On Wings of Eagles

Plants Are Green

2010-06-14T09:58:00.001-04:00

One of the ripples from the South Carolina Democratic Primary for US Senate is the new idea that the winning candidate might be a "Republican plant."

This is laughable, at whichever level you wish to examine it. The seat in question is currently held by Senator Jim DeMint (Full disclosure - I'm a BIG fan.) He's a Republican, and he is widely considered to be one of the safest incumbents up for reelection this year.

A Tea Party darling, he is unlikely to face any voter-rebellion this cycle. Suffice it to say, the Democrats weren't going to expend a large amount of effort running against him when resources would be better spent, say..., keeping Senator Reid in office.

Thus, it was a throwaway race. There were two candidates, longtime politician and former Charleston jurist, Vic Rawl, and complete unknown Mr. Greene.

Greene won. By 60%. Without campaigning. He seems to have printed a grand total of ONE campaign flyer.

The Dems are now crying foul after awaking and discovering whom their candidate is. While all too happy to accept his filing fee (does it really matter who paid it?), they weren't too bothered to find out anything about him. They're now shocked to discover he's facing felony obscenity charges (which perversely may actually enhance his qualifications for Congress.)

Aren't they the least ashamed to crow loudly, "We didn't know anything about him"? What does this say for their governing abilities if they don't know whom their candidates are?

And, to add insult, they're saying their voters were duped. That's right, Democrat voters... You're too dumb to know whom you voted for.

Perhaps the truth is this simple: in a primary which had as its main focus the race for Governor, the voters simply chose the first name on the ballot for the throwaway race further down the ballot? Nah, it's much more likely that the Republicans would go through a lot of effort to plant a false candidate in a scheme to ensure their candidate's shaky election chances. Yup, that's it.

Attention, Dems: Better to be thought a fool, than to speak aloud and remove all doubt. Or, as the Republicans are likely thinking, THANK YOU for taking the whole Republican Gubernatorial primary circus off the front page. Whew!

Lastly, in other news, it's rumored that the English football (soccer) team, unhappy with their goalie's performance in the World Cup, are now thinking he might have been a USA plant. Aftert all, his name is Green, too.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

The Flag as a Barometer

2010-05-19T21:41:00.001-04:00

We all know that we’re living in a time of change. Or, so we hope. (Get it? Hope & Change?)

Yeah, I know.

Anyway, I’ve noticed a few things around the neighborhood lately. Being a military neighborhood, in a military town, near a military base, it’s easy to expect to see the American flag flying darn near everywhere. It’s on my house and my car, for instance. And down the street. And around the corner…

But lately, I’ve noticed the beginnings of change. I’ve seen the flags change. In some cases, more US Flags go up. But, more importantly… I’ve seen some American flags come DOWN. Replaced with the Gadsden flag in most cases. And lately, not entirely surprisingly as we approach the sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, the Confederate Battle Flag has reemerged.

What does this mean? Does it mean anything?

I believe it might be one of the indicators, a barometer perhaps, of the changing mood of the country. People have often stated their views or allegiances with the flags they fly. For the US flag to come down and another flag to rise in its place, in this area… very telling.

Voting 'Present' on Afghanistan

2009-12-03T23:18:00.001-05:00

President Obama’s speech Tuesday night has been widely dismissed and panned in a rare display of bipartisanship. Democrats (or Liberals, if you prefer) are not happy because he promised to send more troops and deepen the war effort. Republicans (or as they’re sometimes known, Conservatives) are not happy because he didn’t send enough troops, set a deadline for withdrawal, and didn’t seem truly committed to The Cause.

Our President, who we remember from a year ago being swept into office amidst universal acclimation, love, hope, and nearly God-like adoration, managed to tick off just about everyone in the country in one speech. Truth be told, by initial reports, a lot of folks around the world may not be too pleased either.

So, how did Mr. Obama, after nearly three full months of careful, ponderous debate… considering every possible option… have managed to blow it? What’s particularly surprising is that he did it in a way that should have surprised… no one. Mr. Obama has previously shown a predilection for avoiding conflict, decisiveness, and wading bravely in front of a movement. As much as the previous White House occupant was mocked for his self-declaration, there was truly little doubt that he was a ‘decider’. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, in his Illinois legislature days showed a favored choice of not voting more liberal or conservative, but just… Present. The Safe alternative.

I have little doubt that the previous three months consisted of the President desperately wishing for this particular choice to pass him by. He’d have given Michele’s right arm if he thought it might have helped matters. Anything but make THIS decision. Essentially, it came down to: Should he aggressively advance the war, giving General McChrystal everything he asked for and needed to win, OR should he follow what he’d suggested for Iraq and begin the return home of our troops?

It was a decision fraught with consequences. With his popularity, and political cache declining, his marketability and power in Washington is steeply dissipating. This is currently evidenced by a Health Care bill which, once promised to be done by August, may be lucky to be completed before Christmas, and even then, it won’t be pretty. He would risk annoying a major constituency in some way no matter what he chose. Here he was, the most powerful man in America, able to fire CEOs, win Nobel Peace Prizes based on 12 days of work experience, and he’d been reduced to damned-if-he-did-and-damned-if-he-didn’t.

It’s ironical isn’t it that the President, who as a candidate had mocked his opponent as not being ready for the crisis 3 am phone call, was now wilting in the face of just such a decision? Even more so when that former opponent, now his Secretary of State, was speaking far more decisively and clearly about the decision ahead.

So, what did Mr. Obama do (besides hope for a sudden change in the situation)? He did what he often does, try to please everyone. He didn’t vote Yay for war or Nay – bring them home. He voted Present. Do both, yet neither.

And pleased no one. Not one person. There’s something to be said for being decisive, after all.

Historical Intersections

2009-09-17T21:01:00.000-04:00

Today is a day for those with a sense of History. For one, it is Constitution Day. 222 years ago, the United States Constitution was created. It has served as a guide for not just our country, but has inspired other nations as well.

It has served over two centuries, delicately balancing power amongst three branches of government. It has shown that it can be amended (27 times), but not frivolously as hundreds of amendments tend to be proposed each session of Congress.

Our Constitution is notable in that it not only gives power to the national government, it also limits it.

It reserves powers and rights to the States and to the People (Tenth Amendment).

And often forgotten is that the Constitution is not the first form of government for the United States of America. Our nation had previously been guided by the Articles of Confederation. The failures and imperfections of the Articles helped guide the framers as they crafted the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't even the original plan as the framers had hoped to merely modify the Articles, but when they realized that more was needed, they set about redesigning the whole kit and kaboodle.

Our Constitution today seems to be a shadow of its former self, as our government has grown far beyond the enumerated boundaries our framers initially set. Has it grown such that it can never shrink back to the limits once set? Do our Citizens, on this "Citizenship & Constitution Day" know what is laid out in the Constitution?

-=-=-

Elsewhere in History, today marks the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union (Russia) invasion of Poland. Two weeks after Germany had swept into Poland, and as Poland was struggling to mount an effective defense, the Russians extinguished all hope when hundreds of thousands of their troops moved in. The result was a partitioning of Poland between the two, and Poland not being a truly independent nation again until over fifty years later.

The anniversary was marked notably by the US Government announcing that it was reneging on its defensive promises and canceling its intentions to place Ballistic Missile Interceptors in Poland. While it was announced that this is due to the lack of a perceived threat, it is much more reasonable to presume that it is an appeasement to Russian objections to the plan.

In contrast to a perceived lack of threat, the Associated Press is reporting that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is working on a missile to deliver it. This is the same Iran that openly supports Hezbollah and whose weapons have been used against our troops in Iraq.

The Poles are used to being abandoned by the West. It is a shame that history is repeating itself.

Governor Sanford: 'But Everyone ELSE is Doing it!'

2009-08-27T19:45:00.003-04:00

Governor Sanford is now complaining that his political enemies and the media are operating under "selective outrage". His issue is that while he may certainly have broken state law by travelling at higher than authorized levels of service or used public planes for private purposes, he shouldn't be expected to resign because other governors did it, too.

Sanford's petulant behavior should sound familiar to parents everywhere. "But, Mommmmm (or Dadddddddd - don't forget the appropriate level of whining), Susie gets to do ____________, why can't I?"

Ok, Governor Sanford, let's review. 1) You are supposed to set the example. 2) Since you campaigned on a higher level of ethics, then your example must be even further above reproach.

But, let's take this one step further. Governor, I'd like to illustrate to you the utter fragility of the position you've taken. Next conversation you have with Jenny, tell her that she's operating under 'selective outrage' and that multitudes of husbands throughout history have had affairs, and she shouldn't be so worked up. Let us know how that works out for you?

It is not what others have or have not done in the past. Any lawyer will tell you that a person is judged on their actions, and theirs alone. And your actions... well, Governor, it's long past time for you to go.

One last thought - those whose actions are above rapproach do not tend to complain about how they're being judged.

A Peek Behind the Curtain

2009-07-31T16:25:00.002-04:00

Congress continues its deliberations and maneuvers as the Democrats try to come up with one single Health Care Plan that will satisfy all the needs and requirements of Americans - not just their healthcare needs, but the political obstacles to passing it.

So, many Americans are curious about what the final version will look like. There are differing ideas in the several committees working on the bill and no one really knows whether to be for or against such a nebulous creation. (Well, the folks in the middle anyway - the Right is against the Democrat plan and the Left naturally supports the Democrat plan... those in the middle just aren't sure yet.)

So while they craft and scheme and study, where can we turn to see what may be in store for us in terms of government run health care? Does a prototype exist?

Yes. And arguably, it could be a great example. The military health care system. From the very top down, members of the Armed Forces are lauded as the best the country has to offer and deserving of all the support the country can lend. This certainly must be true for their health care, no?

Yet, in today's USA Today article, Gregg Zoroya declares "Routine GI Health Needs Not Met".

What's this?

The military has its own complete healthcare system. It's single-payer, universal, and government run... all the very best descriptors of what is trying to be brought to all Americans.

Before even reading the article, the chart next to it shows that for the last year, of the Army's 36 major hospitals, 26 don't meet standards for providing access to health care within seven days. That's 72%, or roughly a 1 in 4 chance of being seen in a timely manner. The best year shown, 2007, gives only a 45% chance of being seen in a timely manner.

This is the Army medical system taking care of its own - Army Soldiers and Army families. It should be safe to say that they're highly motivated to take care of them as quickly as possible.

This is government health care when they're taking care of the most important people in the system - Soldiers and their own families. I wonder what it'll be like when they're taking care of just regular Joes?

Misplaced Values

2009-07-19T23:45:00.002-04:00

Tomorrow is the 40th anniverary of the first moon landing.

A search for "moonwalker" reveals Michael Jackson.

And perhaps the fact that a dance move that makes you look like you're walking forwards while in fact you're moving backwards is the best analogy for where we stand today.

We may feel we're moving forward, and a cursory glance may not prove otherwise, yet... are we?

There are currently only nine people, or roughly .00000001% of the world's population, alive who've walked on another world. Their average age is 77. How long before we start adding to their numbers instead of blithely letting their number dwindle?

Perhaps that's the saddest countdown of all right now, as it drops to zero? And then, when it does reach zero, we will have successfully restored our world to it's pre-1969 state - one, where no one knows what it's like to have walked on another world.

And that is not progress.

Censure Isn't Enough

2009-07-14T03:55:00.003-04:00

The South Carolina GOP voted recently to censure Governor Sanford for his shenanigans down in Argentina. For those not familiar with the term, basically it's a political version of "You've been a very bad boy, so promise you won't do it again, and you can keep your job."

The job he wasn't doing.

The job he will have a very difficult time doing in the future.

Again, I say he should resign. Or be impeached. And the voters of SC have every right to call for his head (or perhaps more appropriately, some anatomy lower down) on a platter.

Why?

Because he cheated on his wife? Well, it's morally reprehensible, and it's certainly against the values that he and the party stand for. A very good reason for the voters and the Party to do some soul-searching, but... not impeachable.

Because he took off for a few days and wasn't reachable? Hmmm... if it'd been the busy season, maybe, but let's be honest. The Legislature wasn't in session, and not much was going on. Four days. Could have been worse. He could have stayed away the full ten days he'd originally booked his trip to Argentina for.

Because he rerouted travel and went against official US foreign policy to have an excuse to visit his lover? We're getting warmer.

How about that he used state funds? He's repaid that, so unlike anyone else who steals (sorry convenience store thieves), he's off-the-hook. Since SLED has decided he didn't violate any laws, there's no grounds for impeachment.

How about this latest revelation? Pay attention voters. During a period of economic downturn, there was one company wanting to expand its operations in South Carolina (more jobs, larger tax revenue, etc.) and another company wanting to celebrate a plant expansion... he turned down both invitations so he could be in Argentina. In essence, and crudely, he screwed over the state so he could get screwed.

