Growing up, one of the more difficult aspects of the American election system to learn (for me) was the purpose of the state primary and caucus elections. Why would some states vote for "President" twice? Why did it make such a monumental impact which candidate Iowa or New Hampshire voted for? How important could the opinion of registered voters be in Ohio, compared to the voting choices of whole nation on the first Tuesday in November?
I learned that lesson by following the election process in 1988.
I watched Bob Dole, Senate Minority Leader from Kansas and the run-away leader after Iowa, self-destruct in front of the American public by venting his anger and bitterness at Bush by accusing him of "Lying about his record".
I watched (live) what can only be called the most amazing "slam-dunk" in political debate prior to the founding of the Bund when Lloyd Benson told Dan Quayle "Senator, you are NO Jack Kennedy!"
I watched Michael Dukakais very nearly lose the Democratic nomination to ultra-liberal candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson... right up till "Hambone" Barber (Jackson's half-brother) was convicted of murder in the first... which cost Jackson Wisconsin and Colorado, and the nomination.
As Ryan posted in his last, the situation in Pakistan has refocused foreign policy within the campaign. Now that Bhutto is dead by an assassins hand, we see the threads of democracy in one of the very few allied Islamic states unravelling before our eyes. We see that al Qaeda can still reach out from the caves and hidy-holes of the world to effect and alter the politics and security of entire nations and regions. We see the renewed threat of a nuclear-capable Iran, and we can all imagine the response that Israel will have to that situation.
In the last few weeks, we have seen Huckabee admit to knowing nothing about the NIE Iran assessment, to have forgotten that Pakistan lifted it's "State of Emergency" months ago, and to not having "read up" on the latest Israeli-PA Peace efforts... all this from one of the GOP candidates with "executive experience", too. Clinton, on the other hand, can boast that she knew Bhutto personally, and had met her more than a dozen times... as did Richardson from AZ.
Giuliani gains in the latest polls because he directed "tough talk" at exactly this kind of terrorist interference in the democratic process numerous times, while Ron Paul still insists that if it isn't happening within the US borders, it isn't our problem... the same crap he has been spouting since the very same 1988 election I referred to earlier when he ran as the Libertarian candidate and came in a VERY distant third.
John Kerry accused Bush of benefiting from the bin Laden tapes that surfaced late in the '04 election, and the Bhutto assassination may have the same effect now. The candidates that can best address questions and concerns pertaining to terror and foreign policy will carry the day in Iowa and New Hampshire, and history tells us that those candidates that win IA and NH win the nomination.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Archduke Ferdinand
First order of business ... Titus, in the mail tonight, goes out tomorrow, give it 7 days or so.
Now, as to the title. Within this group we should all know who this is and by extension, the world-wide ramifications for millions that can come of a single assassination. For those who don't know, the Archduke and his wife were on state visit to Bosnia as representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While in the capital of Sarajevo a young Pan Slavic nationalist gunned them down. He was an advocate of Bosnian independence, and had sympathizers in Serbia, and more importantly, Russia. When the Austrian investigation of the murders took them into Serbia, the Serbs refused, Austria then declared war on Serbia - whom had a secret mutual defense treaty with Russia, who then declared, by obligation, war on Austria. Germany, having its own mutual defense treaty with Austria declared war on Russia. Russia had a treaty with France, and knowing they would then come to the aid of Russia, Germany simultaneously declares war on the French. France was allied by treaty with Great Britain, so the Brits declare war on Germany, and the fading Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, fearing Russo expansionism and having hopes of reclaiming there newly independent Slavic states (such as Romania) sides up with Germany. A single assassin had plunged all of Europe into war.
Now, it is well known that young Islamic radicals exist within the Pakistani Army, including the intelligence services, and were thought to be responsible for two previous attempts on Musharraf's life. They, in the chaotic aftermath of Bhutto's death may finally try to knock off Musharraf. You would then have Islamo-fascists in charge of nuclear weapons. This means of course that the administration's policy, along with many Democrats, of urging Musharraf to weaken himself by legitimizing Bhutto and having him relinquish control of the army may prove disastrous. If fundamentalists gain control of the army and her arsenal India will immediately go to depth-con 5. They may be forced to strike the Paks. We will be forced to aid India covertly or overtly until Western friendly forces regain control of Pakistan. In the interim, China and Russia, interested in seeing a weakened United States will aid covertly the Pakistani extremists with assurances from other state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, that Pakistan will not interfere with Chinese or Russian shipping or commerce. And presto - we will be in a proxy world war. All caused by a single assassin's bullet.
Enter Real Politk, and the left's either refusal or inability to embrace it in the here and now. Titus et al will argue that the backing of quasi-democrats (small "d") in 3rd world countries is exactly what causes animus towards the US. He 'll argue that Carter was justified in calling for democratic reforms, in opposition to the ruling style of the Shah. That such policies of propping up the occasional "thug" creates more terrorists then it suppresses. Certainly, in the past this has been true. However, I argue that much like with the Shah, in this instance to insist on democracy in a hot bed of Islamic-fascism as Pakistan has become, is naive in the extreme and will yield results much like in Palestine where Hamas now governs. The difference being those fundamentalists and terrorists don't have a nuclear arsenal at their disposal like would be the case in Pakistan. Either through a coup of a weakened democratically elected PM or through the general elections (which Carter will no doubt be on hand to certify) the probability of radicals gaining control of nuclear weapons is too great minus Musharraf. It is time to employ common sense and recognize both the the reality and lethality of the situation, rather than take an ideological stand which dictates we not support men like Musharraf, EVER, because they employ the occasional martial law. And lets bare in mind he is not of the level of a Saddam by any stretch - no rape rooms and mass graves. He is exactly the type of foreign leader we have to hold our nose in support rather than risk the devils we don't know. Is it hypocritical to our declared democratic motives in Iraq and Afghanistan - of course. But THAT is the essence of Real Politik, or "the politics of reality" which built and maintained empires in the 19th century. Men like Bismark used this approach for decades but also defended and promoted a peace process when the time was right. It is what is needed now from the West, both to ensure our national security and to out flank the Chinese, and to an extent Russia in this region of the world. National Security strategy must not be monolithic in its approach - purely ideological or purely nationally advantageous. It must be a blend with the appropriate amount of force applied when necessary. We support Musharraf, he wrests control and in return, as a thank you we launch a joint operation into the Pashtun lands of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan and finally capture or kill Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Then, in a couple years we support a democratic process in Pakistan and not only avoid a proxy world war and a nuclear exchange between the Paks and India, but also get the man responsible for 9/11. That's the Ryan doctrine in the politics of reality.
FR
Now, as to the title. Within this group we should all know who this is and by extension, the world-wide ramifications for millions that can come of a single assassination. For those who don't know, the Archduke and his wife were on state visit to Bosnia as representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While in the capital of Sarajevo a young Pan Slavic nationalist gunned them down. He was an advocate of Bosnian independence, and had sympathizers in Serbia, and more importantly, Russia. When the Austrian investigation of the murders took them into Serbia, the Serbs refused, Austria then declared war on Serbia - whom had a secret mutual defense treaty with Russia, who then declared, by obligation, war on Austria. Germany, having its own mutual defense treaty with Austria declared war on Russia. Russia had a treaty with France, and knowing they would then come to the aid of Russia, Germany simultaneously declares war on the French. France was allied by treaty with Great Britain, so the Brits declare war on Germany, and the fading Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, fearing Russo expansionism and having hopes of reclaiming there newly independent Slavic states (such as Romania) sides up with Germany. A single assassin had plunged all of Europe into war.
Now, it is well known that young Islamic radicals exist within the Pakistani Army, including the intelligence services, and were thought to be responsible for two previous attempts on Musharraf's life. They, in the chaotic aftermath of Bhutto's death may finally try to knock off Musharraf. You would then have Islamo-fascists in charge of nuclear weapons. This means of course that the administration's policy, along with many Democrats, of urging Musharraf to weaken himself by legitimizing Bhutto and having him relinquish control of the army may prove disastrous. If fundamentalists gain control of the army and her arsenal India will immediately go to depth-con 5. They may be forced to strike the Paks. We will be forced to aid India covertly or overtly until Western friendly forces regain control of Pakistan. In the interim, China and Russia, interested in seeing a weakened United States will aid covertly the Pakistani extremists with assurances from other state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, that Pakistan will not interfere with Chinese or Russian shipping or commerce. And presto - we will be in a proxy world war. All caused by a single assassin's bullet.
Enter Real Politk, and the left's either refusal or inability to embrace it in the here and now. Titus et al will argue that the backing of quasi-democrats (small "d") in 3rd world countries is exactly what causes animus towards the US. He 'll argue that Carter was justified in calling for democratic reforms, in opposition to the ruling style of the Shah. That such policies of propping up the occasional "thug" creates more terrorists then it suppresses. Certainly, in the past this has been true. However, I argue that much like with the Shah, in this instance to insist on democracy in a hot bed of Islamic-fascism as Pakistan has become, is naive in the extreme and will yield results much like in Palestine where Hamas now governs. The difference being those fundamentalists and terrorists don't have a nuclear arsenal at their disposal like would be the case in Pakistan. Either through a coup of a weakened democratically elected PM or through the general elections (which Carter will no doubt be on hand to certify) the probability of radicals gaining control of nuclear weapons is too great minus Musharraf. It is time to employ common sense and recognize both the the reality and lethality of the situation, rather than take an ideological stand which dictates we not support men like Musharraf, EVER, because they employ the occasional martial law. And lets bare in mind he is not of the level of a Saddam by any stretch - no rape rooms and mass graves. He is exactly the type of foreign leader we have to hold our nose in support rather than risk the devils we don't know. Is it hypocritical to our declared democratic motives in Iraq and Afghanistan - of course. But THAT is the essence of Real Politik, or "the politics of reality" which built and maintained empires in the 19th century. Men like Bismark used this approach for decades but also defended and promoted a peace process when the time was right. It is what is needed now from the West, both to ensure our national security and to out flank the Chinese, and to an extent Russia in this region of the world. National Security strategy must not be monolithic in its approach - purely ideological or purely nationally advantageous. It must be a blend with the appropriate amount of force applied when necessary. We support Musharraf, he wrests control and in return, as a thank you we launch a joint operation into the Pashtun lands of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan and finally capture or kill Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Then, in a couple years we support a democratic process in Pakistan and not only avoid a proxy world war and a nuclear exchange between the Paks and India, but also get the man responsible for 9/11. That's the Ryan doctrine in the politics of reality.
