnating in the status quo promotes nothing.

For many months I knew that I'd never support McCain, but I was unsure and clueless how to proceed once Clinton suspended her campaign.  I've been a staunch supporter of "neither party" for months! I'll admit.. for the past few weeks, I'd begun to consider looking into the possibility of considering Obama.  After this evening, I realize that for the sake of everything I stand for and believe in, to make any decision that might ensure the election of John McCain as our next President would be the biggest mistake I could make. 

I have a lot to think about.

Whilst living back in Florida a few years back, I was introduced to an increasing popular social activity: the Hookah.  For those who either don't know or have misconceptions, I'm speaking of smoking flavored tobacco through a water pipe.  The custom began in the Middle East, and has fast become a past-time for the college-age crowd.  The first Hookah bar I went to in FL was about as Middle Eastern as they come - complete with music from India, Turkey and other exotic locales.  We sat on pillows or low-seats, and enjoyed the taste of many exotic flavors of tobacco, whilst drinking arabic coffee and debating politics or philosophy. 

The flavored tobacco, called Sheesha (or Shisha) is not burned, rather the tobacco is placed at the top of the pipe, with foil covering the sheesha.  Hot coals are placed on top, so that the sheesa is heated.  While you do not have to worry about inhaling carcinogins from the tobacco, one should be aware that the coals do produce toxins.  At the most, I went to smoke Sheesha once every few weeks.

Luckily, Flame and Skewers on California has recently opened up a small Hookah lounge on their porch, and I recently visited to check it out.  While they have only a small assortment of flavors, the prices are reasonable, and I'm excited to see a place where I can go relax and maybe have some good conversation.

So.. if anyone's interested in ever hitting up Flame and Skewers for some Hookah smoking and good conversation, let me know!

http://sports.yahoo.com/oly...

China should be banned from the Olympics for such blatant cheating, IMO.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia pressed the United States on Wednesday to choose between "a real partnership" with Moscow or an "illusory" relationship with U.S. ally Georgia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday says the United States should choose sides.

1 of 3

Washington said it's sticking with Georgia.

"As to choosing, the United States has made very clear that it is standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.

She spelled out the Bush administration's stance after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Georgia's government "a special project for the United States."

"And we are aware that the U.S. is uptight about this project," Lavrov said in remarks broadcast on Russian television. "But a choice will have to be made someday between considerations of prestige related to an illusory project and a real partnership in matters which indeed require collective efforts."

Rice, amid reports that Russian troops remained on the move Wednesday, pushed Russia to abide by a cease-fire signed Tuesday by the Russian and Georgian presidents.

Ok.. so I'm an extreme music lover (and musician), and sometimes I get into these moods where I listen to the same song over and over, and I usually feel extremely moved by the emotions of the music itself.

For me, there are a few songs which move me to almost the point of tears, if not actual tears.  The first song, which I believe to be one of the best extended guitar solo/instrumentalist piece is "Maggot Brain" by Funkadelic (early George Clinton).  There are no lyrics, no vocals at all, yet the music speaks for itself.  The second song which moves me to almost tears is Stevie Ray Vaughan's rendition of "Little Wing" - another instant guitarist classic in my book.  Interestingly enough, Pearl Jam once did a cover of both songs, beginnng with "Little Wing" and ending with "Maggot Brain" - pretty slick in my opinion, as both songs have a very similiar bluesish feel.

So.. what songs move you?

TBLISI, Georgia (CNN) -- Georgia's president said Friday that his country is under attack by Russian tanks and warplanes, and he accused Russia of targeting civilians as tensions over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia appeared to boil over into full-blown conflict.

Russia's Channel 1 shows heavy tanks purported to be on their way to South Ossetia.

1 of 2

"All day today, they've been bombing Georgia from numerous warplanes and specifically targeting (the) civilian population, and we have scores of wounded and dead among (the) civilian population all around the country," President Mikhail Saakashvili told CNN in an exclusive interview.

"This is the worst nightmare one can encounter," he said.