Governor Sanford, how can you govern?

Leave.

Leave now.

It's called Integrity. Show you have some.

Governor Sanford - He's Still Here?

2009-06-28T18:06:00.002-04:00

The other day, as the story broke, I wrote expressing my belief that Governor Sanford needed to resign, immediately.

A few days have passed, and we've learned more about our Governor and his escapades.

We've learned that not only is he redefining audacity (I'm a nationwide recognized political figure - no one will miss me for a few days!), he's also writing new definitions for hubris.

It's reported that he'd considered resigining, but close aides advised him that the best way to recover from this crisis is to recover the trust of the people of South Carolina - by staying on.

Did it possibly occur to the (cough)Honorable Governor Sanford that those aides might have their wagons tightly hitched to his success?

We've learned that the Governor, upon being told by his wife to leave the house and stop communicating with the family for awhile, ~~was humbled and wanting to deeply work on his marriage~~, er... booked a ten day trip to Argentina! So, we shouldn't be shocked by his four day absence, as his original plans were for ten days.

He's previously re-routed trade missions to include Argentina, on the taxpayers' dime, naturally. Why is this important? Well, two reasons. One is that he had become famous as a budget hawk, decrying any wasteful spending of taxpayer monies. A Governor who insisted on staff using both sides of post-its and index cards, who slept in his Congressional office, and decried state Legislature waste used a taxpayer junket to satisfy his adulterous urges.

Contrary to, and undercutting, official US Government policy at the time, that is. See, Argentina had fallen out of favor with the international community as it had amassed massive debt and essentially announced to its creditors (including US) that it had zero intention of repaying that debt. The Bush administration had thus frozen it out of trade negotiations and contracts. So, for Governor Sanford to decide that a trade side-trip to Argentina might be beneficial, in any way more than a cover for his adulterous subterfuge, was again... being a bit of a bad boy, no?

Perhaps most intriguing and enlightening is the revelation from his wife that after the discover of his affair by her, he asked her permission to keep seeing her! Husbands and wives out there -- anyone want to try to imagine that conversation? It's almost as credulous as trying to imagine the language when Bill told Hillary that what Monica was doing wasn't 'really sex'...

***

A recent Rasmussen poll shows 50% of South Carolinians want the Governor to resign. I suspect it's actually more than that, and have heard whispers of it being as high as 70%. What seems to be tamping the number down is the fear of Lt. Governor Andre Bauer becoming the Governor.

In SC, unlike for example the Presidency, the Governor and Lt. Governor are elected separately and are not always friends, allies, political companions, or even occasional drinking-buddies. So, it's not akin to accepting Dan Quayle with George H.W. Bush, or Cheney with George W. Bush, or even Biden with Obama.

The people of SC elected Mr. Bauer, twice, to the Lt. Governorship. Is he an excellent politician? A paragon of perfection? Nope. But, we elected him. He has essentially two duties - supervision of the SC Senate and... being around in case the #1 guy isn't.

So, here we are... we need to ditch the #1 guy and we're afraid to do so because of whom we put as #2. Tough tiddlywinks. Let this be a lesson to our future electorates, then... Choose wisely. Elections have consequences. Even for minor, insignificant, can't-believe-someone-is-actually-RUNNING-for-this offices...

***

Governor Sanford, you have become a punchline. How can you govern? In the next budget discussion, how can you ask for a single budget cut? What principle will you be able to stand on? How can anyone bargain and negotiate with you, now that we know that you are a liar and a fraud?

Rebuild your family. Given time, perhaps, you may be able to revive your political career and run for a City Council slot somewhere. In the meantime, let us recover... take this opportunity to lead one last time, by demonstrating that a TRUE man of principle knows when it's time to leave.

Governor Sanford

2009-06-24T17:45:00.003-04:00

Well, the news is out. I'd wanted to comment a few days before, but... it seemed premature as there was the lil' "niggling" feeling that something was a tad... off.

Now, we know.

I can't express how disappointed, and how A N G R Y, I am with Governor Sanford. To see someone whom you've supported, since his first foray into politics as the Congressman from the First Congressional District of South Carolina, flush their career (and likely marriage) down the toilet can quite literally strike you dumb.

Governor Sanford had captured the loyalty and following of conservatives looking for leadership in the wilderness of the political landscape that has become the Republican Party in the new Obama era. His name was being widely whispered, some places shouted, as a strong candidate for the Republican ticket in 2012.

No more.

Republicans like to brand their party as one of 'values', emphatically, 'family values'. Certainly, a party that once impeached a President for actions resulting from adulterous affairs cannot try to have it both ways. And a party of 'family values' cannot stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a man who disregarded, and disrespected, his family in such a public, selfish, and humilitating way.

On Father's Day, his family has learned that he wasn't with his sons because he preferred to be in South America cheating on his wife. There is nothing to defend here.

Yet, this isn't the nail in his coffin, as shocking as that is. (It should be noted that to imagine the pitchman's crowing voice, "But wait! There's more..." after discussing a Governor's infidelity and disregard for his family cannot be a good thing.)

As Democrats chanted for a mantra during Clinton's impeachment, the adultery is a family matter - even as it shows a deep and willing disregard to abandon one's principles of Honor and Integrity. Governor Sanford also abandoned his office and the People of South Carolina.

Which is The Reason why he must resign, immediately, or failing that, be impeached. He left the state without so much as a way to be reached in an emergency. Emergencies, by their definition, are not foreseen. South Carolina, like most heirarchies, lays the decisive powers in its executive branch leader - the Governor.

And had an emergency occurred, the Governor was AWOL. Missing. What started as a whisper, grew to an amusing gossip rumor ("Has anyone seen the Governor?") grew to nationwide interests to finally a media obsession as blood was detected in the water. Leaders need to be reached, and even considering where and why his travels took him to Argentina, he should have stayed in contact. Placing his relationship and sexual urgency ahead of his duties as Governor belies a fatal flaw.

Which brings us to the third leg of the triangle - Governor Sanford went to see a foreign citizen in a foreign country without any security. Powerful people are at risk - to blackmail, kidnapping, worse - which is why the personal security industry is so successful and why governments devote such energy to protecting their principle people. His bodyguards were in no position to protect him, his staff likewise, while he was out... "Whistling Dixie".

South Carolina is a conservative state where people have long and deep relationships and memories. In a state where the War Between the States is still discussed on a near daily basis, being abandoned by a political figure will not soon be forgotten. As the saw goes, "A leader without followers is just a guy out for a walk."

Governor Sanford, as a rising star, is/was a huge political target. The Democratic Party will NOT hesitate to make hay of this. Republicans would be wise to show Mr. Sanford the door, and help him pack, tonight, his belongings out of the Governor's Mansion. If the Republican Party in SC is to have credibility as a party of its principles, then Governor Sanford needs to be ostracized quickly, deeply, and permanently. Anything else will further exacerbate the irresponsible damage that Governor Sanford has done to the State, his party, the People, and lest we forget, his family.

Goodbye, Governor Sanford, and as a longtime fan and supporter... don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!

The Day After...

2008-11-05T08:31:00.001-05:00

Finally. While we have been told that 04 November is the date to be circled on the calendar, if we’re truly honest, the real date highlighted in bright red has been 05 November. It’s over! In a country where people frequently grouse about our collective attention span, who thought a twenty-one month long presidential campaign would be a good idea?
But, here we are, at last. And we have a winner. Congratulations are due to Senator Obama!
It’s more than likely that while many people are celebrating (and rightly so), there’s at least one or two for whom last night was a crushing disappointment and defeat. Now, we will see one of the finest parts of America – the way we come back together as a country, united being the first word in our name, and move forward.
We don’t have to be unified in our joy and celebrations, though we should be. Senator Obama has achieved a success that to date has been enjoyed by only forty-three individuals before him. Out of the billions of Americans who’ve come and gone, this is nothing at which to sneer. And when we factor in his being the first black President, how can we not applaud?
Certainly, there will be hurt feelings and hardened attitudes. “This should make them happy,” was overheard more than once this morning. Whether the them refers to Democrats, Liberals, or more than likely, blacks in our country, as insincere as the wish is by those grumbling it, no doubt, they are happy.
As am I. We will soon witness a peaceful transfer of power in this country, again. A roundly despised leader is not being run out of town by tanks, nor being hung by his neck from the nearest light pole. The military of this country is not the grantor of power as it is in so many others – a simple ballot box is.
We will watch as the People of this country demonstrate one of the greatest lessons of this campaign – if you want change (in whatever form it may come to you), you need to work for it. And lo, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and his legions of supporters certainly did work for it, very hard work. Change is accessible by one and all in this great land of ours.
Oh, and for those who truly cannot fathom nor accept the concept of President Obama, then you can always take heart that you, too, can work for change. As is heard in stadiums frequently this time of year, “Wait till next time,” may be your new refrain. Start when you’re ready – the current record for a campaign is only twenty-one months.

Drew Carey on The Nanny State

2008-07-11T01:17:00.000-04:00

A Christian Military?

2008-07-10T10:46:00.003-04:00

It would be SO easy to wade into this as an issue of "Separation of Church and State". After all, it's one of our rights, right? (No, it's not, but that's for another opine.)

In this article, an Army Specialist claims that being an atheist cost him his career in the military and resulted in threats upon his life.

It's tempting to dismiss such claims, until you realize one thing.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe.

How many times does the Army have a formation (all the Soldiers lined up together) and the Chaplain comes out to lead in prayer? Don't think it's not noticeable if you don't participate? Think again. Many professional workplaces are well covered with religious paraphanelia. And if yours is noticeably not decorated in kind? Yeah, there might be questions.

It's been said that "There are no atheists in foxholes." It shouldn't matter if there are, or not. What should matter is if the SOLDIER in that foxhole is well-trained. Anything else? Well, let's just leave that to the Soldier and his/her god. As they say, "Mind your own lane."

Cruel and Unusual

2008-07-06T14:21:00.002-04:00

I've had a lot of thoughts in my head of late (here, here, and here), spurred by the recent passing of Punk Rock Mommy.

And as I was chatting with my dear friend, I drew a connection.

I first was thinking back to one of my favorite Star Trek quotes, "How we face Death is at least as important as how we face Life."

And that's true, because for many, Death comes unexpectedly. Unplanned. Unanticipated.

Yet, there are those who know that Death is coming.

They've been told they are going to die. Not exactly when, but... It WILL happen.

Then, they get told that Death is soon approaching. Probably within a month, but no other details.

And finally, you know... Today is your last day.

It's Death Row.

Except, these people are not criminals. They've committed no horrific atrocity.

So, I ask... If we as a society complain about the cruel and unusual nature of executions on Death Row... Executions of our society's most heinous members..

Why are we not more vocal and active in our complaints against the executions of our more innocent members? The children who die from cancer.. The mothers... Wives... Fathers... Sons... Husbands... Daughters... And those indistinguishable people who are mere faces in the crowd that no one even notices is missing...

Priorities.

Outrageous Outrage

2008-07-06T13:39:00.001-04:00

The thoughts from my previous post continue to weigh on my mind...

As I wrote, I am disturbed by the misplaced outrage that we have in this country. Large segments of the populace are "outraged" at the number of Soldiers dying in Iraq. Each gory milestone (1,000... 2,000... 3,000... 4,000!) is trumpeted as a further example of how we MUST CHANGE.

4,000. Over five years. While each Soldier lost *IS* a tragedy... Truth (listen up, Truthers) be told, that's a LOW number

Low compared to non-combat deaths, for example.

Low compared to vehicular deaths in our country.

Low compared to disease (pick your favorite) deaths. Quick, show of hands of the oncologists... How many would be ECSTATIC if the death rate dropped to 4,000 over five years?

And I'm fairly sure that most of those outraged would be hard-pressed to recall the name or a detail or two of those who've sacrificed in Iraq.

So, what's with the outrage?

And then I realized. Those Soldiers' deaths serve a *political* purpose. They are an excuse to be outraged. They are names to be written on throwaway cardboard protest signs.

Whereas for another sizable group of the populace, it is the Soldiers' LIVES that hold a purpose and are celebrated.

Now, THAT is something to be outraged over.

Where Is YOUR Righteous Indignation?

2008-07-06T01:37:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, another casualty was recorded. This brave Soldier lost her battle.

Andrea Collins Smith.

That's her name. Pay attention, and remember, because you won't see her name on any protest signs.

No mock gravestones.

No bracelets.

No one will interrupt a Presidential speech, Congressional hearing, or a nominee's stump speech asking what they'll do to stop the tragedy.

And why not?

She died of cancer.

No, it's not as sexy a "cause death" as an American Soldier dying in Iraq. She died at home, with her husband, leaving behind five children.

I don't begrudge the "Code Pink" folks, or others, as they exercise their right to protest. Go for it.