FR
More electronics then NASA ...
... that's a reference to my eight year old whose one little hand held device has more technology in it then did Sputnik - and I mean that literally. Great Christmas though!
As I'm sure you all have heard the former Pakistani PM Bhutto (sp?) was assassinated today. In brief the West has been pressuring Musharraf to lay down the military title (which he did) and inch ever closer to having a democratic election which would undoubtedly pit him against the former (and now deceased) Madam Prime Minister. We will see what happens now. I know this - I'd rather have the quasi-democratic western friendly Musharraf at the helm rather then risk a coup over a weakened, even though democratically elected, prime minister. Because the coup conspirators would inevitably be Islamic radicals, and given Pakistan is the only Arab (and for now Persian) nation with a nuclear arsenal, you can see why one would see it that way.
More later ...
FR
As I'm sure you all have heard the former Pakistani PM Bhutto (sp?) was assassinated today. In brief the West has been pressuring Musharraf to lay down the military title (which he did) and inch ever closer to having a democratic election which would undoubtedly pit him against the former (and now deceased) Madam Prime Minister. We will see what happens now. I know this - I'd rather have the quasi-democratic western friendly Musharraf at the helm rather then risk a coup over a weakened, even though democratically elected, prime minister. Because the coup conspirators would inevitably be Islamic radicals, and given Pakistan is the only Arab (and for now Persian) nation with a nuclear arsenal, you can see why one would see it that way.
More later ...
FR
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Hollywood veterans...
Just a point about Ryan's previous post concerning vets in Tinsel Town...
I take nothing away from the cadre of actors and famous men and women that set aside their fame and fortune to help win the war for the USA... there are too many to name, and they all made great sacrifices to get the job done. God bless them all!
Is it something to consider, however, that people like Stewart, Reagan, Gable, Ted Williams (of Red Sox fame) were famous before they served. They still served, and their service was just as dedicated and important as those millions that weren't famous, but their fame was already there.
What about people like R. Lee Ermey, and Drew Carey? Brian Dennehy? Rod Carew? Scott Glenn? Gene Hackman? Don Imus? George Jones? Jim Lehrer? Lee Marvin (he's a biggie!)? Steve McQueen? Montell Williams? All served as US Marines in active duty posts, and many saw combat in one form or another. Notice anything about this list in particular?
VERY FEW liberals on this list. In fact, the only one I might class as a real modern "liberal" is Montell... the rest are moderates at worst, nothing more. Call them "conservatives with a conscience".
Service in the military brings a sense of duty and patriotism that no other facet of activism can bring, in my eyes. Many on the left label this as indoctrination or brain-washing.
I simply call it "civic awareness."
I take nothing away from the cadre of actors and famous men and women that set aside their fame and fortune to help win the war for the USA... there are too many to name, and they all made great sacrifices to get the job done. God bless them all!
Is it something to consider, however, that people like Stewart, Reagan, Gable, Ted Williams (of Red Sox fame) were famous before they served. They still served, and their service was just as dedicated and important as those millions that weren't famous, but their fame was already there.
What about people like R. Lee Ermey, and Drew Carey? Brian Dennehy? Rod Carew? Scott Glenn? Gene Hackman? Don Imus? George Jones? Jim Lehrer? Lee Marvin (he's a biggie!)? Steve McQueen? Montell Williams? All served as US Marines in active duty posts, and many saw combat in one form or another. Notice anything about this list in particular?
VERY FEW liberals on this list. In fact, the only one I might class as a real modern "liberal" is Montell... the rest are moderates at worst, nothing more. Call them "conservatives with a conscience".
Service in the military brings a sense of duty and patriotism that no other facet of activism can bring, in my eyes. Many on the left label this as indoctrination or brain-washing.
I simply call it "civic awareness."
Happy Holy Days!
Merry Christmas versus Happy Holidays.
Man, is this ALL anyone can talk about on the radio? Okay, it's Christmas... I call it that, others don't, so call it what you will. I find it difficult to believe that anyone in this country would be offended by being told "Merry Christmas" from friends or strangers rather than "Happy Holidays."
If you find one, however, and they are one of the ultra-secularist liberals espousing atheism from every street corner, remind them that "Holiday" is just as "religious" and "Church-based" as "Christmas" is... holiday is simply a very literal reference to a Church-designated holy day that provided the vast majority of poor and working classes over the ages to refrain from work, and eat a hearty meal at their lord's and master's expense. Tell those damn church-haters that if they dig a little deeper, they would find that there were more than 165 holy days on the Church calendars as late as 1688... nearly half of a solar calendar automaticly designated HOLIDAY TIME!
Oppressive church practices... sheesh!
Man, is this ALL anyone can talk about on the radio? Okay, it's Christmas... I call it that, others don't, so call it what you will. I find it difficult to believe that anyone in this country would be offended by being told "Merry Christmas" from friends or strangers rather than "Happy Holidays."
If you find one, however, and they are one of the ultra-secularist liberals espousing atheism from every street corner, remind them that "Holiday" is just as "religious" and "Church-based" as "Christmas" is... holiday is simply a very literal reference to a Church-designated holy day that provided the vast majority of poor and working classes over the ages to refrain from work, and eat a hearty meal at their lord's and master's expense. Tell those damn church-haters that if they dig a little deeper, they would find that there were more than 165 holy days on the Church calendars as late as 1688... nearly half of a solar calendar automaticly designated HOLIDAY TIME!
Oppressive church practices... sheesh!
Holiday aftermath...
We made it... whew!
This was a tough Christmas for me. It isn't the fact that I am still struggling to learn all I need to learn to be a "father" after 20+ years of not being a father... I'm rational enough to know that ANY man raising children has to deal with that on a daily basis, not just us late bloomers. It wasn't the money either... although that was a factor, I admit. I'm still making less than half of what I was prior to the hurricane, and that makes for a shoe-string budget at best.
For me, it was the HOURS.
Last year was my first Christmas with Liz and the kids... and I wasn't working. I was still sweating the sale of my house in MS, and my savings were rapidly running out, but we had budgeted to give the kids a really good Christmas, and with some planning and careful shopping, that was accomplished rather nicely, I think. What really helped was the fact that I had the time to do so much stuff around the house... clean, decorate, bake, cook, clean, clean and clean some more. Even though it was just us last year (three kids and Liz and I), I feel like I got SO much more done in the run up TO Christmas than I did this year.
I really am beginning to hate grave shift.
BUT... it worked out. We did it, and the kids had a GREAT Christmas morning. We all went to church Christmas Eve and the 4-year-old got to put the Christ Child in the manger of the Nativity scene at the front of the church... he looked great and actually behaved very well for such a long and (for him) boring service. The other two served at the altar, and did a great job too.
Liz had everything packed, wrapped and ready for Christmas morning, and I got up about two hours before the kids and had hot cinnamon rolls ready for them (and coffee for the adults!). It was a big success.
I know that in the near future, the schedule is going to change at work for me... and I will get either ALL of swing shift, or a broken shift between days and swing... but it can't come soon enough for me.
That's what I want for Christmas... a new shift.
*grin*
This was a tough Christmas for me. It isn't the fact that I am still struggling to learn all I need to learn to be a "father" after 20+ years of not being a father... I'm rational enough to know that ANY man raising children has to deal with that on a daily basis, not just us late bloomers. It wasn't the money either... although that was a factor, I admit. I'm still making less than half of what I was prior to the hurricane, and that makes for a shoe-string budget at best.
For me, it was the HOURS.
Last year was my first Christmas with Liz and the kids... and I wasn't working. I was still sweating the sale of my house in MS, and my savings were rapidly running out, but we had budgeted to give the kids a really good Christmas, and with some planning and careful shopping, that was accomplished rather nicely, I think. What really helped was the fact that I had the time to do so much stuff around the house... clean, decorate, bake, cook, clean, clean and clean some more. Even though it was just us last year (three kids and Liz and I), I feel like I got SO much more done in the run up TO Christmas than I did this year.
I really am beginning to hate grave shift.
BUT... it worked out. We did it, and the kids had a GREAT Christmas morning. We all went to church Christmas Eve and the 4-year-old got to put the Christ Child in the manger of the Nativity scene at the front of the church... he looked great and actually behaved very well for such a long and (for him) boring service. The other two served at the altar, and did a great job too.
Liz had everything packed, wrapped and ready for Christmas morning, and I got up about two hours before the kids and had hot cinnamon rolls ready for them (and coffee for the adults!). It was a big success.
I know that in the near future, the schedule is going to change at work for me... and I will get either ALL of swing shift, or a broken shift between days and swing... but it can't come soon enough for me.
That's what I want for Christmas... a new shift.
*grin*
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas
From my family to all of yours, we wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope all is well with everyone and you find yourselves surrounded by family and friends and the warmth that is the Christmas spirit.
Monday, December 24, 2007
On a cold December night in 1965...
... more than 50% of the televisions in this country were tuned in to a single half-hour program that changed the way subsequent generations of Americans would view Christmas.
Do you know what that program was?
This was a far different time in America than the one we know now. It was still acceptable to refer to this particular day on the calendar as Christ's Nativity Mass, the eighteen-century old tradition of celebrating the birth of Jesus in a tiny village in modern day Palestine... Christmas, rather than referring to it as a "holiday" or the "festive season" or "yule tide". God's name and references to His Divine Word were not anathema to society at large, and neither was the spirit that the Word Incarnate brought to this earth. Santa ruled the day then, as he does now... but Santa was simply doing the Lord's work, he wasn't stealing the stage and replacing Him. None the less, the "Big Three" media outlets in television at the time rarely allowed commercial programing to delve too deeply into the traditional Christian dogma of the Birth of God as Man.
But in December of 1965, they made an exception...
The show was made on a shoe-string budget, without even the money to hire real actors... they had to use children that were so young and so inexperienced that they had to be prompted in their lines each and every time. The editing was choppy, and the graphics employed in the production were simple and archaic even by 1965 standards. The network officials and Coca Cola (the sole sponsor) were dismayed when they saw the preview showing, convinced it would "bomb" spectacularly and all money invested was wasted. When pressed to re-edit the program, the author and creator of the program defiantly refused to budge... not one second of the program would be altered from its finished state. With no time to reschedule, the network was forced to allow it to air.
This single, badly-edited program had the highest ratings of any broadcast prime-time program for the next 35 years, and in the subsequent 42 years of regular seasonal airing, has netted the creator, sponsors and the holder of the broadcast rights nearly $550,000,000 revenue, breaking all the records and setting new marks each and every year. It spawned no fewer than 7 sequels, two feature length movies and two Saturday morning cartoons.
