Dating Deal Breakers

An extremely funny NY Times article (and comment thread) about dating deal breakers. You know, the things that a potential mate can do that will eliminate them from contention for a relationship. To avoid a situation that would surely devolve into lengthy comments (not to mention an all-out war between the sexes) the NY Times focused on literature.

According to the article (and the bulk of the comments), I'm undateable because I like Ayn Rand. Oops, time to update the bookshelf. Apparently I should have grown out of that idealistic stage before entering college...where minds are permanently molded in reality's template, right?

Links via LRC blog. I particularly enjoyed Huebert's reaction to the author's advice to be careful when disclosing your favorite authors/books.

Truckers Feeling the Pinch

One story that caught my attention today when I was getting ready for work was the possibility of a trucker strike in response to the high price of diesel fuel. The bulk of the complaints are rooted in the cost-ineffectiveness of having trucks on the road. In an effort to draw attention to the matter, some truckers are planning organized responses, ranging from taking the day off to driving at reduced speed on highways.

At the port of Tampa, truckers lined up in protest early this morning. Police worked to break up the gridlock, and no incidents or delays were reported.

The implications of a massive, prolonged trucker strike are severe. Instead of singing the praises of truckers, however, I'm more concerned about the motivation behind union leaders when implementing a strike. Government intervention and labor disputes have a long, storied history, and there's no reason to believe that this labor dispute will be any different.

As discussed before, the steep incline in fuel prices are a consequence of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. As long as we continue to follow the irresponsible monetary policies of Henry Paulsen and Ben Bernanke we can expect more labor stoppages and prolonged economic crunches. Instead of grilling oil executives on Capitol Hill for the non-crimes of "excessive profits" and immunity from taxes, Congress would be better off demanding answers from Bernanke & Co. But I'm guessing a hearing with the Fed Chairman isn't likely to bring in many votes...or line the pockets of big government backers.

The Ugly, Horrible Rumor (continued)

Paul Craig Roberts (via Lew Rockwell) writes about the swirling rumors regarding an American attack on Iran. He makes it clear that an American strike--on the ground and through the air--is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

One interesting nugget of information is Russia's stance in face of an American attack. Citing a statement made by the Chief of Russia's general staff, the Russians do not see themselves as "obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans." How did the "evil empire" suddenly become non-interventionists?

I remain skeptical about an attack on Iran, especially from ground forces. If an attack is to take place, I'm inclined to believe it will come from high-altitude bombers and off-shore tomahawk missiles. American forces in the region are stretched thin as it is, and have proven they are unable to control even a small portion of Baghdad. An all-out attack on a massive, sophisticated, and defensible country like Iran would be suicide.

Oh That Cheney: Just a Regular Dick!

Ah, yes. For those of you who have lost sleep wondering how the Vice President travels, CNN
offers a sycophantic "inside" look at Dick Cheney's needs while on the road.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Cheney's needs include diet Sprite, microwave popcorn, and FOX News, among other things. I'm not sure if the author's intent was to portray Cheney in a normal light or not, but the cheerful mood of the writing sharply contrasts with my mental image of the man. Like most people, whenever I think of Cheney, I think Darth Vader...not a man relaxing in a cargo plane watching movies before cheerfully meeting with leaders of foreign countries.

Unfortunately, the article does not cite an author or allow comments, which was the purpose of my reading the article over lunch today. With an (impossible) approval rating somewhere in the negative number set, I'm not sure the AP's attempt to breathe life into Cheney's terminator-esque persona will be well-received.

But still, there's something about Cheney that I'm drawn to...but I'm not sure what it is, though. I think my inexplicable attraction stems from the same jaded batch of emotions that led me to cheer for the coyote in Warner Brothers cartoons.

Map My Run: Cherry Blossom Saturday

I decided to skip the hilly Alexandria route this Saturday. Instead, I ran along Rock Creek, through Adams Morgan, and up to Cleveland Park before winding my way back down to Haines Point. My justification was two-fold: the cherry blossoms are out, and I wanted to avoid three straight Saturdays of the same route.

I couldn't have asked for better conditions for today's run. The weather was perfect, people were everywhere, and the scenery was spectacular. Running along the Potomac has become a workout staple, and the scenic Rock Creek Parkway is a great addition to the route. The Parkway twists and turns along Rock Creek, a small waterway that empties into the Potomac near Georgetown. For about two miles, you forget that you are in an urban environment as the parkway snakes its way through dense trees. The running path offers a smooth, dirt/gravel option...a welcomed reprieve for my sore and tendinitis-plagued legs.

Although the overall route is flat, the steep hill on 24th Street to Connecticut Ave NW is anything but a layup. The hill is about a half mile in length, and the grade is very steep. It is unlikely that I'll encounter such a grade in any race, but the hill served as a nice ego check.

The final outbound mile runs along Connecticut Ave., and the sidewalk was packed today. The terrain is a slight uphill climb, but not too difficult...especially because I encountered the hill so early in my run. The Cleveland Park Metro stop served as my turnaround point, conveniently 6.5 miles from home.

The return trip went well. I felt stronger than in weeks past, mostly because this route is flatter than my usual Saturday route. I failed to note the time I started the run...and I regret it because I felt strong from start to finish. It would have been interesting to crunch the numbers to gauge progress.