I wonder what it'd be like if we put all that energy and effort into fighting a bigger battle.

(Bigger battle?! Bigger than... how do they put it???... an unjust war for oil where Bush lied so _____ died? Yeah, bigger than that.)

So far this year, 208 American Soldiers have died in Iraq (source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count). That's a little over a Soldier per day, or extrapolated to the year, at the current rate, that'd be approximately 408 Soldiers.

Whereas, it is forecast that 565,650 Americans will die of cancer this year. (Source: American Cancer Society) 1,385 times the number in Iraq. Or, put another way... 1549 EACH DAY! Including holidays... Cancer doesn't take a day off.

Code Pink, you've already got the right color... let's put an end to this daily death count... Everyone, where is YOUR outrage? We must end this. So many needless deaths...

Happy Fourth of July!

2008-07-04T21:22:00.000-04:00

Ready for some fireworks??? We are! We're camped out at Mt. Trashmore in Virginia Beach, amongst probably a good 10-20,000 fellow fireworks loving Americans.

One highlight already was when the band asked everyone on The Hill to light up and wave their cell phones while yelling, "Thank You Troops!" repeatedly.

It's a great night, and it's another great day to be an American!

For all of our country's faults, we're still the best place to be on the planet.

(And to all my comrades in the desert of Iraq, Missing y'all... Stay safe!)

The Truth About the Campaign Trail

2008-07-01T22:01:00.000-04:00

Drew Carey on Mexicans and Machines

2008-06-25T11:32:00.001-04:00

What Has the Government Done for Me... Lately?

2008-06-15T00:22:00.002-04:00

It's sad to think of the attention span of the average American voter. It's drastically short.

I could go into various degrees of examples, but...

it's late.

So, like the teachers in my government indoctrination centers used to do... we'll have a short film.

:)

Drew Carey on Medicinal Marijuana

2008-06-14T23:01:00.001-04:00

Drew Carey takes a look at Medicinal Marijuana in this one...

I don't mind government protecting us from harm from others, but why... WHY must busybodies insert themselves into the lives of those conducting activities that are A) Not harming anyone and B) actually helping themselves?!

This is ridiculous nanny-state'ism, and one day, it'll affect your favorite activity.

Remembrance Flag

2008-05-30T08:45:00.002-04:00

There is an effort circulating to create a National Flag of Remembrance. Take a look at this website. It's worth a peek.

I signed the petition...

Government Schools

2008-05-29T18:24:00.001-04:00

I had a frightening experience last night. We were working on D's homework.

Some background: Last week was the week for Virginia's standardized testing (as mandated by No Child Left Behind).

As one might expect, while the intent of the test is to measure how well the students have learned their material over the year, what actually occurs is called "Teaching to the Test".

Great.

Any guesses on how successfully students learn, retain, and COMPREHEND their material?

What's frustrating is that they are "teaching" methods, for mathematics in particular, that do NOT enable functionality for the student. For example, instead of multiplication tables, they're taught calculators and charts. And we wonder why the cashiers of today can't make change?

It is HORRIFYING the destruction being wreaked on our youth's intelligence and future capabilities.

Sigh.

We MUST take back our schools... If "Children are our Future", then we need to wake up TODAY!

By the way, the Virginia tests are called the SOL exam... How apt... because if we don't do something, and soon... that's exactly what our children will be... SOL.

The Wall

2008-05-28T18:22:00.000-04:00

The Drew Carey Project continues with a discussion on The Southern Wall...

Putting Words In the Mouth of Another

2008-05-16T21:05:00.001-04:00

Seen on a church sign: "Keep using my name in vain - I'll make rush hour longer. -God"

Anyone see a problem with this?

A majority of Judeo-Christian teaching these days teaches of a merciful, forgiving God. The line above sounds more like the vengeful OT God... You remember the one who tested his worshippers loyalty, etc?

But worse, it's an example of us putting words in themouth of another... And as typical, it can't be countered or argued. Much like a forwarded email saying "Can you believe what _______ said?"

Just a thought... If God is as we describe him, do we need to put words in his mouth?

Drew Carey on The Drug War

2008-05-11T20:17:00.002-04:00

I still wonder just what we're achieving with this "War on Drugs"... like so many "Wars on ____ ", we haven't had too much success...

More later.

Drew Carey Project - Food Fight

2008-04-26T15:52:00.000-04:00

Drew Carey on Immigration

2008-04-04T22:52:00.001-04:00

Freedom Never Cries

2008-03-26T21:31:00.002-04:00

I saw this video, and it's beautiful... Everyone who clicks to view it, $1 is donated to Operation HomeFront.

The man behind the counter in the video is Fred Ferguson, a Medal of Honor recipient.

The singer is John Ondrasik of Five for Fighting...

Please watch.

Hillary Hears a Sniper

2008-03-25T22:39:00.004-04:00

It's definitely making the news now... Senator Clinton made a speech about how when she went to Bosnia, as First Lady, she landed under sniper fire.

Except, it wasn't true.

Now, the video below by (believe it or not, CBS News) deconstructs her lie. However, it shouldn't even be necessary to do that.

Not, if you have a little common sense.

At the time, she was First Lady of the United States of America. Such a position, while contrary to her assertion of its power, IS a very symbolic one. As such, her safety is paramount. Thus, the United States Secret Service would have never tolerated nor allowed the First Lady to land where she was at risk of being killed by sniper. And if she had really pushed the issue, there would have been extraordinary measures taken to prevent it.

Along for the ride was Chelsea, the First Daughter. Perhaps even more of an emotional target, her presence would also trigger extreme protection. Besides, what mother takes a daughter into sniper fire?

There were USO entertainers aboard, notably Sinbad and Cheryl Crow. Big names. No one wants their safety compromised either.

And if the USSS didn't have a coronary about flying into sniper fire with the First Lady, First Daughter, and two huge celebrities... the USAF brass would have gone to extra lengths to make sure nothing happened while the group was under their care and protection.

So, besides the fact that her story is a complete fabrication, which should certainly give voters pause, especially if she says it's because she was sleep deprived (brings the 3 am ad into new light if she's not at her mental best with low sleep), it's beyond plausibility.

It is apocryphal that politicians lie... but one thing that is expected is that they should be able to lie convincingly. And I would expect one with as much practice as her to be much better at it and not tell a lie so transparent, so blatant, that even CBS News can take it apart.

Drew Carey Project - Organ Transplants

2008-03-18T07:04:00.001-04:00

Drew Carey discusses organ transplants.

America Unprotected

2008-03-07T23:07:00.003-05:00

It's been quite awhile since the Democrats refused to let the FISA renewal bill to even come to a vote in the US House of Representatives. This after the Senate reached a compromise, and in spite of the anti-American philosphy involved in preventing a vote - as we encourage peoples the world over to exercise an opportunity to vote.

America has been left unprotected. And the Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi, are either not listening or don't seem interested.

It's time for them to hear us. Hear our concern. We need to get their attention.

I encourage everyone to go out and buy (it's good for the economy, and a worthy use of your stimulus check as there's a decent chance this will still be an issue when the checks are cut) a condom. One single condom (if you buy a multi-pack, enjoy the rest however you like - I hear they make great water balloons).

Mail the condom, along with a note reading, "Protect America!" to:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Remember, when you don't use protection, it's like your country has been with every other country.

It's Not the Color, but the Thickness

2008-03-07T21:16:00.004-05:00

Terrorism abounds, the economy is slowing down (no, not a recession yet), peace is not yet found in Palestine, and sadly, baseball season is nigh upon us.

Yet, a major headline recently was that actor Robert Downey, Jr. "blacked" up for a role.

This is, apparently, bad.

First, the backstory. Ben Stiller, noted comedian, is directing and starring in a comedy about actors making a movie. In other words, there's a lot of make-believe going on here.

Mr. Downey's part is as an actor who's apparently Oscar-quality (whereupon we already know that Mr. Downey is acting, as he's not often been labeled "Oscar-quality") playing a part that was written for a black actor.

So, we know from the start that it's not serious. This isn't blackface in a negative, farsical, or minstrel-show type sense... This is an actor playing a part. For years, actors and actresses have labored for the belief that any person can play any part, under the ideal world of the theater.

Where was the uproar when the movie below came out:

If changing one's image is wrong, it's always wrong; by corollary, if it's not wrong, then it's never wrong. Equality means everyone can do it. And since Mr. Downey certainly isn't doing this maliciously, but more for the "craft", then... what's the harm? The part isn't the same if a black person portrays a white person pretending to be a black person. It's just the same that a woman playing a man pretending to be a woman isn't the same. (And didn't John Travolta recently change his body image to play a part in "Hairspray"? It wasn't because there wasn't a woman available to play it - several already had on both stage and screen; just that he was playing it this time.)

We MUST get past these little things, especially issues that aren't issues at all, so we can focus on the truly troubling issues facing us as a society... like, what are we going to do about the 31st of March.

Let's judge Mr. Downey on the content of his character, not the color(s) of his skin.

Help Me! - I Can't Walk & Text at the Same Time

2008-03-07T12:47:00.004-05:00

It used to be that the standard for being able to do two things at once was if someone could walk and chew gum at the same time (this having replaced the eon long practice of patting your head and rubbing your tummy at the same time.)

These days, there's a new emerging standard - can you walk and send text messages from your phone at the same time. (If that last sentence was not quite clear, then you can probably continue using the chewing gum standard.)

Reports from London show that a staggering one out of ten people have hurt themselves while sending text messages.

I'll say it again. 10% of the population has injured themselves while texting (this can also allow for chatting, but... most likely texting.)

In the United States, this would extrapolate to approximately 30 million injuries.

What steps are being taken to address this scandalous uptick in cellphone injuries? Maybe commercials by cute, fuzzy animals singing songs to us about how to be aware of the rest of the world?

Nope.

London is trying padded lampposts.

(I'll give you a second...)

They are putting padding around lampposts for those folks who are so busy texting that they're not watching where they are walking and BAM! walk headlong into an innocent lamppost.

What does this say for society at large? We have to protect the populace from lampposts placed recklessly in the paths of people who have forgotten how to look UP while walking (anyone else secretly terrified about how these walking maladies might be driving?).

What's next? Pad the trees? Sides of buildings? Perhaps we can turn all of our cities into giant padded rooms.

Because, if we're truly going to ascribe to the theory that the best way to address people too dumb to look up is to pad the obstacles in front of them, then a padded room is what we'll need.

Insurgents Target Recruiting Station

2008-03-06T11:04:00.002-05:00

In a scene all too familiar, insurgents against the United States being involved in Iraq targeted a recruiting station. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosive blast.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.

But this time, it's different.

The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.

Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...

It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.

There are ways.

Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).

And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."

The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.

Which Part Will He Change?

2008-03-06T03:00:00.002-05:00

I'm looking for verification of this. It was sent to me, and a friend said she heard it, but I can't find any transcripts except for a blurb on National Review Online that's tongue-in-cheek.

So...

Did Senator Obama really say this:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

Which War Are They Protesting?

2008-03-06T02:40:00.002-05:00

(h/t to Michelle Malkin)

Which war are people protesting? Is it the Global War on Terrorism - Iraqi Theater or... perhaps this is an opportunity to relive their past "glories" and recall protesting the war in Viet Nam?

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

CHAPEL HILL -- For John Heuer, burning a fake draft card on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus was a sort of deja vu.
Heuer said he burned draft cards in 1971 while refusing to be part of President Nixon's army. He put his cigarette lighter to a symbolic card Thursday to support a student group's anti-war rally.
"It's important to get the word out in a creative way," said Heuer, a retired UNC facilities designer.

Burning draft cards. Ok. Was there a draft that I didn't know about? America's army (not the President's, Soldiers follow the President's orders, but they serve America) is an all-volunteer force, and has been since the 1970s.

So, why burn a draft card? The only mention of having a draft lately has come from ~~President Bush~~, er... no... it was Democrat Representative Charles Rangel.

Anyone who's protesting... if your argument is strong and convincing, then you don't need "creativity" (note: it's not creative if it was used forty years ago)... your argument will speak for itself.

A Class Act

2008-03-06T00:15:00.002-05:00

Mike Huckabee conceded his campaign to John McCain.

And it was a classy speech.

I applaud Mr. Huckabee for continuing his campaign through to the end. People know how I feel about those who start a campaign and quit.

A man of principle... he campaigned through to the end, and he stopped when he said he would... when someone had clearly won.

Here's his speech:

Life Imitates "West Wing"

2008-03-02T21:37:00.003-05:00

I've been a humongous fan of The West Wing for... years. Since it broadcast. I always thought that it was very well written (hat tip to Aaron Sorkin).

Interestingly enough, the folks over at Slate have compared the final season Presidential campaign with this year's campaign.