More importantly, it set a precedent that remains to this day as nearly sacred and untouchable, and while the program never intended to accomplish all this, it remains the ONLY regularly aired program that quotes one of the most fundamental tenants of the Christian faith... that on Christmas Day, Christ was born in the town of Bethlehem.
Do you know what that show was yet?
"A Charlie Brown Christmas" by Charles M. Schultz.
Because this is the LAST vestige of an age when it was perfectly okay to say the Name of Christ on national broadcast television, I purchased this DVD for my children... so that they will know the thrill that I knew as a child, and still know as an adult, when we listen to Linus Van Pelt explain the REAL meaning of Christmas to the other colorful and much-loved characters from the Sunday comics...
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Gospel According to St Luke, 2:8-14
Merry Christmas!
Do you know what that program was?
This was a far different time in America than the one we know now. It was still acceptable to refer to this particular day on the calendar as Christ's Nativity Mass, the eighteen-century old tradition of celebrating the birth of Jesus in a tiny village in modern day Palestine... Christmas, rather than referring to it as a "holiday" or the "festive season" or "yule tide". God's name and references to His Divine Word were not anathema to society at large, and neither was the spirit that the Word Incarnate brought to this earth. Santa ruled the day then, as he does now... but Santa was simply doing the Lord's work, he wasn't stealing the stage and replacing Him. None the less, the "Big Three" media outlets in television at the time rarely allowed commercial programing to delve too deeply into the traditional Christian dogma of the Birth of God as Man.
But in December of 1965, they made an exception...
The show was made on a shoe-string budget, without even the money to hire real actors... they had to use children that were so young and so inexperienced that they had to be prompted in their lines each and every time. The editing was choppy, and the graphics employed in the production were simple and archaic even by 1965 standards. The network officials and Coca Cola (the sole sponsor) were dismayed when they saw the preview showing, convinced it would "bomb" spectacularly and all money invested was wasted. When pressed to re-edit the program, the author and creator of the program defiantly refused to budge... not one second of the program would be altered from its finished state. With no time to reschedule, the network was forced to allow it to air.
This single, badly-edited program had the highest ratings of any broadcast prime-time program for the next 35 years, and in the subsequent 42 years of regular seasonal airing, has netted the creator, sponsors and the holder of the broadcast rights nearly $550,000,000 revenue, breaking all the records and setting new marks each and every year. It spawned no fewer than 7 sequels, two feature length movies and two Saturday morning cartoons.
More importantly, it set a precedent that remains to this day as nearly sacred and untouchable, and while the program never intended to accomplish all this, it remains the ONLY regularly aired program that quotes one of the most fundamental tenants of the Christian faith... that on Christmas Day, Christ was born in the town of Bethlehem.
Do you know what that show was yet?
"A Charlie Brown Christmas" by Charles M. Schultz.
Because this is the LAST vestige of an age when it was perfectly okay to say the Name of Christ on national broadcast television, I purchased this DVD for my children... so that they will know the thrill that I knew as a child, and still know as an adult, when we listen to Linus Van Pelt explain the REAL meaning of Christmas to the other colorful and much-loved characters from the Sunday comics...
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Gospel According to St Luke, 2:8-14
Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Merry Christmas from out West ...
Hello all - Titus, sorry about your radio man. I keep the .357 loaded and have had extensive conversations and warnings with my sons to ensure an accident-free household. But alas, I have good news for you my dear friend. I hope you haven't purchased a replacement radio just yet. As luck would have it two years ago my dad bought me a Sirius radio. I never took it out of the box. At the time I listened only to free A.M., so I just never got around to it. Then when I purchased the truck last month it came with the tuner built in and a complimentary 6 mos subscription. So, it's brand new, in the box, and it's yours. It's been sitting there for two years and it will just sit there another two if you don't accept it, so no refusals, I insist. I tried calling your house and phone tonight, but no answer, so just text me your address complete with the zip and I'll mail it out - Merry Christmas buddy.
On other fronts, get this - as I mentioned some time back my wife had her purse stolen (side note here, since reconciliation we have not officially "re" tied the marital knot, which means when we do sometime in the future, you guys will get to be in my wedding - neat huh?). At any rate, out of no where Good Will calls up and says they have a policy of confirming (when there's ID still within the item) that all wallets and purses were given for charity voluntarily. Well, they had Ang's Coach purse, with her cell phone and wallet inside (no cash or credit cards I'm afraid), and she has it back. Apparently the thief grabbed the cash & cards and tossed it into a Good Will donor bin in that same shopping center. Needless to say she was quite happy.
Finally, in the spirit of the birth of our Savior (even though certain people question whether I'm even Christian, or Mormon as it was explained), I found this bit of research interesting. I don't have the specific web address, but a Google and 5 minutes worth of digging would yield the report. It seems that a British research company has uncovered that breast cancer rates in women grow higher when an abortion has been preformed at some point in their life. Now, before anyone (not in this group, we are all very pro-life here) claims this coincidental, consider this - where do you suppose the lowest rate of breast cancer in all the British Isles exists? If you said Ireland, you're correct. Now, what other "rate" do you suppose is the lowest in our ancestral land? That's right - abortion. It may even still be illegal, but I'm not sure. And why do I suspect that if the opposite had been found true - that there was a real health benefit gained from abortion - that every mainstream talking head on television would have the report leading their broadcast?
One other bit that tweaked my interest. Good ol' Ollie North has a program on FOX entitled War Stories, as you probably know. He did one titled Hollywood Goes to War. Do you know who the highest ranking movie actor of all time was, outside of Ronald "The Great" Reagan? He gets it by default as CIC, but outside of that ...... Jimmy Stewart. At wars end he held the rank of Colonel but he remained active in the Air Force Reserves and retired as a Brigadier General. How far that Hollywood star has fallen since the likes of men like him goes without saying.
Alright, hope all the kids wake up beaming on the 25th !!
FR
On other fronts, get this - as I mentioned some time back my wife had her purse stolen (side note here, since reconciliation we have not officially "re" tied the marital knot, which means when we do sometime in the future, you guys will get to be in my wedding - neat huh?). At any rate, out of no where Good Will calls up and says they have a policy of confirming (when there's ID still within the item) that all wallets and purses were given for charity voluntarily. Well, they had Ang's Coach purse, with her cell phone and wallet inside (no cash or credit cards I'm afraid), and she has it back. Apparently the thief grabbed the cash & cards and tossed it into a Good Will donor bin in that same shopping center. Needless to say she was quite happy.
Finally, in the spirit of the birth of our Savior (even though certain people question whether I'm even Christian, or Mormon as it was explained), I found this bit of research interesting. I don't have the specific web address, but a Google and 5 minutes worth of digging would yield the report. It seems that a British research company has uncovered that breast cancer rates in women grow higher when an abortion has been preformed at some point in their life. Now, before anyone (not in this group, we are all very pro-life here) claims this coincidental, consider this - where do you suppose the lowest rate of breast cancer in all the British Isles exists? If you said Ireland, you're correct. Now, what other "rate" do you suppose is the lowest in our ancestral land? That's right - abortion. It may even still be illegal, but I'm not sure. And why do I suspect that if the opposite had been found true - that there was a real health benefit gained from abortion - that every mainstream talking head on television would have the report leading their broadcast?
One other bit that tweaked my interest. Good ol' Ollie North has a program on FOX entitled War Stories, as you probably know. He did one titled Hollywood Goes to War. Do you know who the highest ranking movie actor of all time was, outside of Ronald "The Great" Reagan? He gets it by default as CIC, but outside of that ...... Jimmy Stewart. At wars end he held the rank of Colonel but he remained active in the Air Force Reserves and retired as a Brigadier General. How far that Hollywood star has fallen since the likes of men like him goes without saying.
Alright, hope all the kids wake up beaming on the 25th !!
FR
Here's to all of you...
I hope all those reading or posting to this blog have a safe, happy and blessed Christmas this year, and may you all know the Joy, Peace and Happiness that Christ's Birth promises us throughout the coming year.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
What to do?
Yesterday, Turkey crossed the border into Iraq.
With more than 100,000 troops and as many as 4 divisions of armor massed within 2 km of the frontier, I'd say the Turks showed amazing restraint by sending only a brigade-sized contingent into Iraq to pursue and attack the 30+ PKK terrorists they say they saw.
The Iraqi government and Condi have denounced the action as counter-productive to Coalition efforts in the country... but Ankara isn't listening. They want the PKK stopped at all costs, and don't seem to think the US or Iraq is taking them seriously.
Of the 788 articles that I scanned over (mostly headlines... I'm not THAT good of a reader!), no where did I see a proposed alternative plan that would give the Turks the level of security they need and allow Iraq to remain un-molested by its most powerful (conventionally speaking) neighbor.
Prior to my radio being stolen, I had been listening to the BBC (or CBC, can't remember) and they had been interviewing a former US Ambassador to the UN (can't recall his name, but he was part of the Bush 41 administration) who was WILDLY critical of Condi and her performance to date as SoS. Is this going to be another example of "the wrong man for the job"? Will Bush Jr. simply leave her in place as his administration winds down to insignificance over the next 12 months?
With more than 100,000 troops and as many as 4 divisions of armor massed within 2 km of the frontier, I'd say the Turks showed amazing restraint by sending only a brigade-sized contingent into Iraq to pursue and attack the 30+ PKK terrorists they say they saw.
The Iraqi government and Condi have denounced the action as counter-productive to Coalition efforts in the country... but Ankara isn't listening. They want the PKK stopped at all costs, and don't seem to think the US or Iraq is taking them seriously.
Of the 788 articles that I scanned over (mostly headlines... I'm not THAT good of a reader!), no where did I see a proposed alternative plan that would give the Turks the level of security they need and allow Iraq to remain un-molested by its most powerful (conventionally speaking) neighbor.
Prior to my radio being stolen, I had been listening to the BBC (or CBC, can't remember) and they had been interviewing a former US Ambassador to the UN (can't recall his name, but he was part of the Bush 41 administration) who was WILDLY critical of Condi and her performance to date as SoS. Is this going to be another example of "the wrong man for the job"? Will Bush Jr. simply leave her in place as his administration winds down to insignificance over the next 12 months?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Here's irony for you...
Remember my rant about the 2nd Amendment? Recall all my musings brought about by listening to too much "conservative talk" on my Sirius Radio?
Well, last night I got the radio stolen when my truck got broken into in my own driveway.
