War on Thingamajig. Mr Rumsfeld the other day spoke of a war that could go on for "months, years", which may tend not to inspire people. What it says to me, at least, is: No objective and no exit strategy. As with any business plan, you have to demonstrate what it is you want to achieve, and how, before you can expect much support. Just shouting at people doesn't do it. Whining about the French dismissal of your view as "simplistic", instead of cleverly arguing against them, only makes their point. Complaining about how the world views the U.S. is also a waste of time, and only creates the odd impression that the U.S. has yet to convince itself of the necessity of action. Talking about other people's opinions is not what a determined nation does.
Nobody, other than a child, can honestly say what this war on terrorism is really about. The phrase itself sound dishearteningly like other Wars on Nouns, such as the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. (By the way, is that one over yet? What were the peace terms?)
The original impetus for this war was the attack on the World Trade Center. That was what the Taliban hit was for; and, as far as anyone can see, most of the main al-Qa'ida people are dead, in custody, or routed, and the remaining perps' associates are all in Saudi Arabia, probably enjoying the good life. There is no place left to take this war; in fact, the whole idea of "al-Qa'ida" was that the organization itself, rather than any state, was the base of operations. Afghanistan was just where they were living at the time.
The War for Enduring Freedom? But that's surely one of those concepts that undergrads argue about, and if you were to ask somebody what they meant by it, he would no doubt thunder at you about freedom to do this and that, and aren't you ashamed of yourself for forgetting the war dead.
Well, let's make it easy. They mean freedom to live and work without the constant threat of terrorist attack. I do not think they intend to free the slaves or to right wrongs everywhere.
This is an excellent and manageable goal. Not unlike the War on Crime (1968-1972). But, as with the War on Crime, is it really a good idea to try to disarm and neutralize criminals, wherever they may be? Would it help much if bad countries were made to register their WMDs?
In a war you have to convince. To win a war you have to get the other side to want to stop. And how is the U.S. going about garnering support? By not being clear about this. It's as if they want the world to join some kind of international Skull and Bones. You know, you lie there in your coffin and admit what a loser and fag you are, then you do some minor shameful thing, and then your new brethren eventually pat you on the back and say "You're okay, fellow!" And they swear you to secrecy and so on. But they don't tell you anything up front.
Worse: if the U.S. persecutes this war in this way there will be no end to it.

Blogthot: Unlike most drunken musicians, blues men are early risers. It's always "I woke up this morning", or "I woke up one monin". They never sing: "I woke up this afternoon," or "I woke up around lunchtime", which would be true of many hard drinkers. (Or maybe they don't know what time it is and just assume it's morning. That happens if you drink a lot.)

An article on Opinionjournal says: "Science Magazine reports that NASA and the Department of Energy have studied a geostationary solar power satellite array--with a surface area the size of Manhattan--in orbit some 22,000 miles above the equator, which would beam power to 8-by-6-mile surface antennae, not an easy engineering accomplishment. Stanford's project will consider how it might be done, along with efforts by Japan's Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science to beam solar energy from a satellite in low orbit to less developed nations near the equator."
Would you be able to see that from the earth under some circumstances?.