Take a look:

Article 2, Section 1

2008-02-27T22:36:00.002-05:00

Is Senator McCain eligible to be President of the United States?

The Democrats are having a debate, errr, squable, about qualifications for the Presidency and whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is more qualified...

... but what about Senator McCain?

Admittedly, the following argument is surrounded by ambiguity since there is no decisive law on it. But, should it ever become a case, it'll come down to a decision by the United States Supreme Court. (And people wonder why whom a President selects for Justices of the Supreme Court might be important?)

It starts with Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America (a.k.a., the Users' Manual to our country). This section defines the office of the Presidency, and specifically for our discussion, there's Clause 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. And, the Canal Zone is not a State. (Also, the CZ is not the District of Columbia...)

Therefore, Senator McCain (and my son, amongst others) is not a natural born Citizen.

And thus, not eligible for the Presidency...

Attention Homicidalists!

2008-02-20T00:35:00.003-05:00

I'm curious... how come, when you decide to go out with a few semi-automatic bangs, gun shows aren't a common choice of venue?

Why, oh why, must it always be some "gun-free zone"?

National Guard Armory? Nope.
Local Police HQ? Nuh-uh! (Are you nuts, they'll shoot ME!)
Local outdoorsman hunt club? hahahaha

No, it's churches, universities, and other SAFE places (no one ever says for whom they're safe, but I think we're starting to get an idea.)

When will the administrators and legislators decide that it's alright for the populace to defend ourselves (I read somewhere about "keeping and bearing arms", but what do I know)?

How many more must imitate ducks at the county fair shooting gallery?

Sigh.

Gumballs

2008-02-20T00:24:00.002-05:00

My mom sent this to me. I haven't had time to read up on Mr. Beck's organization, NumbersUSA, but I must say, he sure does know how to use visual aids effectively - and that's not a common comment for someone with a lot of charts.

Surprising Conservative Results... In Washington

2008-02-20T00:16:00.002-05:00

The state of Washington is not known for its conservative leanings. So, it's a tad revealing to see:

McCain - 29.52%
Huckabee - 27.46%
Paul - 23.83%
Quitter - 19.18%

Informed Voters

2008-02-19T23:32:00.003-05:00

Ok, two of my electoral pet peeves are candidates who quit and the uninformed voter.

These two peeves are showing nicely in recent primary results.

I was looking at Wisconsin's primary results. Yes, all the precincts aren't in yet, but some things are obvious.

And not just that Senators Obama and McCain have won.

If you watch the tickers at the bottom of the news channels, you may (thought probably won't) notice that the percentages for each side's top two doesn't add up to 100%. Why is that?

Because of the previously mentioned convergence of Candidate Quitters and the Uninformed Voter.

For the Democrats, let's proudly congratulate each one of the following voters for either believing so strongly in their candidate of choice that they could care less that they don't have the backbone and stamina to see a campaign through OR are so uninformed that they don't know that their candidate has quit (with 81% of the precincts reporting):

5,359 votes for Mr. Edwards
2,070 votes for Rep. Kucinich
679 votes for Sen. Biden (been out a LOOOONG time)
416 votes for Gov. Richardson
400 votes for Sen. Dodd
382 votes for Mr. Gravel

That's nearly 10,000 voters on the Democrat side who as surely voted for their candidate as if they'd voted for Bugs Bunny (in my book, comparably as qualified as some of those other names.) Of some comfort is that these folks only comprised 1% of the voters casting votes.

And the Republicans were not immune (with 81% of precincts reporting):

15,021 for Rep. Paul (technically, he's not quit, nor suspended his campaign - however, he HAS emailed his supporters and said he's focusing on his Congressional race)
6,222 for Mr. Romney
2,185 for Mr. Thompson
1,687 for Mr. Guiliani
684 for Rep. Hunter
150 for Rep. Tancredo

That's 25,949 for the Republicans. Frighteningly enough, that's 7.9% who voted for non-candidates.

Sigh.

Come on, people...

Drew Carey Project - Education Revolt in Watts

2008-02-19T17:18:00.000-05:00

American Alienation

2008-02-19T00:52:00.002-05:00

I've seen this on a few other blogs, and it is SPOT on. Frighteningly enough, it sounds like a few things I've been known to say.

Warning, strong, strong language. And some images that should bother you to no end.

Please, watch.

BREAKING NEWS - Citizens DO NOT Voluntarily Tax Themselves

2008-02-19T00:21:00.003-05:00

A few months ago, I wrote about how folks who wanted to raise taxes could voluntarily do so at any time. All that they needed to do was to write a check and mail it to the government.

Learned that there are a couple of states that actually tried setting up funds for such activities, and one of them is Virginia. Who knew? (Another, by the way, was set up by a gentleman named Huckabee when he was governor of one of those middle states... Arkansas, I think.)

The good news is that the concept of voluntary taxation has REALLY taken off.

How much money has been raised? Will taxes be eliminated due to the generosity of those wonderful taxpayers who put their money where their mouth was?

Um...

No.

Not likely.

Virginia's fund has raised $10,217.04 (can't forget the four cents!) since it's inception in 2002. For those who attended government schools, that's $1459.58 per annum. You could multiply that one hundred times and STILL not come close to a penny contributed per citizen.

So, what happens to everyone who's in a hurry to raise taxes? One would suspect that the states' revenue collection departments would be hiring extra staff to handle the deluge of mail containing all the checks pouring in.

Nope.

So, next time someone supports raising taxes - ask them how much they contributed above the minimum required by the tax form. And treasure the look on their face that you'll see. Spending other people's money is fun; sending in extra taxes instead of buying yourself something special... not so much.

Oh, and for a continued public service - if you'd like to contribute to the federal budget:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Saudi Arabia Plans to Behead Witch

2008-02-17T01:38:00.002-05:00

I'd like to take an easy potshot at the "Religion of Peace", except... you know something? There are parts of this article that look as if they'd been written in Salem, Massachusetts.

The judges who convicted her relied on her forced confession and the statements of witnesses who said she had "bewitched" them.

One man claimed that he became impotent after Falih cast a spell on him.

Witches have long faced persecution, by many religions (though truth be told, I've never heard of persecution of witches by Jews, Buddhists, etc), primarily Christians and Muslims. And it's a crying shame.

Especially modern-day Wicca - we can learn a lot from the philosphies inherent in that particular branch of spirituality. There's something very elementary schoolish about those who are the most ardent adherents to a religion - "My religion is better than your religion" or more historically accurate, "My religion can beat up your religion" and "My God(s) will destroy your God(s)."

A little open-mindedness goes a long way. And being faithful to your religion, and being a "good" believer doesn't mean that another religion's existence is something to lose your head over.

A Pet Peeve

2008-02-17T01:10:00.003-05:00

I don't like smokers. Not for the usual, popular reasons. I truly don't care if someone smokes or not. It's their choice.

What else is their choice is how to dispose of their cigarette butts when they're finished smoking. Look at the picture above. This could be a road... anywhere.

Look more closely.

There are thousands of butts there. No one thinks for a second about quickly rolling their window down and tossing the butt out the window. Sometimes, I've had a still lit, smoldering butt hit my windshield. And let's not even discuss the times I was driving in a convertible with the top down and had a butt land inside my vehicle. I still remember the cigarette burn on the seat... and thankful that it didn't land on ME.

Why can't smokers keep their butts with them until they get to a trash can? Why is the outside world their ashtray?

It's so frustrating to see this... and worse, it's accepted. We've become desensitized. Sure, we'll pick up trash, but the millions and millions of butts out there... are just part of the scenery now.

And it's disgusting.

Alcatraz - The Center for Peace

2008-02-17T00:51:00.003-05:00

So far, over 10,000 individuals have signed a petition to remove the famous prison from the island and replace it with a Peace Center.

I'm not sure WHY they want that spot.

For one thing, I wonder about the symbolism of building a Peace Center that is accessible only by ferry - is Peace inaccessible to most?

Apparently, the plan would cost one BILLION dollars. Again, not sure of how it costs one billion dollars, but then, when you factor in inevitable governmental cost overruns, it could easily be another quarter-billion above that.

From the Reuters' news article:

San Francisco voters will decide on Tuesday whether to remove the famous Alcatraz Prison visited by thousands of tourists a day and instead create a "global peace centre."

The proposition sharing the presidential primary ballot comes from the director of the California-based Global Peace Foundation who gives his name as Da Vid. He says transforming Alcatraz will "liberate energies, raising the whole consciousness of the Bay Area."

Supporters would like to raze the prison and build a medicine wheel, a labyrinth and a conference centre for non-violent conflict resolution. Volunteers collected 10,350 voter signatures last year to put it on the local ballot.

But even in a city long famed for its embrace of counterculture, many are sceptical about he plan.

"Perhaps we haven't reached the proper stage of enlightenment yet, but we're more inclined to support propositions with defined sources of funding attached to them," the San Francisco Chronicle said in an editorial.

Alcatraz is San Francisco's second-most popular paid tourist attraction after cable cars, luring 1.4 million visitors annually on a short ferry ride into San Francisco Bay.

To sceptics Da Vid responds: "Like John Lennon, I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

Good news - the voters defeated the plan... 72% against. Ouch. Well, at least they gave Peace a chance.

Different Values

2008-02-15T21:56:00.003-05:00

Or... why we're different from them.

Recently, our government has undergone grand debates about whether or not "waterboarding" is torture, or a valid interrogation tool.

In recent news, we've learned that the prisoners at the "despicable" and "horrid" detainee camps at Guantanamo are given education classes and movies for entertainment.

And we know how closely the Coalition forces are held to rigid Rules of Engagement and expectations to uphold the Geneva Convention (though they clearly do not apply, we apply them anyway.)

And then, there's al-Qaeda.

Hürriyet Video'larını izlemet için Flash 7 veya daha yüksek eklenti yüklenmeniz gerekmektedir. Yüklemek için tıklayınız!!!

Curious, think there's any debate within al-Qaeda about this?

Peace Was Our Profession

2008-02-14T00:59:00.003-05:00

Once upon a time, the United States Air Force was simply and clearly delineated into three major commands - MAC, TAC, and SAC (Military Airlift Command, Tactical Air Command, and Strategic Air Command, obviously respectively.)

That all changed in 1992, when the Cold War having been declared won by default, it was felt that a reorganization was needed.

Why?

Various reasons were given, cost-savings of course being one of them, however sometimes organizations reorganize for the sake of reorganizing.

The USAF changed to AMC (Air Mobility Command, to replace the more pronounceable MAC, though not sure why), ACC (Air Combat Command, combining assets from TAC and SAC, and providing another unpronounceable acronym), and to further complicate matters, the nuclear assets of ACC, formerly of SAC, would also report to USSTRATCOM (US Strategic Command). Confused?

Yeah. (First rule of thumb of military acronyms - the military SPEAKS in acronyms, so they should at least be pronounceable.)

We went from having one command managing ALL of the assets needed for nuclear response via air and space (the Navy handling the submarines, logically enough) to spreading the wealth.

The result?

A "Lack of Focus" according to the report recently issued by a panel chaired by retired USAF General Larry Welch.

After the Cold War, the once-vaunted Strategic Air Command, which controlled all Air Force nuclear weapons, was dismantled. The military's nuclear missiles were assigned to a division responsible for operations in space, and its nuclear bombers were moved to Air Combat Command, which also includes nonnuclear fighters and reconnaissance aircraft.

Although the internal Air Force review has not been made public, a copy of its executive summary obtained by The Times asserts that the split organization has led to fragmentation of policies and accountability, without a single commander responsible for nuclear missions.

These are nuclear weapons, folks. Our government agonizes about the potential loss of control of nuclear weapons in other nations, e.g. Pakistan, Russia, and the development of weapons in countries such as Iraq and Iran. Yet, we've managed to instituionalize the loss of control in a formal manner within our own nuclear forces.

An interesting quote from the article:

"We can't go back to where we were in 1991," Peyer said. "We don't live in the same world. It's not the same environment."

(Note: Major General Polly Peyer conducted an internal United States Air Force review.)

The general is correct. Until 1991, we faced primarily ONE nuclear enemy - the Soviet Union (I know, I know, the Soviets had disbanded, but I'm trying to keep this simple). Now? Who knows. Literally. Russia hasn't had the tightest control of its nuclear assets, and those potentially lost nukes could be anywhere. Iran is trying to gain nuclear assets, North Korea does have nuclear assets, and let's not forget our friends, the terrorists.

This is a time when we need ABSOLUTE control over our nuclear forces with a clear, simple chain of command. Anything else is foolish and inviting trouble.

The State Department Represents __________

2008-02-14T00:20:00.003-05:00

I've always believed that at the most basic level, the US Government represents the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America. I know, I know, we've been given plenty of evidence otherwise... however, this is a most egregious example:

The State Department is considering supporting the Palestinian Authority in its quest to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments won by American victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, according to Palestinian officials and defense lawyers involved in the cases.