That's right. I blame myself in as much as I didn't lock the vehicle, but it pisses me off to no end to think someone went into my truck in my own driveway, and took NOTHING else but my Sirius receiver... not the antenna, not the CDs, not the DVD player in the back that the kids watch on long drives... just the radio.
It also pisses me off that the cops can do NOTHING about it. Makes no sense to even call, really... the radio isn't worth a quarter of my deductible, so no sense making the claim, and we all know that Warren vs Washington DC has shown that no Federal, state or local police is responsible for my safety or the safety of my property.
That means its up to me.
I may actually begin to rethink my position on having a LOADED firearm in the house... or at least some ammunition. In a clip, say... very near the gun, so that were the same thing to repeat, and I would become aware of someone stealing my property, I would have the chance... the opportunity... to use all available force to stop the theft from reaching completion.
I'll have to think on this...
Well, last night I got the radio stolen when my truck got broken into in my own driveway.
That's right. I blame myself in as much as I didn't lock the vehicle, but it pisses me off to no end to think someone went into my truck in my own driveway, and took NOTHING else but my Sirius receiver... not the antenna, not the CDs, not the DVD player in the back that the kids watch on long drives... just the radio.
It also pisses me off that the cops can do NOTHING about it. Makes no sense to even call, really... the radio isn't worth a quarter of my deductible, so no sense making the claim, and we all know that Warren vs Washington DC has shown that no Federal, state or local police is responsible for my safety or the safety of my property.
That means its up to me.
I may actually begin to rethink my position on having a LOADED firearm in the house... or at least some ammunition. In a clip, say... very near the gun, so that were the same thing to repeat, and I would become aware of someone stealing my property, I would have the chance... the opportunity... to use all available force to stop the theft from reaching completion.
I'll have to think on this...
Christmas decorations and apropos phrases...
Probably everybody but the card-carrying atheists among us have them up by now, right? Strings of colored lights, trees full of ornaments with a flashing star on top, maybe even a lighted manger scene replete with sheep and a mule and a handful of shepherds.
Here in NEPA we had two late additions to our Yule-time regalia... a HUGE inflatable snow-globe and a lighted herald angel trumpeting the Good News of the Savior's birth. The "religious" piece was my idea... by the way.
The globe was pretty easy to set up, I guess. Actually, the kids did it. It plugs in and a small fan forces air into the globe, and the whole things is "staked" into the ground with up to four anchors. The down side? MY kids chose to use only two anchors, and NEPA just had the worst ice-storm its seen in decades, with winds gusting up to 40+mph. The globe had a tough time of it, even getting deflated each night before I left for work. So, it was brought into the porch until such time as the wind stopped blowing and the ice stopped falling.
The angel was a different story. Made of twisted wire and filled in with painted wicker, the entire thing was coated with tiny "ice crystals" and then wrapped in white Christmas lights. It came in the box broken down into seven pieces, and these pieces are supposed to fit together like a very simply jig-saw puzzle.
The wire and wicker seems to have no fasteners other than the occasional twist or loop, and the "ice crystals" make the entire thing seem like it is made of military-grade concertina wire. After about 15 minutes of fighting with this thing, I was rapidly coming to think of the image it was portraying as a modern incarnation of the medieval "Iron Maiden" more than a beloved and trusted "Messenger of God" promising Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Man.
So, just as I am about to either finish the project or destroy it trying... I hear the completely unexpected words of encouragement pop out of my fiance's mouth...
"Go ahead... call it a 'cocksucker', honey."
If you only knew what this woman was like back when I first met her 20 years ago! Never a bad word, never a curse... so these words struck me as particularly funny, and I laughed. I laughed HARD. In fact, I'm giggling now just remembering it.
What is it about that phrase that so rolls off the tongue of a man in a fit of frustrated rage that SO captures his feelings of anger and spite? That word... coupled with a few choice adjectives like "you rotten"... actually DOES make you feel just a little better!
Not exactly what I would recommend for spreading the "Christmas Spirit" amongst children and extended family and friends... but it DOES seem to help.
Just another life-lesson observation from NEPA.
Here in NEPA we had two late additions to our Yule-time regalia... a HUGE inflatable snow-globe and a lighted herald angel trumpeting the Good News of the Savior's birth. The "religious" piece was my idea... by the way.
The globe was pretty easy to set up, I guess. Actually, the kids did it. It plugs in and a small fan forces air into the globe, and the whole things is "staked" into the ground with up to four anchors. The down side? MY kids chose to use only two anchors, and NEPA just had the worst ice-storm its seen in decades, with winds gusting up to 40+mph. The globe had a tough time of it, even getting deflated each night before I left for work. So, it was brought into the porch until such time as the wind stopped blowing and the ice stopped falling.
The angel was a different story. Made of twisted wire and filled in with painted wicker, the entire thing was coated with tiny "ice crystals" and then wrapped in white Christmas lights. It came in the box broken down into seven pieces, and these pieces are supposed to fit together like a very simply jig-saw puzzle.
The wire and wicker seems to have no fasteners other than the occasional twist or loop, and the "ice crystals" make the entire thing seem like it is made of military-grade concertina wire. After about 15 minutes of fighting with this thing, I was rapidly coming to think of the image it was portraying as a modern incarnation of the medieval "Iron Maiden" more than a beloved and trusted "Messenger of God" promising Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Man.
So, just as I am about to either finish the project or destroy it trying... I hear the completely unexpected words of encouragement pop out of my fiance's mouth...
"Go ahead... call it a 'cocksucker', honey."
If you only knew what this woman was like back when I first met her 20 years ago! Never a bad word, never a curse... so these words struck me as particularly funny, and I laughed. I laughed HARD. In fact, I'm giggling now just remembering it.
What is it about that phrase that so rolls off the tongue of a man in a fit of frustrated rage that SO captures his feelings of anger and spite? That word... coupled with a few choice adjectives like "you rotten"... actually DOES make you feel just a little better!
Not exactly what I would recommend for spreading the "Christmas Spirit" amongst children and extended family and friends... but it DOES seem to help.
Just another life-lesson observation from NEPA.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Let's meet a "capitalist", shall we?
Mike Church.
That name alone makes me wonder why I bother listening to Sirius Talk Radio. As inane and idiotic as it is to listen to Hillary state that "radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam"... Mike Church isn't far behind.
Now, before Ryan launches into another defense of a GOP pundit, let me say that I KNOW he is far more of an entertainer than he is an objective journalist. His rants and ravings are meant to drive his ratings, not convince an ignorant audience that his views (and thus the views of "conservatives" in general) are right. Ask me... he is no better at what he does than Limbaugh or Coulter... and just as offensive as Franken or Dean.
Example: Church just got done saying that the reason OIL prices are out of control is because of the GASOLINE tax the "liberals" slapped on the pumps to pay for socialist programs like Medi-Care and WIC and national welfare.
Where do you start with THIS one? Is the man serious? The price of crude OIL is effected in ANY WAY by how much we price GASOLINE??? Last time I checked, gasoline was a BYPRODUCT of crude oil. No one that I know of is pumping GASOLINE out of derricks in the dessert, and as far as I understand... there is no GASOLINE without OIL first.
Furthermore... "liberal" gas taxes? The single biggest GASOLINE tax increase ever slapped on the consumer population of this nation was fronted by none other than NEWT GINGRICH and the rest of the "Moral Majority" that swept Congress in 1994. Want to blame a disaster on Bill Clinton? Blame him for NOT vetoing the bills that carried that little piece of revenue-building, surplus-creating legislation when he had the chance. Taxing OIL rather than GASOLINE would have meant that Newt and Company were following the text of NEW DEAL 2008 damn near verbatim! We know THAT can happen... tax the companies that IMPORT the oil and turn it into the single most important consumer commodity this nation has seen since the Whiskey Rebellion? I don't think so... better to make the CONSUMER pay the price, rather than the corporations that are redefining the word "profit" on a daily basis. Damn Bill Clinton to HELL for being a President capable of compromise!!!
Then, to top the whole segment off (and ruin my mood for the afternoon), he went on to expostulate for 8 more minutes on how the biggest oil companies in America make NO MORE PROFITS NOW than they did 20 years ago!
Are you fucking KIDDING me?
He actually dared someone to call in and tell him differently! Prove to him (he said) that "Big Oil" is gouging America with inflated gas prices... and if you can't, then SHUT UP!
Words vary similar to those used by Ryan towards me just a few days ago, if memory serves...
Well, I didn't call. But I AM going to make You listen to my rebuttal.
Motor Oil.
That's it. Nothing more.
Motor Oil.
Any label, any brand, any weight... as long as it isn't synthetic or recycled (both of which are MORE expensive than natural motor oil).
...
Okay, I'll spell it out.
Go back and Google "oil prices", and then further Google "motor oil" when the first search is done. Just about any of those sites will show you that the price of 10W-30 motor oil taht EVERY car and truck in the world needs to run HASN'T changed in price even 2% of what GASOLINE has in the last 20 years. Not even 2%!
Both gasoline and motor oil stem from the same product... LIGHT SWEET CRUDE oil. Both are products of the same process of refining oil, and a single barrel of crude will yeild about the same amount of each product by the end of the process. Yet since 1994, the price of gas (on average) has climed from $1.67 to $2.89... while the price of a quart of motor oil has only gone up (average again) by $0.09 cents. That's the difference between $1.22 a gallon increase for gas and $0.36 a gallon for motor oil.
Were PROFIT not the driving force in this equation, then I would have to guess that motor oil and gasoline would progress in price at a far more similar pace then they obviously have, right?
Okay, end of rant. I have to wrap presents with the kids now...
That name alone makes me wonder why I bother listening to Sirius Talk Radio. As inane and idiotic as it is to listen to Hillary state that "radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam"... Mike Church isn't far behind.
Now, before Ryan launches into another defense of a GOP pundit, let me say that I KNOW he is far more of an entertainer than he is an objective journalist. His rants and ravings are meant to drive his ratings, not convince an ignorant audience that his views (and thus the views of "conservatives" in general) are right. Ask me... he is no better at what he does than Limbaugh or Coulter... and just as offensive as Franken or Dean.
Example: Church just got done saying that the reason OIL prices are out of control is because of the GASOLINE tax the "liberals" slapped on the pumps to pay for socialist programs like Medi-Care and WIC and national welfare.
Where do you start with THIS one? Is the man serious? The price of crude OIL is effected in ANY WAY by how much we price GASOLINE??? Last time I checked, gasoline was a BYPRODUCT of crude oil. No one that I know of is pumping GASOLINE out of derricks in the dessert, and as far as I understand... there is no GASOLINE without OIL first.