Asked whether Georgia and Russia were now at war, he said, "My country is in self-defense against Russian aggression. Russian troops invaded Georgia." Watch the interview with Saakashvili »

About 150 Russian armored vehicles have entered South Ossetia, Saakashvili said, and Georgian forces had shot down two Russian aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WOR...

Another blog post that I've been debating in has brought me back to one of the papers I wrote in college as a requirement in my major.  So, the question at hand is whether we've intentionally killed innocent civilians.  This paper is only a small example of just how far our military has gone in the past to achieve victory.

The Development and Use of the Incendiary Bomb on Tokyo and Its Ethical Implications

It is early morning in Tokyo, Japan on March 10, 1945.  The majority of the inhabitants of the capital city of the Pacific imperial powerhouse are asleep, unaware of the fact that three hundred American B-29 bombers are making their way towards the city.  The Japanese citizens are also unaware that these 300 American bombers are carrying a combined payload of 2,000 tons of incendiaries which they plan to drop into the heart of the capital city.  Two and a half hours after the first bombs are dropped upon this area which is seven tenth’s the size of Manhattan, 100,000 Japanese lay, “Scorched and boiled and baked to death[1],” as quoted by General Curtis LeMay, commander of the United States Air Force operations in Japan during World War II.  There is a controversial question that arises from the ashes of this famous day in history – were U.S. incendiary bombings of civilian targets ethical and justified?

        & nbsp;   The fire-bombing of Tokyo produced a level of death and destruction unmatched by the nuclear bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.  When “Little Boy” fell upon Hiroshima, all ethical questions about the incendiary attacks on Tokyo and the previous German targets such as Dresden seemed to have been forgotten.  The idea that there was a weapon, “capable of snuffing out a large city in a flash[2],” superceded the now quickly outdated fire bomb.  This paper will outline the initial development and acquirement of incendiary bombs, the decisions to use the bombs first on Germany and then on Tokyo and the ethics and consequences of that decision.

        & nbsp;   To first explore the use of incendiary bombs, it is essential to look at the original development and acquisition of the weapon by the United States Air Corps.  The U.S. military first developed an incendiary bomb using an existing chemical bomb casing which they filled with a chemical mixture originally created by the British.  This first incendiary was called the M-47 and weighed 100 pounds.  In 1941, the United States once again borrowed from British military technology, only this time, they incorporated the entire bomb, a British Mark II, 4-lb incendiary, modified it to their liking and named it the M-50. 

Considering that the first two incendiary bombs in the U.S. military arsenal held different characteristics, it was decided that each would be used for a different purpose.  The M-47 would be used against large structure thanks to its heavy weight, while the much lighter M-50 would be used to start fires in smaller, more cheaply made structures.  The M-50 would be dropped in bundles of 34 bombs held together by metal bands.  The M-50 was designed to create fires that could produce an intense temperature of 2,400 degrees farenheight for ten minutes. These fires were difficult to extinguish. 

A third bomb was developed in the later months of 1941 into the early months of 1942, due to a shortage of rubber, which was important to all incendiary bombs, and magnesium, which was a vital component in the manufacture of the M-50 bomb.  A team of Chemists working for the National Defense Research Committee at Harvard University discovered a non-rubber based gasoline gel mixture comprised of a combination of naphtenic and palmitic acids that when combined with gasoline, created a perfect incendiary compound.  This mixture would become known as Napalm, and would eventually be used in the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

        & nbsp;   During the spring of 1942, extensive testing was done on this new bomb to see how it would react in certain situations.  The bomb itself was completely different from the previous two, as it did not explode until 3 to 5 seconds after hitting its final resting spot.  When it did explode, it sent a burning gel as far as 100 feet outwards, immediately setting anything combustible into an intense flame.  Simulations of residential attics as well as industrial structures, complete with possible equipment such as workbenches were constructed and tested during these experiments[3].  The American Air Force conducted these tests in order to “calculate the results that might be expected in an actual air raid[4],” and therefore conducted more tests on actual structures beginning in April of 1942.  This bomb, known also as the tail-ejection bomb, was named the M-56, and later renamed the M-69.  After final testing and review of date, the M-69 was commissioned into production.