U.S. officials insist that no decision has been made regarding the complex litigation, which could force the Bush administration to choose between supporting compensation for victims of terrorism and bolstering the Palestinian government as the United States presses for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Testimony in Israeli courts has connected senior Palestinian leaders -- such as the late Yasser Arafat -- to specific terrorist attacks involved in the lawsuits. But Palestinian officials have argued that it makes no sense for the United States to be providing millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority while U.S. courts are threatening to bankrupt it.

In the article from the Washington Post, it's reported that the State Department is actually considering intervening on the part of the Palestinian Authority, and by logical extension, terrorists.

Huh?

The argument from the Palestinians is that the US is giving money to the Palestinian Authority with one hand, while supporting taking the money away with the other.

Ok, I can see that.

Let's introduce the PA to the IRS. I am an employee with the Federal Government. The government pays me with one hand, yet takes my money with the other.

I wonder if the Palestinian Authority would therefore support the abolition of the IRS in America, and perhaps all tax collecting agencies world-wide?

Preposterous, I'm sure they'd believe.

The Palestinians aren't the only ones with views regarding this matter. There are those relatives of the victims of terrorism who are parties to the lawsuits in the Israeli courts. They say that should the US give in to the Palestinian demands, then it'll decrease the moral authority of the War on Terrorism.

Good point.

So, there's debate to be had, no? And what happens to the debate if you return to the preposition that the US Government should represent the best interests of the country's citizens? Well, then in that case, it's simple. A) Stay out of it, and let the Israeli courts decide, and B) support your citizens in their efforts to pursue damages caused them by organizations which are against your moral imperatives, i.e. terrorists.

Sheesh, was that so hard?

The Demise of the Middle Class

2008-02-07T19:27:00.001-05:00

We're DOOMED! Run for the hills... hoard everything. The END IS NEAR!!!

And I thought I was doing so well.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer... we all hear that refrain endlessly (especially from the Left, but the Right's not immune). Anyone hear how the Middle are... middling? Nah... they must be getting crushed out of existence, even though if you DO go along with the illustrative example of "Rich get Richer, poor get poorer", then the Middle must therefore be Expanding. Oh well, government schools.

Mitt Romney Suspends Presidential Campaign

2008-02-07T18:01:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today.

A lot of the commentary about this is how it is a "magnaminous" move, and it generates "good will" towards a run next time.

Hogwash.

You know what I learned about Mitt Romney today? He's a quitter. Not a leader. The going got tough, the future was questionable, and he might have been embarrassed had he continued.

So, he quit.

It's an American trend. War not going well? Let's quit. Job not going well? Let's quit. Not getting the grades you like in school? Let's quit.

It's SO easy to quit.

My question to Mr. Romney is this: Over the campaign, in the elections held thus far, 4,136,944 people voted for you. During elections when turnout is notoriously low (it's SO hard to vote, don't you know), over four million people came out to support you. More than a few as recently as 48 hours ago.

And you quit.

What about your supporters in states not yet voting?

Too bad, he quit.

By the way, the same goes to the rest of the quitters - Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. You want to lead a nation of over 300 million, but you can't tough out a campaign???

IF you're not going to finish, don't start. Don't crush people's hopes and dreams like that.

Let's look at who's left: Hillary and Obama... there's a spirited campaign. And on the Republican side, John McCain, Mike Huckabee (whom so many are writing off, yet he's still winning and fighting), and Ron Paul (whom while gaining few votes, campaigns vigorously and endlessly, which speaks well for him). Also, I suppose we can still include Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes, though... not sure their campaigns ever really started.

I cannot support quitters.

That's not a good indication of a Leadership quality. Maybe it's part of what's indoctrinated into me through the military... never leave anyone behind. Well, Mr. Romney, you just left over four million behind.

A Chilling Way to Start Your Day

2008-02-07T14:40:00.000-05:00

Once upon a time, the United States lived in mortal fear of the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, most look back upon the stories of what it was like back then as... nostalgia. The new youth certainly don't recall what it was like. Or how close to the edge, we often all lived.

When you study the past, you learn how the pendulum often swung back and forth between positions of strength for the US and for the SU.

Prior to 1981, following the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the drawdown of the post-Viet Nam era, the US military was not up to... snuff. President Reagan rapidly changed all that, and made quite a difference in the way the pendulum was swinging.

Prior to that, the following was certainly possible:

Certainly, we can all understand if people have the reaction, "But that was never possible." No? I've written in the past over the need for us to be prepared. Part of that requirement is to try to imagine that, which to us, is unimaginable.

In World War 2, we were surprised when the Japanese developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly their planes into targets!

In this war, we're surprised when the Islamic fascists developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly our planes into targets!

We often cannot fathom those who do not think like us. Whether it's Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, Middle East vs West... Them vs Us.

Planning for your own destruction isn't exactly a joyous, fun activity. There are more exciting things to do, to be sure. However, it IS a necessary one. You must try to imagine what others will do, so you might prepare to prevent it.

Is this a big leap? Look at your house. Many of you plan for burglars. Perhaps they'd creep around in the dark - so you add motion-detector floodlights. Maybe they'll try to sneak into a window, so you make the windows harder to open. And if all else fails, we throw in alarms. And there's steps we take when we're away: stop the mail, ask the police to drive by, set lights to random timers...

WE PLAN.

Well, collectively, this is our house. We must plan. We must dream the unthinkable. And remember that the most likely attack will be the one we didn't dream.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Who knows when the next sunny, clear day will arrive... when the world changes again?

One of My Favorite Senators

2008-01-31T21:12:00.000-05:00

Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC, is one of my favorite Senators. He's always been a positive force in the United States Senate, an excellent representative for South Carolina, AND has been supportive of my family.

So, it pleases me to no end to see him leading the call for Berkeley, California to shape up.

Read here:

DeMint to Berkeley: Support Our Marines or Lose Federal Funds

January 31st, 2008 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released the following statement in response to the decision by the City Council of Berkeley, California to evict the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Station from the city.

“This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families. The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money. If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer funded handouts. I am currently drafting legislation to ensure that American taxpayers aren’t forced to pay for this insult by rescinding all of the earmarks for Berkeley in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, and to transfer the funds to the Marine Corps.”

According to news reports:

The [Berkeley] City Council has voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests." The measure passed this week by a vote of 8-1. The council also voted to explore enforcing a city anti-discrimination law, focusing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In a separate item, the council voted, also 8-1, to give protest group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week.

Kudos, Senator!

Ouch!

2008-01-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

This was in the New York Post.

While the voters in Massachusetts are consistently able to forget Senator Kennedy's past, it's important to remember.

And despite persistence, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Reaction to Press Coverage of Heath Ledger

2008-01-27T21:10:00.000-05:00

From Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily.

Says it pretty well, I think.

Credibility and Reliability in Reporting

2008-01-24T00:20:00.000-05:00

There are many bloggers out there commenting on recent New York Times reporting that is quickly proving to be... less than accurate.

I don't want to duplicate the efforts of those who've written so well on the subject, so let me suggest one particular column that struck me as being particularly eloquent.

Please, take a look at Mark Steyn's column on the subject.

Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2007

2008-01-23T23:58:00.000-05:00

I'm torn.

There are two bills before Congress, a House of Representatives version and a Senate version, titled the "Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2007.

Essentially, and to spare you the legalese in the bills (though I always encourage you to read the bills - unlike our actual lawmakers), it mandates that patients not be sent home from the hospital less than forty-eight hours after a mastectomy is performed.

I remember with Ellicia how happy we were that the Germans held her for quite a few days to ensure everything worked out ok... Mastectomies are MAJOR surgery.

Easy vote. Of course, patients shouldn't be sent home and it's sad that they are.

And I wish, really wish, that such a vote wasn't necessary.

Why am I torn? Because it goes against my beliefs of having the government tell the private sector (and insurance companies are private companies whom we hire to provide a service to us - namely, insurance) how their business should be run.

It's against my core beliefs.

Sigh.

What I feel, essentially, becomes a classic Liberal versus Conservative argument. On the Liberal side, I feel that it should be voted for. These women NEED to stay longer in the hospital to ensure their surgeries go well.

On the Conservative side, I don't want government meddling and mandating the business rules.

So, let's draw a compromise here. Attention insurance companies - here is a MARKET OPPORTUNITY. Differentiate yourself from your competitors by offering better mastectomy care. Customers, especially women at risk, and those who love them, will flock to your company.

Don't make government legislate the morality of good care. Do it on your own.

(Sad note - one of the House bills - HR 119 - was introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Davis, of the 1st Congressional District of Virginia. She passed away last year - from cancer.)

How Low Will We Go?

2008-01-23T22:37:00.000-05:00

Sometimes in my job, I have to sit for hours, staring at a door, waiting on a moment's notice to spring into action.

So, it gives me time to think.

And ponder.

Recently, I started thinking about our fascination, as a culture (not necessarily a nation as it's worldwide), with reality TV. It seems that nothing is out of bounds. People will do anything for the chance of money and/or the fleeting fame of being a reality TV star.

And I heard a radio talk show host mention, in passing, that if executions were televised, they'd get great ratings.

And my twisted mind started to wonder.

Just how far we might go? Not necessarily this year, but... what's to come?

We have had committed couples go to "Temptation Island" to test their love for each other with other people.

We've had people swap relationships in the "Paradise Hotel".

And lately, with "Moment of Truth", we have people answering potentially (ok, DEFINITELY potentially) damaging questions versus a lie detector for money. In front of the people whom their answers will hurt the most.

So, I'm curious. One day...

A new game show comes out. Two teams, say... five people each (maybe we'll make it interesting and they're all family and friends) compete for enormous sums of money. Each round could be $10 million dollars or so.

Here's the catch... As the teams advance, they collect the money... But, when your team loses a round, the team captain has to chose a team member to eliminate.

Permanently. Whom would you sacrifice to advance to another chance for extra ten million dollars? Or call it fifty million?

My point is... I don't think we're that far away. Sure, the gut reaction is... You sick $!@*!!! But, what about all the other shows that have gone before... Each one pushes the boundary, the envelope, just a little bit more. And people watch. And on some channels - MTV, for instance, has some interesting shows - things really get pushed. Remember, same old, same old, doesn't bring ratings. New and daring does.

Just a sad prediction, and I hope I'm wrong...

Are the States Obsolete?

2008-01-22T23:51:00.000-05:00

Is it time for us to dissolve the fifty states (ok, some are commonwealths, but for ease, I'll say "states") and perhaps have just the USA (we'll keep the name for heritage purposes) with administrative districts?

Preposterous?

Once upon a time, notably the antebellum time (pre-1861), the States were remarkably sovereign. Federalism was fully in force with the central government playing a limited role, notably in affairs that affected all the States, and the States managing the local needs.

We have transitioned to a time where the Federal government plays a much larger role in all roles of government.

Education: Once a province of local governments and boards, schools are now managed and ruled according to the Federal government. Often Congress, and the Department of Education, enact laws and policies that all schools which receive federal funds must follow.

Crime: Think of how many crimes, once thought to be a "local" event, now involve the Federal government. Whether it's through the FBI (kidnapping), BATF (guns, tobacco, alcohol), IRS (money), or just the Department of Justice (it's amazing what the US Attorney can find to prosecute someone under - remember, Michael Vick's dogfighting case was a federal one), the Federal government has their fingers in local crimes just as much as the locals do.

Defense: Before the War Between the States, the States had their standing Armies, and the United States Army wasn't noticeably large. Units were organized and defined by their state of origin. Now, yes, we do have the National Guard for the States, but let's be realistic... they are merely subordinate to the Federal military. Virginia and South Carolina, for example, have fighter units. Against whom within the state's borders will they be attacking? Will the Governor of South Carolina order the 169th to shoot down mischevious North Carolina aircraft? Not likely. The same can be asked of Army National Guard units that don't quite fit the bill for state duty - a big need for a state to have M1A2 Main Battle Tanks?

So, that time, too, has passed.

Disasters: This would be easy, right? Local fire, local government. Local flood, local government. However, when a natural disaster occurs, is not one of the first statements that the locals have asked for Federal Disaster relief? Or, Where's FEMA? Where are the Feds? What's the President going to do?!

Taxes: Most of our taxes go to the Federal government. Ironically, a large sum is often then granted back to the States... to do the Federal government's bidding.

Infrastructure: Much of our roadway and other infrastructure funding comes from... care to guess?

These are just a few examples. But, when you watch the Presidential debates or stump speeches, isn't it interesting that most of it is formed on the "What can you do for ME?" or "What will you do for our local area?" basis of thinking? Not necessarily what will be best for the country as a whole...