Furthermore... "liberal" gas taxes? The single biggest GASOLINE tax increase ever slapped on the consumer population of this nation was fronted by none other than NEWT GINGRICH and the rest of the "Moral Majority" that swept Congress in 1994. Want to blame a disaster on Bill Clinton? Blame him for NOT vetoing the bills that carried that little piece of revenue-building, surplus-creating legislation when he had the chance. Taxing OIL rather than GASOLINE would have meant that Newt and Company were following the text of NEW DEAL 2008 damn near verbatim! We know THAT can happen... tax the companies that IMPORT the oil and turn it into the single most important consumer commodity this nation has seen since the Whiskey Rebellion? I don't think so... better to make the CONSUMER pay the price, rather than the corporations that are redefining the word "profit" on a daily basis. Damn Bill Clinton to HELL for being a President capable of compromise!!!
Then, to top the whole segment off (and ruin my mood for the afternoon), he went on to expostulate for 8 more minutes on how the biggest oil companies in America make NO MORE PROFITS NOW than they did 20 years ago!
Are you fucking KIDDING me?
He actually dared someone to call in and tell him differently! Prove to him (he said) that "Big Oil" is gouging America with inflated gas prices... and if you can't, then SHUT UP!
Words vary similar to those used by Ryan towards me just a few days ago, if memory serves...
Well, I didn't call. But I AM going to make You listen to my rebuttal.
Motor Oil.
That's it. Nothing more.
Motor Oil.
Any label, any brand, any weight... as long as it isn't synthetic or recycled (both of which are MORE expensive than natural motor oil).
...
Okay, I'll spell it out.
Go back and Google "oil prices", and then further Google "motor oil" when the first search is done. Just about any of those sites will show you that the price of 10W-30 motor oil taht EVERY car and truck in the world needs to run HASN'T changed in price even 2% of what GASOLINE has in the last 20 years. Not even 2%!
Both gasoline and motor oil stem from the same product... LIGHT SWEET CRUDE oil. Both are products of the same process of refining oil, and a single barrel of crude will yeild about the same amount of each product by the end of the process. Yet since 1994, the price of gas (on average) has climed from $1.67 to $2.89... while the price of a quart of motor oil has only gone up (average again) by $0.09 cents. That's the difference between $1.22 a gallon increase for gas and $0.36 a gallon for motor oil.
Were PROFIT not the driving force in this equation, then I would have to guess that motor oil and gasoline would progress in price at a far more similar pace then they obviously have, right?
Okay, end of rant. I have to wrap presents with the kids now...
You're welcome, Baddboy...
You are right, of course.
I think you and I have very similar views on this topic. In the early 1800’s, a man named Thomas Malthus stated that populations increase until limited by a lack of resources… historically this has meant food or water, but in this modern age, it could very well be resources like oil.
I am convinced that the “Malthusian” theory is closer to the mark than anything Clausewitz or Liddle-Hart might have proposed as the true cause of war. With no effort whatsoever, we can see this truth proven through out the last century… Imperial Japan went to war in China in 1933 to gain resource-rich territory (or the political control of same), and there is a good argument that they attacked the US for the simple fact that we controlled the steel supply to the Pacific rim… a resource vital to their military aims. Hitler even labeled his drive to expand the Reich beyond the limits of Germanic culture “Lebensraum” to show just what it was that he wanted… fresh, new habitat and resources. Italy’s expansion into Ethiopia and Libya… Stalin’s drive to maintain control of Eastern Europe after 1945… North Korea’s drive south in 1950… none of these were PURELY political efforts to spread one particular ideology into new territory. ALL were, to some degree, drives to gain and secure new or larger resource bases.
While this is a perfectly acceptable EXPLANATION of the cause of war, it is a poor JUSTIFICATION for war. I do not deny its necessity at times, but it does not change the fact that if an acceptable or achievable alternative can be found, we must (as a nation) follow or pursue it. I dare anyone to give me an historical example of a morally justifiable case in which an aggressor nation waged war to gain resources when an alternative course could have been followed.
If, God forbid, the US would find itself cut off from its supply of foreign oil, I do think the country would BEGIN the process of developing alternative energy sources, but as you have said… would that be enough? Would we be able to sustain our economy, or even our society, while the process got itself off the ground? This question leads to another touched on by Jambo… whose responsibility is it to begin (and follow through) this process, private industry of the Federal government? If this is a question of a resource as vital to our country as oil, I’m not at all sure I want the responsibility to rest solely with private industry. They are not obligated to be answerable to the people the way the government is… they answer to a shareholder about profits, nothing more.
Besides, what is the alternative? To invade and seize Mexico as sovereign US territory to supplement our own national reserves? A portion of Siberia? The greater part of the Canadian Shield? To do the same thing Saddam did to Kuwait in '90? Were this an acceptable course of action in the US... then why even bring up issues like "terror" or "WMDs" or "tyrannical despot" when discussing WHY we should invade Iraq? Isn't control of the third largest crude oil reserves on the face of the planet enough?
Anyway... we seem to agree on the big picture.
I think you and I have very similar views on this topic. In the early 1800’s, a man named Thomas Malthus stated that populations increase until limited by a lack of resources… historically this has meant food or water, but in this modern age, it could very well be resources like oil.
I am convinced that the “Malthusian” theory is closer to the mark than anything Clausewitz or Liddle-Hart might have proposed as the true cause of war. With no effort whatsoever, we can see this truth proven through out the last century… Imperial Japan went to war in China in 1933 to gain resource-rich territory (or the political control of same), and there is a good argument that they attacked the US for the simple fact that we controlled the steel supply to the Pacific rim… a resource vital to their military aims. Hitler even labeled his drive to expand the Reich beyond the limits of Germanic culture “Lebensraum” to show just what it was that he wanted… fresh, new habitat and resources. Italy’s expansion into Ethiopia and Libya… Stalin’s drive to maintain control of Eastern Europe after 1945… North Korea’s drive south in 1950… none of these were PURELY political efforts to spread one particular ideology into new territory. ALL were, to some degree, drives to gain and secure new or larger resource bases.
While this is a perfectly acceptable EXPLANATION of the cause of war, it is a poor JUSTIFICATION for war. I do not deny its necessity at times, but it does not change the fact that if an acceptable or achievable alternative can be found, we must (as a nation) follow or pursue it. I dare anyone to give me an historical example of a morally justifiable case in which an aggressor nation waged war to gain resources when an alternative course could have been followed.
If, God forbid, the US would find itself cut off from its supply of foreign oil, I do think the country would BEGIN the process of developing alternative energy sources, but as you have said… would that be enough? Would we be able to sustain our economy, or even our society, while the process got itself off the ground? This question leads to another touched on by Jambo… whose responsibility is it to begin (and follow through) this process, private industry of the Federal government? If this is a question of a resource as vital to our country as oil, I’m not at all sure I want the responsibility to rest solely with private industry. They are not obligated to be answerable to the people the way the government is… they answer to a shareholder about profits, nothing more.
Besides, what is the alternative? To invade and seize Mexico as sovereign US territory to supplement our own national reserves? A portion of Siberia? The greater part of the Canadian Shield? To do the same thing Saddam did to Kuwait in '90? Were this an acceptable course of action in the US... then why even bring up issues like "terror" or "WMDs" or "tyrannical despot" when discussing WHY we should invade Iraq? Isn't control of the third largest crude oil reserves on the face of the planet enough?
Anyway... we seem to agree on the big picture.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
You make my point for me
You agee with the fact that when the shit hits the fan American engenuity will prevail so with that we can move on.
By the way if I'm not mistaken Chevrons largest fuel refinery is in Pascagoula MS.
Since the beginning of warfare logistics has always been the biggest difference between winning and losing so I have taken into consideration what would happen if we were somehow cut off from imported fuel. Reality check starts here, when that happens fuel rationing will start and we will do what SunTzu says in the Art of War. We will use what we need from our reserves to get us to the battle and we will "TAKE" what we need when we get there. The harsh reality is if someone wants to hurt us they can and will when we least expect it. You can see from congressional hearings and the importance placed on physical border security in the speeches of our current candidates for POTUS that it isn't important at all to these people. It will be people like you and me that look at this whole problem from a realistic point of view that will make the difference in the future. Although oil is important to our economy and for that matter our future if we really need to get our hands on some Chavez will die and Venezuela will become the 51'st state if necessary.
I personally beleive that our dependency on fossil fuel needs to be curbed in a huge way and soon but it is the people that drive the economy and it is the people that drive demand for such technology. When the American population as a whole decide that it is important and are willing to pay for it then we will see alternatives pop up and from that we will start to see a decline demand for fossil fuel.
I don't disagree with you at all, on the contraty I agree with you whole heartedly but change requires time and I hope we have enough of that to see the change happen.
By the way if I'm not mistaken Chevrons largest fuel refinery is in Pascagoula MS.
Since the beginning of warfare logistics has always been the biggest difference between winning and losing so I have taken into consideration what would happen if we were somehow cut off from imported fuel. Reality check starts here, when that happens fuel rationing will start and we will do what SunTzu says in the Art of War. We will use what we need from our reserves to get us to the battle and we will "TAKE" what we need when we get there. The harsh reality is if someone wants to hurt us they can and will when we least expect it. You can see from congressional hearings and the importance placed on physical border security in the speeches of our current candidates for POTUS that it isn't important at all to these people. It will be people like you and me that look at this whole problem from a realistic point of view that will make the difference in the future. Although oil is important to our economy and for that matter our future if we really need to get our hands on some Chavez will die and Venezuela will become the 51'st state if necessary.
I personally beleive that our dependency on fossil fuel needs to be curbed in a huge way and soon but it is the people that drive the economy and it is the people that drive demand for such technology. When the American population as a whole decide that it is important and are willing to pay for it then we will see alternatives pop up and from that we will start to see a decline demand for fossil fuel.
I don't disagree with you at all, on the contraty I agree with you whole heartedly but change requires time and I hope we have enough of that to see the change happen.
Necessity is NOT the Mother of security...
Don't get me wrong, Baddboy. I DO agree that were we faced with an immanent fuel crisis, our American ingenuity would rise up and give us an alternative as quickly as ever we have seen. When we were running out of whale oil, we developed gas technology to light our streets and homes. When that proved too expensive, we developed electrical networks for the same purposes. When we needed to win wars... we developed the technology to level cities with one bomb, from one plane. We are very good at that.