        & nbsp;   Though the Americans seem to have spent a great deal of time developing an incendiary bombing program, it was the British who first used such aerial attacks in combat.  The decision to use incendiary bombs first came from Royal Air Force high command in early 1942.  The RAF told its Bomber Command, “It has been decided that the primary objective of your operation should now be focused on the morale of the (German) enemy civil population, and in particular, of the industrial workers.[5]”  After bombings of Lubeck and Cologne, the American military attempted to sell the M-69 bomb to the British, but the latter’s testing raised questions on the bomb’s performance on German structures.  Despite this setback, Major General William Porter increased production of the M-69 bomb, deducing that even if the bomb would prove unreliable in Germany, it would probably be effective in Japan.

As early as January of 1943, the bombing of Japan was a target of interest for Allied High Command.  In meetings with the allied military command and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed his interest in the potential bombing of Japan.  It was believed that by staging bomber raids out of India and targeting Japan, the allied cause would not only benefit from the military success, but these bombing raids could also increase the morale of the Chinese, who had been fighting the Japanese on their home territory for the last decade.  After countless hours of research, intelligence specialists selected 199 key Japanese targets, divided among nine economic groups: aircraft, arms and munitions, steel, machine tools, rail transportation, electric power, petroleum, naval bases and shipyards, and ship concentrations[6]. 

Obtaining help from such civilians as a consultant from J.P. Morgan & Company and professors of economics from Princeton and Harvard Universities, allied command was able to further analyze possible bombing targets in hopes that the final selections would completely devastate the Japanese Economy.  Their reports came to the conclusion that using incendiary bombs would render the majority of Japanese workers homeless, for they would not be able to seek cover in the shallow Tokyo subway system.  This could then create economic chaos for Japan.  Later analyses reports began to favor using the M-69 bomb on Japanese cities.  Reports showed that more than ninety percent the structures in Tokyo alone were made of wooden buildings, including factories, warehouses and residences.  Allied command considered the cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Kobe as legitimate incendiary bombing targets because they housed such a large portion of Japan’s industrial output.

When compared with Germany, Japanese targets were reported as being more flammable.  It was also reported that Japan’s war industry was highly concentrated in most major cities, while Germany tended to have industrial complex’s throughout the country.  One important piece of information that would later fuel ethical questions about firebombing these targets was that industrial and military targets in these major Japanese cities were often surrounded by residential congestion, and thus more exposed to sweeping fires than in German cities.  Even more questionable was the idea that these residential areas would provide “kindling” for the industrial and military targets[7].  The question of using incendiaries would continue to be researched by the allied command, as well as by the Pentagon.  Bombing tests were performed time and time again to better understand the capabilities of the weapons, and to plan for the possible use of them.  Not only were the bombs being tested, but the B-29, the plane that would ultimately deliver the explosives, was also undergoing testing and production. 

On September 4, 1944 the Incendiary Subcommittee, one of those responsible for the final research of the effectiveness of the use of firebombs, completed their study on the “Economic Effects of a Successful Area Attack on Six Japanese Cities.”  This report concluded that by bombing all incendiary-vulnerable areas in Tokyo, Kawasaki, Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya, seventy percent of all homes would be destroyed.  The report also concluded that damage to the Japanese industrial capacity would remain at a minimum.  Instead, the report came to the conclusion that precision bombing would be the most effective weapon against industry.  The committee also made it clear that all findings were based upon laboratory testing, and didn’t take into account the many uncertainties and unknowns.