Laws and regulations are vastly becoming more and more local from the Federal government, eliminating the once generous difference between the varied States. Iowa equals California equals Vermont equals Tennessee...

The time for the States has passed. Let's eliminate the middlemen, and recognize the United States as the primary, and central, government that it is.

A Ban on Dancing

2008-01-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

No kidding. Twenty-three years after Footloose, this is still around.

I understand some folks (Baptists, for one) are against dancing on religious grounds. Fine. Part of the great melting pot (a term that's fallen out of favor in lieu of "multiculturalism") that is our country.

But to legislate against it?

Safe Sex

2008-01-14T00:51:00.000-05:00

Safe Sex

While we're all aware of how Safe Sex can protect you from disease, and even a fairly decent chance of preventing pregnancy, did you know that it could conceivably save the planet?

No?

Awhile back, I'd debated writing about the British woman who had herself sterilized to avoid overpopulating the planet, depleting its resources, and generally causing the destruction of the environment.

It was dismissed as a young woman who made her decision, and while we may not agree with her reasoning, there's something to be said for standing up for your principles. Also, there was the belief that her failing to reproduce will prevent the promulgation of her genes into the gene pool.

Did you know there's a whole movement?

Really.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

This group encourages people to not reproduce so we can stop harming the planet. Eventually, humans would die out, and the planet would recover (the assumption being that it's desperately harmed already).

There are even some catchy cartoons on the site. There's one where storks delivering babies drop them a la bombs into nature destroying forests, fish, and even Bambi.

One of the best, and I'm not truly sure how I managed to watch all the way to the end, was "The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer".

I'll give you a second.

Yep, it's the hilarity, complete with stand-up comic, of the allegory of cancer cells destroying a body, with the body of course being "Gaia" - Earth's alternative nickname.

It's important to know what's out there. What people seriously desire. And some people think the best thing for the human race is if we all die. They see a newborn not as a miracle, but as a devastating future for the planet.

Educate yourself. Take a look.

Maternity Leave for High School Students

2008-01-08T02:01:00.000-05:00

There's an article in the Denver Post about a push by high school students to have the school district grant "maternity leave".

Lori Casillas, executive director of the Colorado Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting, and PRevention, had this quote, "Schools need to say, 'This is what we do to support your learning.' That's not happening."

The students want four weeks away from school.

I'll ask the question. How is their learning supported... if the student is not in school?

The School District does try. They have a school for pregnant students (the article says girls, but really, I feel pregnant and girls is redundant - pesky four weeks of extra learning might have helped there). That's pretty supportive, I think. Sadly, there's a waiting list.

Kayla Lewis, a Senior, 18 years old, and five months pregnant, pushed for the maternity leave at a recent school board meeting. Wouldn't a month of school be hard to replace for a senior? For those who hated math, four weeks = 20 days. Most school years are 180 days. So, missing a month means missing 1/9th of the year.

By comparison sake, from Health and Biology classes, the human gestation period is coincidentally nine months in duration. So, I ask these new mothers (and many are still children themselves), what effect do you think missing a month of gestation would have upon your baby? Let's say we just skipped the 4th month of gestation. Just didn't do it. What would happen to the baby? I'm sure it wouldn't be quite so healthily developed.

What happens to a child's education when they miss a ninth of their school year? How do you recover from that?

I'm not indifferent to the fact that teen pregnancies will happen. They do. Sadly, too often. However, the school is there to support education, which means, having the student in class. There are other agencies of the government which will support the teen pregnancy.

And remember (except for cases of rape), the pregnancy was a choice. A CHOICE. (The other half of being "Pro-choice", as I like to think...)
Sex = Risk of Pregnancy. Sex = Acceptance of Risk. Therefore, Sex = Living with the choice and decision.

Sigh.

(And I must comment on the newspaper's headline "Birth leave sought for girls"... um, Biology makes that redundant. I'm curious though, if the school board encouraged Paternity leave, too (oh my!), would more of the young men step up to "finish what they started"?)

Please Explain This to Me

2008-01-08T00:28:00.000-05:00

In the past four, nearly five, years... the United States military has suffered 3,911 deaths in Iraq.

I'll save the trip to the calculator. That's a little over 800 per annum.

This massive death toll has spawned worldwide protests, marches, changes of governments, etc.

Less than a thousand per year. (And please, PLEASE, I am NOT attempting to lessen the deaths of any ONE of those.)

However, according to the American Cancer Society, there were an estimated 12,332,300 NEW cancer diagnoses worldwide in 2007.

12 1/4 million.

New cases. Not counting the ones already existing.

The ACS also estimates 7,214,285 DEATHS from cancer in 2007.

Where are the protests?

Where are the calls for government action?

Candidates for office - What is YOUR position on this deadly disease? Everyone has a position on whether we should stay in Iraq (some have more than one - it never hurts to have a spare), but who is calling for action against cancer?

In the 1940s, the Manhattan Project cracked the Atom.

In the 1960s, the Apollo Project reached the Moon.

When will it become an imperative to try to reduce, or dare we dream, ELIMINATE this cause of death from the world's surface.

How many more must die, each day, until it becomes important?

Code*Pink - y'all have a good color... Are you with me?

We can fight back this disease, that turns the body against itself... a different, yet familiar, form of insurgency.

There are so many things that government does poorly... but, some things we've done well. Let's put an end to this disease. Let's bring LIFE to so many.

We can do it.

If it's important to us. It is to me. How about you?

Ron Paul

2008-01-07T01:04:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul
By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.
s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

Worth Living?

2008-01-06T23:56:00.000-05:00

We are a risk-averse society.

An example I often give is from when I lived in Germany. I observed how different the driving there was compared to that which I was accustomed in the States. It was safer, even if the speeds were dramatically in excess of anything in America.

How can that be? We've lived under the theory (as seen on billboards and bumperstickers for years) that Speed Kills.

How can autobahns replete with vehicles often cruising at 150 MPH be safer than here in the States where you "Drive 55 to arrive Alive"?

While there are certainly many reasons... the German culture, attention to detail, safe driving habits... I believe one of them is the near certain result of what happens when a Mini loses control at 150+ MPH. No matter what safety features, there's nothing left of machine nor occupant. Period. Devastation.

Compared to here, where we work VERY hard to ensure survivability no matter what. There are driver side airbags, passenger airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags, radar, sonar, run-flat tires, computer controlled steering, brakes, rollover protection, etc. We are determined to make all accidents survivable.

The end result is that we do not fear a wreck. We can afford to be careless... sure we might bounce off of something, but... we'll survive. Consumer Reports and the dealership salesman both said so... not to mention all the TV commercials touting the latest crash test result.

This expands into everything we do. Quite simply, we don't like the idea of dying. We spend gobs of money staving off Death in our last days. We put helmets on our children as they bicycle, strap them into everything, even if it's just for a short while, and curtail holiday traditions lest there be the slightest rumor of a possible chance of a risk (Trick or Treat? No... The neighbor down the street read an article on the Internet about a person who knew a friend who's nephew found a razor blade in a Mars bar.)

Which brings me to my question... well, almost. Please, bear with me for a moment.

I work under the Theory of Opposites. In order to define one thing, there must be an opposite. How can you define Peace - without the concept of War? Life without Death is not Life, but mere... existence? Ends must have Beginnings (and vice versa), White and Black, Wet and Dry, etc., etc.

So, back to my question. How can we have things Worth Living For if there's nothing Worth Dying For?

Hundreds of years ago (and in many cases thousands), people climbed into leaky, barely sea-worthy boats (ships being too generous of a term), and sailed off, never knowing if they'd return.

One hundred years ago, men would take to the skies, often with the very real possibility of returning to the ground in a less than controlled fashion.

Fifty years ago, we would strap people to rockets with more explosive power (as witnessed by their propensity to explode unexpectedly) and launch them into the unknown.

No longer.

We send robots to do our exploring. We send robots to fight our battles.

We watch others do great things. We save risk for Reality TV.

But risk ourselves? No.

So, I ask. What's Worth Living for if nothing is worth Dying for? (My apologies to the grammar police.) I don't mean being reckless; that's foolish. But surely something is worth risk.

It's one of the reasons we have trouble understanding the terrorists and islamofascists. For all we disagree with them, they DO have the courage of their convictions. They believe so strongly in their beliefs, they are willing to forego Life itself to achieve it. (Sure, the same can be said of our military, but let's admit it... our military is in no hurry to die - witness all the armor and precautions we take, and just walk up to any Soldier and say "Risk Assessment" to them and watch the eyes.)

What would You die for? All that we've put into living... what would you chuck it all for? Parents will likely say their children... but, is there anything else? If someone said, you walk into that room, and you're dead... what would you consider to be worth that choice?

Because, if there's nothing worth dying for... then what are we living for?

Have We Lost Our Imagination?

2008-01-06T22:41:00.001-05:00

(Crossposted from A Storm In Afghanistan.)

When was the last time we had an endeavor that captured our attention?

Truthfully, less than a month ago. The New England Patriots (a professional football team in the NFL, for those not familiar) had the first undefeated season in NFL history.

Ok, it wasn't the first. It was the second. The first being the 1972 Miami Dolphins (who coincidentally came very close to having an unvictorious season this year). The Patriots were notable because this was the first sixteen game undefeated season. The 1972 Dolphins having not played sixteen games in their regular season, but fourteen. Of course, there were also two playoff games, and the Super Bowl... giving them seventeen winning games. Which, as you can see, is different than the sixteen games... or something like that.

Anywho, it was a big deal. The game was broadcast on three different networks. This was to ensure that everyone in America would have the opportunity to witness history being made.

So... before that?

Olympics?

World Cup?

America's Cup?

Presidential Elections? Nah, those sadly define apathy.

Surely there's been something...

Anyone?

Perhaps it's our quest to cure Cancer. AIDS? World Hunger? (Nope, those concerts quickly came and went in the eighties.)

Would you believe that what seems to capture our attention these days isn't success? It's failure.

Britney Spears is losing her mind, career, kids... tune in now to watch the latest. Baseball's steroid scandal. The failing of our schools. The salivating of the continuous death count of the Iraq Theater. Murders. Abductions. Virginia Tech. Even the fallacy (yes, I wrote fallacy) of Global
Warming predicates itself upon the humans failure by destroying the world, environment, children's self-esteem, and ________ insert your own item there.

What do we have to enlighten and motivate our youth?

What can we do to excite them?

Where can we find Hope for their future?

Something... um... dare I dream... positive?

In the 1960s, there was the Space Race. Space has now become a mundanity that excites few. And who can blame them? The Space Shuttle, which we are risk averse to launch after two losses over a seventeen year period, has the perception of being no more than a high-tech pick-up truck. We have the International Space Station, where a continuous human presence has been maintained for over seven years, is quickly becoming an irrelavancy to be checked off of the checklist than to be exalted. We'd once dreamed of it having seven (or more) scientists living and working aboard it using many different laboratories. It's reduced to three with fewer labs, and having taken forever to complete. It's final assembly will be the satisfaction of just finally finishing the race, not by trying to win it.

Our space program is quickly stalling out... the Shuttle is already doomed to no more flights after 2010, whether the replacement program - Constellation - is ready or not. And that continues to be scaled back, redesigned, and set up for failure much in the way the Shuttle was prior to its launch in 1981 (yes, folks, twenty-SIX years ago).

This nation... we need to find a focus. A Positive focus.

Yes, personally, I would like it to be a space focus. A new, fruitful expedition of meaningfulness.

However, we need something. Something that will light the fire of the mind of our next generations.

What do you suggest?

And just a thought, but what do our leaders suggest? Or, our potential future leaders?

Don't know? Let's ask them. And not take a shrug, or a nice form letter, as an answer.

There is more to LIFE than just marking time and waiting for the next event to come to us. It's to be savored, and to be created - We can do it. If we want to, that is.

It's time to lead us to our future, it's waiting for us.

Change... For the Sake of Change?

2008-01-05T00:05:00.000-05:00

This is the observation of a good friend of mine, M*A:

(I'll paraphrase.)

After the Iowa Caucus, it dawned on her. There were Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards... all of them proclaiming their desire to change America. To transform it into what it should be, because there is something wrong with it.

A woman.

A black man.

And a man who's house is 28,000 square feet.

What's wrong with this picture? One hundred and fifty years ago, one of those would have been a slave. Ninety years ago, one couldn't have voted, much less been a United States Senator and run for President of the United States of America. And the latter, to have risen through his career to have the wherewithal to live in a house so immense that it boggles the imagination of most Americans...

Yes, something must be wrong with America.

What's wrong with celebrating who we are and the promise we hold for our future?

We Will Bear-y Them With Bears

2007-12-29T20:11:00.000-05:00

I wrote about the Teddy Bear in Sudan previously.

Perhaps you've wondered... What Can I Do?

Now, YOU can have an opportunity to make a difference.