I'm not concerned that we are about to run DRY of oil. I think even most conservative estimates put our known oil resources at lasting through the next 75 to 100 years, and there may be half that again in undiscovered areas.
I'm concerned with another nation's ability to interrupt... or even slow... US crude oil imports in such a manner that it interrupts the daily functioning of our society. Even OPEC has the ability to do this (as has been demonstrated TWICE in US history)... and they are a group of nations that can only agree on one thing: they don't like Israel.
We have seen the price AND availability of oil jump due to terrorist activity (see 9-11) and we have seen what even a moderate natural catastrophe (when seen on a global scale) can cause to production and distribution of fuel (post-Katrina disaster). How many more of these do we need to experience before we understand that our society's BIGGEST THREAT isn't illegal aliens refusing to assimilate into our culture, it isn't Communism, or Fascism, or Liberalism, or even Environmentalism, it isn't global warming, or the coming of a new ice age, and it certainly isn't high taxes or low minimum wages.
The biggest threat to the society we all know and love is that EVERY facet of that society DEPENDS on a resource we can't supply ourselves (not even 50% of our daily needs overall). If we want to continue to enjoy the dolce vita, then we must continue to place the welfare of our nation and culture in the hands of Middle Eastern extremists, South American fascists, and pseudo-reformed Communists from the former Soviet Union, with no control and very little influence on how those people view our dependence.
Imagine...
9-11 isn't a strike by extremists trying to make headlines, but by concerted attackers bent on devastating America's ability to function. Instead of crashing planes into buildings full of people, what if they had crashed their planes into the only FOUR gasoline production facilities in the nation, the biggest in Houston, TX and the other three in lower Louisiana? What if a plane had been flown into the San Diego Naval Fuel depot (near Twentynine Palms and the MCAGCC) which holds and distributes 40% of ALL ship, vehicle and jet fuel for the entire Western Command of the US Military? How many of THOSE targets would have needed to be hit to devastate the US's ability to function as the only superpower?
I'm more than willing to stop discussing my issues with the price gouging that I am convinced is going on within the gasoline market here in the US, at least not in this post. I am getting more and more convinced though that NO discussion of national security is going to carry any real weight with me if it doesn't address this flaw in the American "armor"... very quickly.
I'm not concerned that we are about to run DRY of oil. I think even most conservative estimates put our known oil resources at lasting through the next 75 to 100 years, and there may be half that again in undiscovered areas.
I'm concerned with another nation's ability to interrupt... or even slow... US crude oil imports in such a manner that it interrupts the daily functioning of our society. Even OPEC has the ability to do this (as has been demonstrated TWICE in US history)... and they are a group of nations that can only agree on one thing: they don't like Israel.
We have seen the price AND availability of oil jump due to terrorist activity (see 9-11) and we have seen what even a moderate natural catastrophe (when seen on a global scale) can cause to production and distribution of fuel (post-Katrina disaster). How many more of these do we need to experience before we understand that our society's BIGGEST THREAT isn't illegal aliens refusing to assimilate into our culture, it isn't Communism, or Fascism, or Liberalism, or even Environmentalism, it isn't global warming, or the coming of a new ice age, and it certainly isn't high taxes or low minimum wages.
The biggest threat to the society we all know and love is that EVERY facet of that society DEPENDS on a resource we can't supply ourselves (not even 50% of our daily needs overall). If we want to continue to enjoy the dolce vita, then we must continue to place the welfare of our nation and culture in the hands of Middle Eastern extremists, South American fascists, and pseudo-reformed Communists from the former Soviet Union, with no control and very little influence on how those people view our dependence.
Imagine...
9-11 isn't a strike by extremists trying to make headlines, but by concerted attackers bent on devastating America's ability to function. Instead of crashing planes into buildings full of people, what if they had crashed their planes into the only FOUR gasoline production facilities in the nation, the biggest in Houston, TX and the other three in lower Louisiana? What if a plane had been flown into the San Diego Naval Fuel depot (near Twentynine Palms and the MCAGCC) which holds and distributes 40% of ALL ship, vehicle and jet fuel for the entire Western Command of the US Military? How many of THOSE targets would have needed to be hit to devastate the US's ability to function as the only superpower?
I'm more than willing to stop discussing my issues with the price gouging that I am convinced is going on within the gasoline market here in the US, at least not in this post. I am getting more and more convinced though that NO discussion of national security is going to carry any real weight with me if it doesn't address this flaw in the American "armor"... very quickly.
Neccessity is the mother of What?!?!
You guys have been bitching and moaning about this oil crap for a while now and yet none of you look at it from a realisitic point of view. I believe like most do that we need to decrease our dependancy on imported oil. Really we need to decrease our dependency on oil period so that's where this post is going.
Whether we increase or decrease the price, raise or lower taxes on such products is irrelevent and uneccessary discussion. Reality is the sooner we come to running out of oil world wide the faster people will start to implement current non oil comsuming goods and start to invent new ones because it is necessary. The more we drive our gas guzzlers, the more Al Gore flies all over the world in his private planes wasting jet fuel and the faster we use this shit up the faster we will have to start using alternative oil sources.
See, problem solved. I say drive to your hearts content, waste as much fuel as you can. The faster it is used the sooner I get to hear the whining and moaning stop.
Just one mans opinion
Whether we increase or decrease the price, raise or lower taxes on such products is irrelevent and uneccessary discussion. Reality is the sooner we come to running out of oil world wide the faster people will start to implement current non oil comsuming goods and start to invent new ones because it is necessary. The more we drive our gas guzzlers, the more Al Gore flies all over the world in his private planes wasting jet fuel and the faster we use this shit up the faster we will have to start using alternative oil sources.
See, problem solved. I say drive to your hearts content, waste as much fuel as you can. The faster it is used the sooner I get to hear the whining and moaning stop.
Just one mans opinion
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
GATE
On Algeria ... I hope the White House staff is reading this. I was watching as FOX broke in with the story. At least 45 were dead at the point I fell back asleep. I hadn't even considered this opportunity I'm ashamed to say - an ally in N Africa, are you kidding me? It would be a fantastic leg up to leave the next PoTUS ... good call Titus.
As to the tiltle ... it stands for Gifted And Talented Education, and my eldest son has been referred to this class for what they refer to as "gifted students"!!! It's a one hour a day class they will have in place of another - a sort of scholastic MENSA club. Sorry, I had to brag on my off spring. I was just so damn proud (did I mention I was in that same class as a lad?)
At any rate, I commented further Jambo about your Carter on steroids tariff approach under the Endor post.
Later ...
FR
As to the tiltle ... it stands for Gifted And Talented Education, and my eldest son has been referred to this class for what they refer to as "gifted students"!!! It's a one hour a day class they will have in place of another - a sort of scholastic MENSA club. Sorry, I had to brag on my off spring. I was just so damn proud (did I mention I was in that same class as a lad?)
At any rate, I commented further Jambo about your Carter on steroids tariff approach under the Endor post.
Later ...
FR
One last chance?
This country, since the first World Trade Center bombings, has had numerous chances to take the initiative against al Quieda in the War on Terror (which I know wasn't declared yet). I'm not going to blame one President more than another, but there is enough mistakes since 1982 to make all FOUR of our most recent CICs look pretty frigging foolish in this regard.
Yesterday a devestating coordinated terrorist attack took place in Algeria, in which both the Algerian civilian government and the UN were directly targeted. This attack has presented the US with a particularly interesting opportunity, I think... and thus the reason for my post.
In 1990, then-President Bush and his Cabinet put together one of the most striking examples of international cooperation since the Allies met at Yalta. The Coalition was a truly multi-national military force with one goal in mind... the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. 17 Western nations and 11 Arab nations got together and managed, under the leadership of two of America's best choices for the jobs they had... Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and General Norman Schwarzkopf (I know that James Baker was SoS, but I am not giving him much credit for the success... that's another post).
Since then, there hasn't been a whole lot of "international"and especially "regional" good will coming our way from the Islamic world. Short of (maybe) Pakistan and the new Iraqi government... name me another Arab or Muslim state that has openly fought terror. Okay, I'll put Turkey on the list, too (although they may be making more trouble then they are fixing). Now name me an Arab or Muslim state that we can count on with real trust to support the US in the fight against international terrorism... again, Turkey? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia (snicker)? Lybia (COUGH)?
Algeria ended ten years of civil war in 2002... and this civil war was fought by the military-controled government in Algiers against the rising tide of Islamic extremists that threatened to take control of the elected legislative body of the government. The pro-Western, anti-extremists won.
Now al Quieda is back, attacking the UN as "Crusaders" in the "Islamic Nation" and the Algiers government as "pieds-noirs"... the old French term used to distinguish French colonialists from native Algerians by their "black boots". This is good propaganda for the terrorists... the Berber people of Algeria have had centuries of repression under the boots of colonial powers that date all the way back to the fall of the Caliphates in the 18th Century, and millions of Algerians still recall the fight for liberation from the French.
After ten years of intense civil war, the Algerian government is still trying to get their full oil and gas capabilities back on-line, and they are benifiting from the high price of oil, but it might not be enough... their military is equiped with seriously out-dated French and Soviet technology, and in a nation that is roughly four times the size of Texas (yes... TEXAS), that is stretching existing resources pretty thin.
This attack could give the government of Algeria just enough of a wake-up call to make offers of assistance from places like the US seem pretty inviting. Weapons and supply contracts with the Algerian military, maybe some new vehicles and aircraft, a couple of coastal cruisers for shore patrol, and PRESTO! A brand new ALLY in the regional (North African) fight against terror and al Quieda. Feed them the technology they need to increase oil production (and watch the Saudis piss themselves!) and we also might see a reduction in crude costs (not likely, but maybe).
This might be Bush's last chance to really work some foreign relations magic before he leaves the White House for good. To bring the Algerians as fully into our camp as we can... outside the influence of places like Ryiad or Cairo or Damascus... and what could we accomplish then?
Yesterday a devestating coordinated terrorist attack took place in Algeria, in which both the Algerian civilian government and the UN were directly targeted. This attack has presented the US with a particularly interesting opportunity, I think... and thus the reason for my post.
In 1990, then-President Bush and his Cabinet put together one of the most striking examples of international cooperation since the Allies met at Yalta. The Coalition was a truly multi-national military force with one goal in mind... the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. 17 Western nations and 11 Arab nations got together and managed, under the leadership of two of America's best choices for the jobs they had... Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and General Norman Schwarzkopf (I know that James Baker was SoS, but I am not giving him much credit for the success... that's another post).