The Committee of Operations Analysis, which oversaw the Incendiary Subcommittee, called in Commander William M. McGovern to give his opinion on the psychological effects on incendiary bombing on Japan – something the Incendiary subcommittee had not touched on.  McGovern was a political scientist and war correspondent who concentrated on the Japan.  He knew the people and the language, and proved a major asset in the Committee’s research.  McGovern believed that rapid and powerful incendiary strikes would indeed demoralize the Japanese, and if effective, could even begin negotiations for surrender.  He believed that the Japanese fear of fire would have a major impact on their psyche, and even went so far as to conclude that if the allies were to “knock out Tokyo… the Japanese throughout the country will say, ‘We have been hit.’”[8]  He also stated that the Japanese tended to use a lot of written orders and paperwork, and implied that the loss of these records would definitely put a damper on the administrative efforts of the military. 

While many of those responsible for the research, development and preparations for the air war on Japan were coming up with more reasons why the allies should use incendiaries, some questioned the ethical implications of such destruction.  Raymond H. Ewell, a chemical engineer who was a member of the incendiary research team, run by the National Defense Research Committee, was one who spoke about the possible consequences in use of the incendiary bomb.  Ewell issued a memorandum which stated that, “[T]his mode of attack may be the golden opportunity of strategic bombardment in this war – and possibly one of the outstanding opportunities in all history to do the greatest damage to the enemy for a minimum of effort.[9]”  He also expressed his opinion that the allies should keep in mind the humanitarian and political effects of such a decision.  Ewell discussed something that no other report would touch – the ethical question of morality.  Vannevar Bush, a member of the Incendiary Committee, took Ewell’s memorandum to heart and addressed the question of morality – something no report would speak of.  Bush also happened to be the chief scientific advisor to President Roosevelt on the development of the atomic bomb.  He suggested that “the decision on the humanitarian aspects will have to be made at a high level,” – he was implying that this high level was the Sectary of War and the President[10]

It might be wise to back up for a second and speak a bit about the history of ethical warfare.  The first legalities of war were developed in the early Catholic Church, and were known as the Just-War Ethic.  During the 17^th and 18^th centuries, international lawyers such as Hugo Grotius and Emerich de Vattel took this ethical tradition and created the first true body of international law[11]  This led to multiple international meetings on warfare, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.  Grotius addressed the issue of non-combatant casualties, believing that attacking innocent civilians was inhumane.  The Hague conventions continued upon this ideology, placing constraints on certain methods of warfare. 

The 1899 Hague conference declared a 5-year moratorium on “launching of projectiles and/or explosives from the air.[12]   During the 1907 Hague convention, however, there was a push for no more limitations upon aerial bombardment, as a number of European powers had developed more advanced air forces.  The convention agreed that decisions to use aerial bombardment were still made based upon military worth of the objective.  Therefore, the convention did little to protect civilians from unethical terror bombing[13]. 

While some of the ethics of aerial bombardment were not fully considered, military leaders and tacticians were split on the issue of whether to use precision or incendiary methods to bomb Japan.  Brigadier General Haywood Hansell was one of the major supporters of a precision bombing campaign in lieu of the incendiary attacks, and was assigned to command the first major bombings against Japan.  Hansell’s bombing strategy proved to be ineffective, as the cloud cover during the daytime was so great that they were forced to bomb by radar.  American and Japanese newspapers alike reported on the apparent disaster which General Hansell had created.  Since he was seen as and ineffective leader, General Hansell was replaced with General Curtis LeMay, who would ultimately change strategies from daylight precision bombing to nighttime incendiary bombing.  After a series of precision bombing failures under his command, LeMay realized that a nighttime air raid would be more successful, as there would be less cloud cover and fewer Japanese anti-aircraft guns to dodge.

Nine days after the incendiary attack had begun on Tokyo, Emperor Hirohito inspected the damage.  The destruction was widespread – 16 square miles of the imperial city lay in complete ruin.  The Emperor visited two refugee camps and then went back to the Imperial Palace – he had seen enough.  Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, aide to General Douglas MacArthur, called the attack on Tokyo, “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history.[14]”  The heat from the fires spawned by the explosive bombs was so intense that, “in some places canals boiled, metal melted, and buildings and human beings bust spontaneously into flames.[15]”  Japanese wounded poured into military hospitals by the thousands.  Citizens came to the aid stations with such calamities as mild to severe burns, high fevers, projectile injuries and shock.  Twenty five days after the bombings, the final remains of the dead had been removed from the ruins of the city.