Over at Teddy Bear Muhammad, you can purchase a Teddy Bear with an adorable t-shirt reading, "My Name is Muhammad".

A portion of the cost goes to support the USO.

But, perhaps you're wondering, who would want one?

Might I suggest the following shipping address? I'm curious how many they would receive and what the reaction might be...

Embassy of Sudan
2210 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008

Just a little something to let them know we care.

Some Died to Give You Freedom

2007-12-29T19:56:00.000-05:00

To people throughout the country, our war in Iraq is many things: a noble struggle of Good versus Evil; an example of government or a President run amuck; or many other things... to everyone, it's something different.

And now, apparently it's a way to get free tickets to a Hannah Montana concert.

???

Yes, a winning essay in a contest for free tickets was submitted by a six year old girl (and likely with substantial help from mother). It's opening line was suitably gripping - "My daddy died this year in Iraq."

Just one little tiny, niggling detail. It wasn't true.

While many families, and particularly children, have lost their loved ones in Iraq - this little girl had not.

Her mother is quoted as saying, "We did whatever we could to win."

She taught her daughter how to lie, to sacrifice her integrity for the temporary joy and thrill (and what a thrill for the young girls) of a HM concert.

She taught her daughter that the real sacrifices of those who aren't coming home, and their families left behind, is something to be exploited, the emotions to be be manipulated.

Sigh.

Here's a link to the article in USA Today.

There is good news: the girl lost her tickets when the truth was discovered. And while it's possible that she'll get another chance to get tickets to HM, whether purchased or otherwise... there are some little girls (and boys) who can write "My Daddy died this year in Iraq." And nothing will change that truth for them, no matter how many HM tickets come their way.

One of My Favorite Aussies

2007-12-29T19:33:00.000-05:00

IS BACK!!!

Oh, how I've missed this guy. Periodically, he'll come and check in on the blog, usually spend close to an hour, and leave me all sorts of motivational comments.

So, in case you've missed what the pleasant chap from Melbourne has to say, here it is.

(hehehe)

From the post Protection from Highly Offensive Material:

Anonymous said...

The word is; OFFENSIVE, you poor illiterate yank der.
You certainly are a believer in free speech eh. Like the rest of your inbreed you are pathetic.
"yore eever wid us or yor agin us"
We're all "agin" you, got it yet. What you gonna do, invade 6 billion?
America the only country to have been found guilty of international terrorism by the UN.
What hypercritical scum you are.

December 29, 2007 12:25 AM

And then there is this one from The Barbaric Six:

THE YANK BUSTER said...

I suppose that when a group of Yank 'soldiers'(???) run amok, burst into a home kill he family, including children, they find there and then rape a 13 year old girl before murdering her is not barbaric then eh?
I suppose they are defending freedom and saving the world from terrorists.
You are a seriously deluded, chauvenistic creep, I suggest you get help, quickly, or at least before NOV 08.
Oh yeah, another neo nazi has bit the dust, Howard ex Aussie PM. Not only did his party take a beating but he lost his own seat, and put them out of contention for what will probably be another 10 years. The new PM's first two acts; ratify the Kyoto accord, and pull combat troops out of Iraq.
Ahh how refreshing to be amongst sane, rational, normal Human beings again. Tell me have you got any in your toilet of a country?

December 28, 2007 9:46 AM

And finally... A New Low:

What do you call 10 Yanks at the bottom of a river?.... A good start. said...

Your troops commit mass murder and illegally invade other nations. I wouldn't put it past them to have come up with a con, especially a lame one like this. Although it would be reaching the extent of their imaginations at least they aren't killing anyone for a change.

December 28, 2007 9:56 AM

The Drew Carey Project Continues

2007-12-18T19:52:00.000-05:00

In this episode of the "Drew Carey Project", Drew continues his discussions about eminent domain.

Did You Notice?

2007-12-08T20:48:00.001-05:00

Yesterday. Friday. Truth be told, not much happened. End of the work week... Everyone looking forward to getting away.

It actually was mentioned in many of the papers I took a peek at.

Day of Infamy...

December 7th...

An earlier generation's 9/11 (though not as quickly forgotten and pooh-poohed as ours)...

While "Remember Pearl Harbor!" has no more cachet these days than "Remember the Maine!" or "Remember the Alamo!" (though if you ask any Texans, they'll tell you that that last one is still pretty catchy), it still holds many lessons for us.

History often does, if one is willing to go to class.

Pearl Harbor introduced the American public to the concept of "It *CAN* happen here" as the Japanese ('Japs' in the no longer PC vernacular) reached out and touched American territory in a way not imagined.

Imagination. That is often our greatest failure, isn't it? So often, the warning signs, the information, is readily available to those who have the imagination to solve a jigsaw puzzle never before seen. Too often easily done in hindsight, the oft-ignorant conclusion is that accomplishing the same in foresight is simple and expected.

That in this War for Oil (WWII, folks), a nation could sortie a massive naval force, sail thousands of miles undetected, and launch a surprise attack that could massively cripple our forces, and violate the gentlemanly rules of war? Pah! All evidence to the contrary, it was difficult to *imagine* that such was possible... Or at the very least, remotely PROBABLE.

In the late 60's, NASA (and the nation) suffered the first deaths of astronauts aboard a spacecraft. No, not thousands of miles away, but on the ground, in full view of everyone... Why? For a myriad of reasons, but the fundamental one being a failure of imagination. For all the contingency plans, no one imagined a routine test aboard an unfueled rocket to be hazardous.

In aviation, many accidents are the result of the crew and aircraft getting trapped into a corner that no engineer ever imagined possible or a risk.

And with 9/11, we never imagined airliners being used as human-guided missiles to be a real, cogent threat.

Yet, it happened.

One of our first lessons, as a nation, in the need for imagination, was Pearl Harbor. We were pulled kicking and screaming from our safe cocoon into a war that had already enveloped the rest of the world for several years.

These days, there are fewer and fewer stewards of that memory walking amongst us. They are joining their shipmates at a rate that is sapping their dwindling number. Often, local Survivors' Associations have disbanded, due to a lack of membership. There's not many left to tell the tale, and even if there were, would we stop to listen?

December 7th comes annoyingly in the midst of the shopping season, party whirlwinds, and the more mundane facets of our hectic, blessed lives.

If we were to stop and listen to the tale, as it softly becomes a hoarse whisper, we'll be taught. We'll be reminded of the lesson that it *can* happen here; if only, you can imagine it. And remember, imagination does not solely belong to those who believe the American cause to be just and right.

Anyone can imagine...

Imagine what we will be remembering in the years and decades to come.

Thank You to Ben Stein

2007-12-07T17:33:00.000-05:00

I've been a big fan of Ben Stein. From first seeing his deadpan delivery in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (is that movie really 21 years old?!?!), to enjoying his writings in his columns.

He's delightful. Witty. Intelligent.

Here's a little video for you...

(Thanks to "My Daily Rant" for both the link and the blogroll.)

Protection From Highly Offensive Material

2007-12-07T17:09:00.000-05:00

We, as a nation, are blessed. We know this. And now, we've been happily saved from having to endure some extremely offensive material on our public airwaves.

Yes, NBC has refused to sell ad space to a despicable organization known for obscene and vile hate-filled material.

However, in the interest of free speech, I will be happy to enlighten you to those materials right here.

Click below to watch the rejected ads, foolishly submitted to NBC for airing to the nation. Be warned, this is SICK stuff.

See? Disgusting.

Oh wait, maybe it's just disgusting that NBC wouldn't want this material to air on their networks. Just so you know who you're watching...

Drew Carey Project - Episode 4

2007-12-04T17:36:00.000-05:00

In this latest episode, Drew Carey explores the Dallas Police Department's raids on poker games at the local VFW.

Eminent Domain

2007-12-02T15:01:00.000-05:00

The latest from the Drew Carey Project.

Eminent Domain is one of the quiet concerns that many people are unaware is even happening to the egregious level that it's reaching.

Take a peek.

Offensive to Religion

2007-12-01T19:20:00.001-05:00

Just a short question... something to ponder, if you will.

Which do you think would be more offensive, insulting, and threatening to a world religion...

The artistic work "Piss Christ"...

or

a Teddy Bear named "Mohammed" by some seven year olds...

(Image from Teddybearfriends)

Just something to ponder...

Disgusting! or... You Get What You Pay For

2007-12-01T19:08:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin has a wonderful little blurb up... I highly recommend you take a peek, but perhaps not after eating.

We always hear, as she reminds us, that people are doing the jobs Americans won't do. That Americans have priced ourselves out of certain jobs.

Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, we get what we pay for. And just maybe, we should be willing to demand a little bit more...

The Barbaric Six

2007-12-01T18:59:00.000-05:00

A friend sent this to me from another blog, apparently Jerry Pournelle.

Thought it was worth sharing. Click on the link to go look.

The Barbaric Six

Well, in Louisiana the Reverend Jackson and other black leaders seem to be saying that if some high school students hang a rope from a tree, they get to burn down the school, beat a white kid senseless, and generally act like barbarians.

Liberals, who expect blacks to behave this way rather than to behave like citizens, encourage this sort of thing. They like feeling paternalistic. Having grown up in an aristocratic society where we were supposed to look out for blacks and defend them against the lower class crackers, I can tell them: it's not a job you really want. Encouraging people to be in tutelage rather than grow up doesn't have a very high payoff either psychologically or economically. I got the hell out of that society by joining the Army at age 17 (having convinced the recruiting officers I was 18; after all, I was a high school graduate), and I have not missed that aspect of the Old South since. I don't want to be responsible for other people who are expected not to act like adults.

Hanging a noose from a tree is not a crime. It's not a nice thing to do, but then rap music played at high volume accusing all women of being ho's and inviting violence against the police and authorities is not nice. Does that mean that if a group of kids decides to destroy the boom box and beat its owner senseless they should be justified and defended by marches? If so, then we are talking about revolution and ethnic cleansing, open warfare. Let them fight it out to exhaustion. Bring Iraq to Louisiana and Mississippi and California.

Is that really what the liberals who are flocking to Louisiana want?

I expect black and white citizens to act civilized, and finding excuses for barbarism does not seem like a worthwhile activity.

A New Low

2007-11-25T17:35:00.000-05:00

A good friend from the great state of Alaska sent me this tidbit:

FROM: Sgt. Smith David Fitte,

Important Message,
Good day,
My name is David Smith Fitte, I am an American soldier, I am serving in the military of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq , as you know we are being attacked by insurgents everyday and car bombs. We managed to move funds belonging to Saddam Hussein’s family in 2003. The total amount is US$25 Million dollars in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills, this money has been kept somewhere outside Baghdad for sometime but with the proposed troop in increase by president Bush, we are afraid that the money will be discovered hence we want to move this money to you for safe keeping pending the completion of our assignment here. You can go to this web link to read about events that took place there:
(Link removed)
We are ready to compensate you with good percentage of the funds, No strings attached, just for you to help us move it out of Iraq. Iraq is a war zone, so we plan on using diplomatic means to shipping the money out as military cargo, using diplomatic immunity. If you are interested I will send you the full details, my job is to find a good partner that we can trust and that will assist us. Can I trust you? When you receive this letter, kindly send me an e-mail signifying your interest including your most confidential telephone numbers for quick communication also your contact details.
This is risk free.
With regards from,
Sgt. David Smith Fitte.

This is just a new low. It's a variation on the theme of the famous "Nigerian" e-mail. And to imply that our troops are involved in this? Oh come on... What's worse? Just as the Nigerian e-mails keep coming because somebody replies to them, so will someone read this, believe it, and it will keep going.

Disgusting.

Just a Thought on Security

2007-11-21T23:50:00.001-05:00

This passing thought occurred to me the other day.. Are we TOO secure?

Now, before you start ranting back with, "No, you fool! Don't you know the _____ are about to attack us ANY minute?! They could even already be here," let me explain.

At work, there's a sign listing our various threat conditions. There's FPCON ALPHA, THREATCON ORANGE, INFO ALERT LEVEL ONE, and HOMELAND SECURITY LEVEL ELEVATED.

I'm sure up at the Pentagon, there's still the DefCon.

And who knows what other threat scales are out there.

To send an email (once I've already logged on to our super-secure system, though the level of its neediness leads me to believe that it's a super-insecure system) requires THREE separate security checks. And that's just to forward the latest ha-ha that someone else sent to me.

To get onto base, we have very diligent guards carefully checking each ID. But, I also saw some Jehovah's Witnesses seeking some converts (even on a military base, I guess it never hurts to try to make a convert or two), so how tight can it be, even after the Fort Dix incident (and others I won't discuss here)?

Part of the problem is that there are so many threat scales. Is a condition of "Three" good or bad? Well, if it's on a scale of one to four, maybe not, but who's to say the scale doesn't go to twenty? Usually just the current status is displayed, not the whole scale. And is a "One" high or low?