Since then, there hasn't been a whole lot of "international"and especially "regional" good will coming our way from the Islamic world. Short of (maybe) Pakistan and the new Iraqi government... name me another Arab or Muslim state that has openly fought terror. Okay, I'll put Turkey on the list, too (although they may be making more trouble then they are fixing). Now name me an Arab or Muslim state that we can count on with real trust to support the US in the fight against international terrorism... again, Turkey? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia (snicker)? Lybia (COUGH)?
Algeria ended ten years of civil war in 2002... and this civil war was fought by the military-controled government in Algiers against the rising tide of Islamic extremists that threatened to take control of the elected legislative body of the government. The pro-Western, anti-extremists won.
Now al Quieda is back, attacking the UN as "Crusaders" in the "Islamic Nation" and the Algiers government as "pieds-noirs"... the old French term used to distinguish French colonialists from native Algerians by their "black boots". This is good propaganda for the terrorists... the Berber people of Algeria have had centuries of repression under the boots of colonial powers that date all the way back to the fall of the Caliphates in the 18th Century, and millions of Algerians still recall the fight for liberation from the French.
After ten years of intense civil war, the Algerian government is still trying to get their full oil and gas capabilities back on-line, and they are benifiting from the high price of oil, but it might not be enough... their military is equiped with seriously out-dated French and Soviet technology, and in a nation that is roughly four times the size of Texas (yes... TEXAS), that is stretching existing resources pretty thin.
This attack could give the government of Algeria just enough of a wake-up call to make offers of assistance from places like the US seem pretty inviting. Weapons and supply contracts with the Algerian military, maybe some new vehicles and aircraft, a couple of coastal cruisers for shore patrol, and PRESTO! A brand new ALLY in the regional (North African) fight against terror and al Quieda. Feed them the technology they need to increase oil production (and watch the Saudis piss themselves!) and we also might see a reduction in crude costs (not likely, but maybe).
This might be Bush's last chance to really work some foreign relations magic before he leaves the White House for good. To bring the Algerians as fully into our camp as we can... outside the influence of places like Ryiad or Cairo or Damascus... and what could we accomplish then?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
There are no Wookies on Endor ...
Stole that one from Jambo - thought it would make him laugh and take the following medicine a bit easier.
First, Titus. You made some sincerely complimentary remarks regarding Mormons, and noted that we practice a version of a Judeo-Christian faith. I'll take it - and leave it at that. Also, I want to note that we have our own version of Ted Kennedy. None other than Harry Reid (D) NV claims to be a Mormon. No one could be in more disagreement with the tenants of our faith, yet there he is.
On "f***ing" "big oil." Are you people all insane? Especially you Jambo - you're supposed to our in-house moderate. Not to mention, like myself and badboy, and to an extent Titus, we are in a tipping industry. Our income depends on the expendable income of others. And here you are advocating what would amount to flushing our economy down the toilet. Titus wants the government to artificially interfere in driving the price of gas down, you want them to artificially drive the price up to probably 10 bucks a gallon. Are you kidding? That would guarantee a recession. New capital and its investment into new energy technologies would evaporate over night, the Stock Market would lose 30% of its value by lunch, and one F.Ryan will have $90 days instead of 300!
How many times must I advocate this? There is a path in which we keep the economy, and its life blood, OIL, humming along and we also have a national initiative to find new energy (not to mention the private capital it will take to make it a reality). And that path is presidential LEADERSHIP. THAT is what's lacking. First you suspend the gas taxes for X amount of time, then you begin, by going on TV or in the inaugural address (it won't be this president), and announcing a "moon shot" style energy initiative involving the private sector - whoever wins gets the exclusive rights to fuel the US Government. What do you think that contract would be worth? Now you've got everyone from an eccentric scientist in his garage to BP execs searching in order to win that coveted prize - the genius of the human spirit is unleashed. THAT is how leaders motivate - not by "forcing" people out of hardship and a wrecked economy to try & find a new energy source. Not to mention, even if you disagree with my approach you have to admit that politically my plan is much more likely to be implemented then a huge new oil tariff. What first term president or any term congressman is going to face his constituents knowing he cost them an extra 7 bucks a gallon? No one will go for that.
The approach I have layed out in broad strokes is inspiring, it's American, it's ... Reaganesqe.
FR
First, Titus. You made some sincerely complimentary remarks regarding Mormons, and noted that we practice a version of a Judeo-Christian faith. I'll take it - and leave it at that. Also, I want to note that we have our own version of Ted Kennedy. None other than Harry Reid (D) NV claims to be a Mormon. No one could be in more disagreement with the tenants of our faith, yet there he is.
On "f***ing" "big oil." Are you people all insane? Especially you Jambo - you're supposed to our in-house moderate. Not to mention, like myself and badboy, and to an extent Titus, we are in a tipping industry. Our income depends on the expendable income of others. And here you are advocating what would amount to flushing our economy down the toilet. Titus wants the government to artificially interfere in driving the price of gas down, you want them to artificially drive the price up to probably 10 bucks a gallon. Are you kidding? That would guarantee a recession. New capital and its investment into new energy technologies would evaporate over night, the Stock Market would lose 30% of its value by lunch, and one F.Ryan will have $90 days instead of 300!
How many times must I advocate this? There is a path in which we keep the economy, and its life blood, OIL, humming along and we also have a national initiative to find new energy (not to mention the private capital it will take to make it a reality). And that path is presidential LEADERSHIP. THAT is what's lacking. First you suspend the gas taxes for X amount of time, then you begin, by going on TV or in the inaugural address (it won't be this president), and announcing a "moon shot" style energy initiative involving the private sector - whoever wins gets the exclusive rights to fuel the US Government. What do you think that contract would be worth? Now you've got everyone from an eccentric scientist in his garage to BP execs searching in order to win that coveted prize - the genius of the human spirit is unleashed. THAT is how leaders motivate - not by "forcing" people out of hardship and a wrecked economy to try & find a new energy source. Not to mention, even if you disagree with my approach you have to admit that politically my plan is much more likely to be implemented then a huge new oil tariff. What first term president or any term congressman is going to face his constituents knowing he cost them an extra 7 bucks a gallon? No one will go for that.
The approach I have layed out in broad strokes is inspiring, it's American, it's ... Reaganesqe.
FR
Not trying to steal anyone's thunder...
But Ryan beat me to this point. Not that I was going to call Titus Marx or Lenin or anything like that, but price control is a doomed option. History shows us this.
But...
That doesn't eliminate the "fuck" big oil option from the government level.
Do this by doing two things:
1) Slap a substantial tariff on imported light, sweet crude. (No sense taxing the shit out of someones heating oil, right Titus? You feel me on that one up there in Northeast Pennsylvania.) And when I say substantial, I mean serious, eye opening numbers. Something that is going to get someones attention. This single act has a two fold benefit.
A) Congress goes back and uses the money to pay for tax cuts and incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. I notice GM and Ford beginning to make substantial noise in this market. Good God, the salvation of the American auto industry may be here in the next oil crisis.
B) As Ryan so fondly puts it, here's the necessity for invention. This will doubtless jack gas prices higher. People won't want to buy an 8 mile per gallon Hummer at $75 a tank twice a week when some duel fuel Yukon gets 35 miles per gallon.
2) Remember in my New Deal the part about coal refinery plants? Get those going, federally owned plants that sell coal gasoline at market prices and pocket the billions in profit for tax relief and other domestic programs.
I so rock. Vote for Jambo instead of Pedro.
But...
That doesn't eliminate the "fuck" big oil option from the government level.
Do this by doing two things:
1) Slap a substantial tariff on imported light, sweet crude. (No sense taxing the shit out of someones heating oil, right Titus? You feel me on that one up there in Northeast Pennsylvania.) And when I say substantial, I mean serious, eye opening numbers. Something that is going to get someones attention. This single act has a two fold benefit.
A) Congress goes back and uses the money to pay for tax cuts and incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. I notice GM and Ford beginning to make substantial noise in this market. Good God, the salvation of the American auto industry may be here in the next oil crisis.
B) As Ryan so fondly puts it, here's the necessity for invention. This will doubtless jack gas prices higher. People won't want to buy an 8 mile per gallon Hummer at $75 a tank twice a week when some duel fuel Yukon gets 35 miles per gallon.
2) Remember in my New Deal the part about coal refinery plants? Get those going, federally owned plants that sell coal gasoline at market prices and pocket the billions in profit for tax relief and other domestic programs.
I so rock. Vote for Jambo instead of Pedro.
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Each according to his own, each according..."
Quite the little socialist you are on this issue dear comrade. "Multi-billion", "multi-trillion", "multi, multi, multi!" YAWN....
First, despite the housing market and the price of fuel it is inaccurate to say that the US economy is "dragging along at a snails pace." Secondly, the oil companies do not determine their quarterly profits, you do. We all do. And until you are going to get an electric car, or a bicycle, or at least car pool, I have no patience for your calls to "fuck" an industry for whose product you voluntarily consume on a daily basis. You're like a drug addict who blames the dealer. Price regulations have been tried, they make things worse and you know that full well. And I told you already - if you want government intervention on this issue then advocate immediately suspending the fuel taxes and blend requirements until alternative energies are implemented. That'll shave at least a buck off per gallon. That's the proper role of government aiding its citizenry, rather then artificially tampering with prices - we've seen the end of that movie.
Want to be of some help? Then invent a new source of fuel or contribute to candidates who say they will make that a priority. In the meantime unless you're going to get a rickshaw and young Asian lad to pull it (and surely you & Trevor would know where to find both), shut up already.
FR
First, despite the housing market and the price of fuel it is inaccurate to say that the US economy is "dragging along at a snails pace." Secondly, the oil companies do not determine their quarterly profits, you do. We all do. And until you are going to get an electric car, or a bicycle, or at least car pool, I have no patience for your calls to "fuck" an industry for whose product you voluntarily consume on a daily basis. You're like a drug addict who blames the dealer. Price regulations have been tried, they make things worse and you know that full well. And I told you already - if you want government intervention on this issue then advocate immediately suspending the fuel taxes and blend requirements until alternative energies are implemented. That'll shave at least a buck off per gallon. That's the proper role of government aiding its citizenry, rather then artificially tampering with prices - we've seen the end of that movie.
Want to be of some help? Then invent a new source of fuel or contribute to candidates who say they will make that a priority. In the meantime unless you're going to get a rickshaw and young Asian lad to pull it (and surely you & Trevor would know where to find both), shut up already.
FR
So I am not a Christian either??
Be careful here chief ...