DC was packed today. Between the National Marathon, the Cherry Blossom Festival, and the first game at Nationals Park, the city was buzzing with people. I flirted with the idea of running the half marathon today, but the price ($80!) prevented me from signing up. Immersing myself in a competitive environment would have been the biggest benefit, but it wasn't worth the price of admission.

Cherry blossoms lined the street for the final five miles of my run. I've heard many stories about cherry blossom season in DC, and I can honestly say the scenery lived up to the hype. This year, the peak period is between March 27 and the first week in April...and the limited viewing window causes massive amounts of people to flood the city during peak week.

With about three weeks of training to go before the marathon, I'll probably start tapering my distance after next week. I'm going to attempt one more long (20 mile) run next weekend, if possible, before scaling back my weekly distance to about 30 miles. The tendinitis I've experienced lately is the main factor in my decision--the last thing I want is to hobble in to the marathon wondering if I'll be tough enough to withstand the pesky injury for 26 miles.

An Ugly, Horrible Rumor

I'm having difficultly locating a reliable source to reference this topic, but rumors are flying all over the Interwebs that the US will attack Iran on April 6th. Many blogs cite a Russian newspaper as the source of the rumor. Right now my only reliable source is US News and World Report, but the article doesn't name April 6th (or any date) as the specific date for action.

Most blogs admit that the same rumor swirled at this time last year, but obviously didn't materialize. The key difference between this year and last is the removal of Admiral Fallon at Central Command Headquarters. Fallon, who vehemently protested any US involvement in Iran, once said that [an attack on Iran] "Will not happen on my watch." Fallon reportedly angered White House officials last fall when he repeatedly denied an attack on Iran was imminent, adding that Washington was "mulling in non-military operations instead."

According to some websites, the attack will apparently last 12 hours, and will take out suspected uranium enrichment facilities, ships, aircraft, and defense installations. The US attack will be launched from several points, from bomber aircraft in Diego Garcia to ships positioned in the Persian Gulf and beyond.

Equally puzzling are the reports coming out of Israel. Under the guise of better preparing their citizens for another conflict with Lebanon, the Israeli government is planning massive evacuation drills for April 6th.

Perhaps most disturbing is the speech made today by an old US "adversary," Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddaffi warned Arab leaders to unite or face the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

Maybe I'm a bit more squeamish than most when it comes to conflict and rumors of conflict, but given all this information, I think I am justified in wringing my hands. It's no secret that the Bush Administration has been scheming for a war with Iran ever since Dubya announced "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in 2003. The topic is a reliable staple on talk radio, and I can only imagine what our *impartial* television news anchors are saying about the prospect of bombing Iran. Somewhere John McCain, Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Sean Hannity, et al. are finding their pants to be a bit tighter, particularly around in crotch. Warfare is the ultimate aphrodisiac for neocon blowhards.

The ramifications of any form of an attack on Iran are severe. The difference between Iraq and Iran is simple: Iran can defend herself. You see, the dirty little secret about the US military is that she much prefers to attack countries that are unable to defend themselves (see Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, etc.) Iran threatens that precedent, and the country is well positioned not only to defend herself, but to launch an effective counter-strike as well. With just over 130,000 troops in Iraq, and the bulk of them located inside the tiny Green Zone and Camp Victory, a well-planned counter offensive by Iran could trap US forces in Iraq. Let's not forget that the majority of Iraq's citizens are Shiite Muslims, as is Iran.

Further, an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian submarines and mines could seriously cripple the world economy, as approximately 40% of the world's oil passes through the tiny Strait. If you think Federal Reserve inflation-generated gas prices are high, wait until the effects of a legitimate supply shortage is felt throughout the world.

Still, I remain a little skeptical about the attack because there has been no "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to drum up widespread support for war. Although the news media has tried several times to drum up war support using reports of Iranian weapons shipments, the scare tactic resulted in little traction. There was also the designation of Iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, but that failed to whet the public's appetite for war as well. I just don't see any evidence of a weapons of mass destruction-esque "smoking gun" crisis such we were made to believe existed prior to the invasion of Iraq. Then again, when it comes to big warfare politics--and especially Cheney--anything is possible. Every fireworks show has a grand finale, right?
I hope the rumor mill is wrong about this one, as they were last year. There is no way the United States can (literally) afford a third major conflict in the Middle East, especially against a country the size of Alaska that is capable of defending herself. At this point, even a cursory bombing of selected targets inside Iran has the potential of unleashing deadly consequences upon American forces inside Iraq. The solution, as always, is to bring the troops home...immediately.

"A Defining Moment"

President Bush called the military push in Basra a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."

Bush is right, of course...if you consider the following acts to be consistent with those of a "free" society:

- Lockdown/curfew for all citizens
- Rocket, aircraft, mortar, and small arms fire
- Interruption of daily services, such as food, water, electricity, etc.
- Unannounced searches and seizures/raids on private property
- Widespread killing

But it gets worse. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the US government has been engaged in paying off Iraqi militants in order to prevent further attacks on (what remains of) coalition forces. The article comes within a hair of admitting this when it refers to an "Iraqi government" policy of paying militants who willingly turn in weapons to security forces.

The dirty little secret about the "success" of the surge, as the above articles explain, is the fact that the US has been paying off militants for some time. Unsurprisingly, this fact has been spun by mainstream media who, in their unwavering loyalty to warfare, have linked the surge's success to General Petraeus. Regardless of how the act is spun, however, paying off insurgents is an act to be be interpreted as nothing short of desperation in a wholly unwinnable war.