If someone ran into the office saying, "They've just upped the InfoCon level to Bravo!" what do I do? Should I start burning important documents or maybe just not surf to the CNN.com website? Oh my!

Is Orange a good color or a bad one? And we've been at it for so long... What are the other colors like? I think a nice paisley alert level could be fun.

Oh, and when you fly (wait for it... I'm not going to go into the charade that we call Screening Security )... Want to amuse yourself? Often posted on clip-on signs above the "Wait-Here-in-This-Ridicuously-Long-Line-That-Has-Osama-Laughing-As-We-Pat-Down-Elderly-Wheelchairbound-Ladies" meandering maze of belts, you'll find warnings. Warnings! You may be flying out of Podunk International Airport, but the Director of Homeland Security, and the TSA, would blike to warn you that the airport in Kuala Lampur does not meet their standards of security.

Oh my! I quickly will point this out to the one hundred and fifty people behind me in line, in case their plans had them going there. Of course, it's more likely that they're going to another US airport, which recent news reports say have security that does NOT meet the standards of the Director of Homeland Security, and the TSA. (For those who aren't familiar, recent tests of security showed that the lil' ol' ladies, and possibly others from their bridge(bombing) clubs, were able to smuggle plenty of suspicious bomb parts past our crack security forces. And we worry about Kuala Lampur.)

Ok, so what's my point?

We, as a whole, make a big show about doing SOMETHING for security, but in the process, we end up doing nothing.

You can imagine the meetings, can't you? The Commander or Director goes around the table and asks, "In two weeks, I want to know what your departments are doing about security."

And two weeks later, they all come back. "Sir, we've instituted this Five-Level scale to let us know what our threat level is!" "Excellent work, Smith!"

And lo and behold, not to be out-done, the others ALSO develop scales in their departments. "Sir! Our scale is more nuanced... It has Six levels." "Ours uses colors so people can easily understand the threat.." (Because if there's anything more confusing than colors, it's the numbers one through five or the letters of the alphabet!)

So, we have all these systems to show just how hard we're working on security. Just like standing in that long line at the airport, it's a big show.

No one truly seems to understand our threats (pretty colors and letters aside) because we've become too focused on the show instead of the substance.

Let's put and end to this nonsense. Either we can ditch all this acting and admit what the enemy already knows (and deep down, so do we) - that it's a show OR we can come up with a coherent approach and really be serious about our security.

Otherwise, we're just inevitably making it easier for them by tangling ourselves in multicolored knots.

Support Our Troops

2007-11-21T00:19:00.000-05:00

We continually here about how everyone "supports the troops". Right.

The "troops" need money. The Democrats are again playing with the funding bills trying to forestall them getting the money in hopes of convincing President Bush to pull them out.

He's said he has no intention of doing so.

They've made over one hundred attempts, all of which have failed.

And the troops still don't have their money.

But, they support the troops.

So, Senator Reid, while you're doing your political maneuvering to keep the Senate in session over Thanksgiving break (so the President doesn't sneak a recess appointment by you), how about PASSING THE APPROPRIATION BILLS?

Before the troops start running out of money.

Idle threat? Yeah, there are bottomless funds. Read here.

Support the troops. Put the money where your mouths are.

Kudos to Restaurant Manager

2007-11-21T00:12:00.001-05:00

Yes, yes, I know... he's against the children.

But, he's also right.

When a mother could not quiet her screaming child (and possible allegations of her being disruptive as well), he asked her to leave the restaurant.

Yes!

Way to go.

And I say that as a single father. It's not always easy to get out. BUT, my enjoyment does not come at the expense of other's. All part of the joys of parenting. Sometimes, you don't get to eat out. Not with your kids.

If you're in the Louisville, KY, area, please patronize this restaurant.

And maybe, it wouldn't hurt to drop by www.ocharleys.com and let them know you support this manager!

With Soldiers Like These...

2007-11-20T23:51:00.000-05:00

I know I am honored... and believe we ALL should be honored, to count Specialist Hoyt as one of our Army Strong Soldiers.

Don't know who he is?

Not surprised. I did a search for him on CNN.com. Nada.

So, maybe you'll need to mosey over to FoxNews to read about him.

Specialist Hoyt was injured in an IED blast on 13 November while he was on foot patrol. Five feet away from him, one of his comrades was killed by the blast.

What was his reaction?

Specialist Hoyt told his officers his job wasn't finished, and then... RE-ENLISTED!

Like I said... we should all be honored.

2nd Amendment Up for Review

2007-11-20T22:52:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case about the District of Columbia's personal handgun ban.

For the past 31 years, DC has banned private ownership of handguns. In CNN's story, Police Chief Cathy Lanier is quoted as saying, "I see the results of gun violence every day. The weakening of the district's gun law will inevitably lead to an increase in injury, and worse, death."

So, here's my question.

If guns are banned in DC, then... how are those gun deaths occurring? You mean, people are breaking the law??? What are those people called.... oh yes, Criminals. So apparently, the people using guns are the ones who are already predisposed to breaking the law. And the law-abiding ones aren't using guns.

And can't defend themselves.

Is the gun ban working?

I invite you to take a look at these statistics. DC is a small area. Very small. Look at all those murders, and other crimes. Rapes (last thing a woman needs when she's being raped is a handgun...), burglaries (can you imagine how relieved burglars are to know that the homeowners have NO defense?), etc...

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this case. We can only hope that they don't parse "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... those of us out in the hinterland, even those educated at government indoctrination centers, can understand the simplicity of those words.

Previous postings on this subject: "Gun Control" and "I Mourn".

Mike Huckabee's First TV Ad

2007-11-18T18:12:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee, Republican Candidate for President of the United States, has distributed his first TV ad.

It's different. A candidate with a sense of humor.

I like it.

Not your typical ad.

And when you're done, please wander over to his official website.

You Have GOT to be KIDDING Me!

2007-11-18T14:33:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press is reporting that the mother and step-father of Tawana Brawley are wanting the State of New York to re-open the investigations into the `incident'.

"New York State owes my daughter. They owe her the truth," said Glenda Brawley. She reiterated her stance that her daughter was indeed raped by a group of white men who smeared her with feces and scrawled racial epithets on her body.

The truth.

If I recall, an investigation was thoroughly done. No evidence of any sexual assault was found.

In fact, subsequent allegations went a long way to disprove her allegations. To the point that legal liabilities were found against the Brawleys and Rev. Sharpton.

But now, the State of New York owes her. What, pray tell, will come forward twenty years later that wasn't discovered during the INTENSE media scrutiny twenty years ago?

She's even changed her name - to escape, no doubt, the stigma that has become associated with this case and how it's gone down in history. Yes, back in 1988, she was given a new, "beautiful" Muslim name.

By whom?

Louis Farrakhan. He did get a fairly good quote in the article...

Mr. Farrakhan, who had invited Miss Brawley to the convention, told an audience of 10,000 on Sunday that he also rejected the grand jury's findings, and he vowed vengeance on those who, he said, had attacked the girl. ''You raped my daughter and I will kill you and dismember your body and feed it to the fowl of the air,'' he said.

How very special. Once again, the Religion of Peace shines through.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's she, and her family, who owe the state, and owe something to The Truth.

Until then, we're just wasting time.

Civilized Religion

2007-11-15T23:14:00.000-05:00

Some people write better than I... one of those is Orson Scott Card. Want to pleasure your perusing palate? Take a peek.

Thoughts on Warren Buffett

2007-11-15T22:52:00.000-05:00

On my other blog, I posted a quote by Warren Buffett, the ultra-rich uber-billionaire.

Recently, he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He asked them not to eliminate the estate tax, saying, "I think we need to ... take a little more out of the hides of guys like me."

Mr. Buffett, may I make a suggestion? If you feel you have too much money, you could certainly help your country by writing a check (feel free to throw in a few extra zeroes) and mail it to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The government requests you write "Gift to Reduce the Debt Held By the Public" in the memo space.

And since you don't think you pay enough, feel free to put extra stamps on the envelope, too.

But to arrogantly suggest how the government should tax those who make far less than you... well, that's spending other people's money. Speak for yourself. Write a check. It'll increase your credibility score.

Politician Wastes Words - Citizens Protest

2007-11-15T22:34:00.000-05:00

Perhaps you've heard. The Southeast is suffering an extreme drought. Georgia is particularly anxious as they watch their lakes and rivers dip lower and lower.

The Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue (You can't make names like that up, can you?), has tried numerous efforts to alleviate the crisis. Encouraging water rationing, conservation... even negotiating with the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce the flow of water to other states.

And there's not water water everywhere... perhaps soon, not enough to drink.

So, what's a Governor to do?

Governor Perdue decided to pray for rain. Apparently, it's not just a cliche.

And atheists are staging a protest.

Now, here's my question. Atheists don't believe in God. Or any god for that matter. So, therefore, in their mind and belief, Governor Perdue is... wasting his breath. Talking to thin air. Perhaps, at worst, offering a salve to his believing constituents.

So, if the Governor is merely talking, and not really praying, since there's no deity to which to pray, what's the fuss?

~~Heaven~~, er... ~~God~~, er... hmmm, John Doe forbid that a politician ever give an empty, pointless speech... which to an atheist, is just what praying for rain would be, right?

This Threat Doesn't Seem to be Going Away

2007-11-15T22:13:00.000-05:00

The topic is being raised, again. What topic?

Why, what I, and apparently Doug Ross, think would be one of the most devastating attacks upon our country. And also, a quite likely one.

The children.

Previously, I wrote both here and here.

Please, take a look... and keep an eye out.

Global Warming

2007-11-15T22:09:00.000-05:00

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the ‘research’ to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus... I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you ‘believe in.’ It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it... There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril... In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling.” —John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

We Always Hate to Know You're Faking It

2007-11-10T14:56:00.001-05:00

News reports today (I'll add links later) detail that Mrs. Clinton's campaign has admitted planting questions at a news conference.

Stupid.

First, wasn't anyone on her staff paying attention when a few weeks prior, FEMA staff had the genius idea of faking a whole news conference? Apparently so, yet instead of taking the expected Democrat outlook (expected because FEMA is currently under a Republican administration, or more exactly the most evil doer of all, Bush) that this was a colossal error to be focused upon and made fun of... No, someone took notes thinking, "What a GREAT idea!"

Did I mention stupid?

This is actually simple. There are some truths (dare I use the word?) that Americans rely on. One is that the news is REAL (isn't that correct, Mr Rather?) . We do not like the idea of it being faked or created (Dateline got in trouble awhile back for gas tanks falsely exploding).

It is also true that we expect our politicians to lie. It wouldn't be such an enduring punch line if it weren't true. We certainly expect anyone with the surname 'Clinton' to do it. The catch is... You're expected to at least not be obvious about it ("I did not have sex with that woman"... Ohhh, THAT woman, then yes).

We dumped the FEMA guy who oversaw faking the news conference. Does the Clinton campaign expect a different standard be upheld?

It comes down to this, and if I may be so crass, since Mrs. Clinton is playing the gender card, she SHOULD know this... If you're going to fake it, and we'd like to believe you're not, be convincing and don't get caught. Few things bruise a man, or a voter's ego, such as discovering that it was all an act.

From Another Time, Another Era

2007-11-09T20:47:00.000-05:00

Sent by a good friend and angel:

I'd like to say I have something to add, but... it really speaks for itself.

Please, go take a peek over here.

New Videos to Peruse

2007-11-04T14:34:00.000-05:00

As I've said in a previous post, my political views lean more Libertarian.

One of my favorite actor/comedians is Drew Carey. He also classifies himself as Libertarian.

Recently, he's begun to film a series of film spots for Reason TV.

Here are the first two:

Drew Carey Discusses Traffic and Gridlock

Drew Carey Discusses Medicinal Marijuana

More as they become available. I hope these are both entertaining and educational.

She Raises a Good Question

2007-11-03T23:32:00.000-04:00

I've wondered this myself, but Michelle Malkin says it a bit better.

Forget for a second whether you adore or loathe her...

We hear, repeatedly, how you can be against the war and support the troops. So, here is a perfect opportunity - non-partisan, pure support the troops effort. No statements about the war being made.

And even better, you can host it on your blog without even having to donate yourself (though, I would recommend doing so.)

Sure, you are asked to join a "team" that represents a military service, and so if you don't have a fondness for the military, that can be a bit hard to swallow... but still, it's an opportunity to support the troops. And if you're ardently against the war, this is a bonus, as it's for the troops who've been savagely used by the em Bush Administration in their vicious, private war to secure outrageous oil profits for their friends in Texas (did I get that right?).

So, where are the blogs from the liberal side of the field?

The silence, as they say, is not only deafening, but it's speaking volumes.