The fire bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities was at first seen as military success.  R. Sugiyama of the Japanese Naval General Staff said, “..owing to the destruction of large factories and the loss of small factories scattered throughout a city in the way of home industries, the production of parts decreased rapidly and thus hindered the entire war program.[16]”  More than 25,000 industrial plants were decimated or badly damaged in the air raid, including most aircraft engine parts manufacturers.  More indicative of the demoralizing effect of the incendiary bombings was the fact that many Japanese workers lost their homes, and because of this, failed to report to the war factories.  The bombings affected every part of daily civilian life, from depleting medical supplies to destroying stores of food.

According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing survey conducted after the war, “By August 1945 without air attack Japanese war production would have declined below the (wartime high) level of 1944 by 50 percent.[17]”  It was also concluded that ninety seven percent of Japan’s military supplies were held underground, and therefore were not destroyed by the incendiary attacks.  Studies conducted by the United States after the war also concluded that the bombings were the greatest source of worry and concern for the Japanese people.  Japanese morale plummeted, and many were almost certain of defeat and were unwilling to continue the war, as the Americans had hoped for[18].  When all was said in done, over 40 percent of all built up areas in 66 Japanese cities lay in complete ruin.

So the question looms over one’s head: was all of this necessary?  Was the use of the M-69 bomb on Tokyo a worthy venture?  After careful analysis, it can be concluded that the use of incendiaries on Tokyo, as well as on other Japanese and German cities was not needed to ultimately win World War II.  As U.S. military command surveyed the damage caused by the air raids, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Gen. LeMay that, “If we lose the war, we’ll be tried as war criminals.[19]”  Maybe Mr. McNamara had the right convictions, however LeMay did not share his sentiments, considering he ordered more incendiary attacks on other Japanese cities once he learned of his success over Tokyo.  The General knew full well the consequences of his  actions over Tokyo, and it seems he accepted that fate without much sympathy for the tens of thousands who would die.

Bibliography

Dower, John W. War Without Mercy Pantheon Books 1986

Hoyt, Edwin P., Inferno Madison Books 2000

Kerr, E. Bartlett, Flames Over Tokyo Donald I. Fine, Inc, New York 1991

The Japan Times “Great Tokyo Air Raid Was a War Crime”

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;           “Critical War Questions Beg for An Answer”

Overy, Richard Why the Allies Won W. W. Norton & Company 1995

Rizer, Kenneth R. “Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical and Doctrinal Perspectives,” http://www.airpower.maxwell...

Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World At Arms Cambridge University Press 1994

        & nbsp;  

Iraq's oil-fueled surplus could hit $80 billion, report says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq is raking in more money from oil exports than it is spending, amassing a projected four-year budget surplus of up to $80 billion, U.S. auditors reported Tuesday.

Oil accounted for 94 percent of the Iraq's revenue from 2005 to 2007, a U.S. report says.

1 of 2

Leading members of Congress, noting that Washington is paying for reconstruction in Iraq, expressed outrage at the assessment. One called the findings "inexcusable."

"We should not be paying for Iraqi projects while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank, including outrageous profits from $4-a-gallon gas prices in the U.S.," said Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We should require that U.S. taxpayers be reimbursed for the cost of large projects."

Baghdad had a $29 billion budget surplus between 2005 to 2007. With the price of crude roughly doubling in the past year, Iraq's surplus for 2008 is expected to run between $38 billion and $50 billion, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POL...

Some recent blog posts have me wondering.. for those of you who consider yourself Republican or Democrat - do you always vote along party lines?  If so, would you ever consider voting outside of party lines? Why or why not?

For those who do vote outside of party lines, what are the major factors which affect your decision to stray from your normal course of action?

And for everyone: what is your opinion of an ideal U.S. foreign policy?