Mormons believe that Christ is the savior of all mankind. That he died on the cross for our sins. We believe in the New Testament, preach it, live it (presumably). We are members of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. Jews are not Christians, Muslims are not, we are.
If you contend that because we do not accept the premise of the Trinity - in that God and Christ are the same being, then that is your, very narrow definition of Christianity, and one I reject as the only standard of whether one is a "Christian" or not. I doubt your Pope would agree with you. I could just as easily say (as others have) that Catholics are not truly Christian since they contend there must be an intermediary - the Church - in order to reap the full benefits of Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness. I, however, have not made that claim, and neither should you open your loud mouth to say I am no Christian ... you are wrong.
And the JFK comparison is perfect in the vein it was referenced. Rosy O"Donnell et al claimed that if Romney were elected that a Utah cabal, with our prophet at its head would run the nation. Those same "concerns" were raised over JFK & the Pope PRIOR to his election dufus. I am shocked that you either can't or won't see that clear parallel. But what else should I expect from a clear anti-Mormon bigot?
FR
Mormons believe that Christ is the savior of all mankind. That he died on the cross for our sins. We believe in the New Testament, preach it, live it (presumably). We are members of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. Jews are not Christians, Muslims are not, we are.
If you contend that because we do not accept the premise of the Trinity - in that God and Christ are the same being, then that is your, very narrow definition of Christianity, and one I reject as the only standard of whether one is a "Christian" or not. I doubt your Pope would agree with you. I could just as easily say (as others have) that Catholics are not truly Christian since they contend there must be an intermediary - the Church - in order to reap the full benefits of Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness. I, however, have not made that claim, and neither should you open your loud mouth to say I am no Christian ... you are wrong.
And the JFK comparison is perfect in the vein it was referenced. Rosy O"Donnell et al claimed that if Romney were elected that a Utah cabal, with our prophet at its head would run the nation. Those same "concerns" were raised over JFK & the Pope PRIOR to his election dufus. I am shocked that you either can't or won't see that clear parallel. But what else should I expect from a clear anti-Mormon bigot?
FR
Mike Church learned a new word today...
Laissez-faire.
For those that don't know, it is a French phrase that means "Let Do", and has been adopted by policiticians and economists alike to refer to a "hands off" governmental policy towards a free market economic system (like that enjoyed in the US, for example).
While running to and from the market today, I was listening to a re-run of the Mike Church show on the satellite radio, and he must have used that phrase 50 times in less than 20 minutes. He used the phrase in reference to the proposed Federal bail-out of high interest mortgages that are facing foreclosure... a thoroughly apropos usage, I believe. He used the phrase in reference to the historical S&L bail-out by Reagan... also perfectly applicable. I even agree with his usage of the phrase when referring to the re-institution of the capital gains tax in 1986 by a stubbornly Democratic Congress bent on fighting "Reaganomics" at every turn.
It was his repeated... and repeated and repeated... use of the term concerning Federal regulation of gasoline prices that pisses me off to no end.
Would it surprise anyone to know that Ryan and I have fought over this issue time and time again? I didn't think so...
Ryan, Hannity, Church... hell, every neo-conservative, Reagan-ite Republican in the country screams that it is bad for the economy to regulate fuel prices. It cuts into profits for the big oil companies which then pass that cost on to the consumer and drive prices higher still, costing the Government more and more in the long run. Nothing new to any of this... not one iota.
This would be fine if we were talking about an economy that was working in a terror-free, peace-time period of history... but guess what? WE AREN'T IN A TERROR-FREE, PEACE-TIME PERIOD IN HISTORY, are we?
So I listen to Church (and by extension EVERY GOP pundit) rant about drilling in ANWAR and the Arctic circle, about un-capping the national natural gas reserves, about re-opening the Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia coal fields to pit mining to tear every single ounce of coal out of the ground... all to increase our domestic production rate to keep up with growing consumer demand and rising oil prices.
No one is as prone to complaining about the price of gas as I am... but if I knew there was a concerted NATIONAL effort to develop the means to remove our DAILY INCREASING DEPENDENCE on foreign oil, I would gladly pay the high prices.
I just can't understand Church's insistence at using the term "laissez-faire" in this discussion, however. While he is calling for the defense of Big Oil's record-breaking PROFITS... this nation is slipping further into a foreign oil addiction by 1.8 million barrels of light-sweet crude ON A MONTHLY BASIS!!! Investors in the five largest US and British oil companies can expect continued profits that beat most Western European GNPs, and the US remains with the ball-and-chain of the single greatest national security threat WE HAVE EVER KNOWN... the ability of foreign nationals to dictate on a fucking WHIM how this nation is able to function on a daily... even minute-to-minute... basis.
There is no bigger FAN of the free market system of economics than myself... period. But if you ask me which is the greater priority for this nation's next ten years... securing this country from the threat of foreign country's control our energy needs OR 6 to 10 multi-national conglomerates logging a CONTINUED multi-BILLION dollar quarterly profit record while the rest of the American economy drags along at a snail's pace trying to catch up to the cost of fuel... then I say...
Fuck BIG OIL... regulate the prices and find the alternative energy we need to REMAIN the independent leader of the Free World we have been for the last 180 years.
For those that don't know, it is a French phrase that means "Let Do", and has been adopted by policiticians and economists alike to refer to a "hands off" governmental policy towards a free market economic system (like that enjoyed in the US, for example).
While running to and from the market today, I was listening to a re-run of the Mike Church show on the satellite radio, and he must have used that phrase 50 times in less than 20 minutes. He used the phrase in reference to the proposed Federal bail-out of high interest mortgages that are facing foreclosure... a thoroughly apropos usage, I believe. He used the phrase in reference to the historical S&L bail-out by Reagan... also perfectly applicable. I even agree with his usage of the phrase when referring to the re-institution of the capital gains tax in 1986 by a stubbornly Democratic Congress bent on fighting "Reaganomics" at every turn.
It was his repeated... and repeated and repeated... use of the term concerning Federal regulation of gasoline prices that pisses me off to no end.
Would it surprise anyone to know that Ryan and I have fought over this issue time and time again? I didn't think so...
Ryan, Hannity, Church... hell, every neo-conservative, Reagan-ite Republican in the country screams that it is bad for the economy to regulate fuel prices. It cuts into profits for the big oil companies which then pass that cost on to the consumer and drive prices higher still, costing the Government more and more in the long run. Nothing new to any of this... not one iota.
This would be fine if we were talking about an economy that was working in a terror-free, peace-time period of history... but guess what? WE AREN'T IN A TERROR-FREE, PEACE-TIME PERIOD IN HISTORY, are we?
So I listen to Church (and by extension EVERY GOP pundit) rant about drilling in ANWAR and the Arctic circle, about un-capping the national natural gas reserves, about re-opening the Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia coal fields to pit mining to tear every single ounce of coal out of the ground... all to increase our domestic production rate to keep up with growing consumer demand and rising oil prices.
No one is as prone to complaining about the price of gas as I am... but if I knew there was a concerted NATIONAL effort to develop the means to remove our DAILY INCREASING DEPENDENCE on foreign oil, I would gladly pay the high prices.
I just can't understand Church's insistence at using the term "laissez-faire" in this discussion, however. While he is calling for the defense of Big Oil's record-breaking PROFITS... this nation is slipping further into a foreign oil addiction by 1.8 million barrels of light-sweet crude ON A MONTHLY BASIS!!! Investors in the five largest US and British oil companies can expect continued profits that beat most Western European GNPs, and the US remains with the ball-and-chain of the single greatest national security threat WE HAVE EVER KNOWN... the ability of foreign nationals to dictate on a fucking WHIM how this nation is able to function on a daily... even minute-to-minute... basis.
There is no bigger FAN of the free market system of economics than myself... period. But if you ask me which is the greater priority for this nation's next ten years... securing this country from the threat of foreign country's control our energy needs OR 6 to 10 multi-national conglomerates logging a CONTINUED multi-BILLION dollar quarterly profit record while the rest of the American economy drags along at a snail's pace trying to catch up to the cost of fuel... then I say...
Fuck BIG OIL... regulate the prices and find the alternative energy we need to REMAIN the independent leader of the Free World we have been for the last 180 years.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Would a dyslexic athiest claim there is no dog?
I hope you all have a chance to not just read, but listen to Mitt Romney's speech on faith in America last week. It would seem that even though he has poured millions of dollars into Iowa, and was clearly ahead, that the Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, has eclipsed him largely due to concerns over Mormonism. For any one out there unfamiliar with our particular faiths, Titus and Jambo are practicing Catholics where as I was raised Mormon. It was an inspiring speech which referred often and correctly to the founding fathers, quoting John Adams et al. It was as close to a Reagan speech as I have heard. Good stuff and exactly what has been missing from American politics for some time.
The political purpose was of course to belay fears that Mormonism is some "cult", or anything other than a mainstream sect of Christianity. In that vein he invoked JFK because it was a perfect parallel. He too as you well know faced concerns and flat out opposition about his Catholicism - "the White House will be run from Rome." Little did they know Jack wasn't the most, shall we say "devout" of Catholics. Well, with his personal charisma (and a little mob muscle) Kennedy overcame these concerns. So, from my dear CCD friends out there I expect some simpatico with Mitt on this issue - he'll need it, his father doesn't have one leg in organized crime.
On other fronts, busy as hell this weekend ... and get this: the operators of Caesars have decided that being in the top three (with Wynn and Bellagio) in terms of high end action isn't good enough, they want to reclaim number one. So effective 12/10 our limits in dice (and this parallels around the entire joint and all games) are going from 5,000 dollar maximums to 50,000! Can you believe that? The max on odds will also be 50k, no 250,000 odds on 6 & 8. Still, very strong.
Later,
FR
The political purpose was of course to belay fears that Mormonism is some "cult", or anything other than a mainstream sect of Christianity. In that vein he invoked JFK because it was a perfect parallel. He too as you well know faced concerns and flat out opposition about his Catholicism - "the White House will be run from Rome." Little did they know Jack wasn't the most, shall we say "devout" of Catholics. Well, with his personal charisma (and a little mob muscle) Kennedy overcame these concerns. So, from my dear CCD friends out there I expect some simpatico with Mitt on this issue - he'll need it, his father doesn't have one leg in organized crime.
On other fronts, busy as hell this weekend ... and get this: the operators of Caesars have decided that being in the top three (with Wynn and Bellagio) in terms of high end action isn't good enough, they want to reclaim number one. So effective 12/10 our limits in dice (and this parallels around the entire joint and all games) are going from 5,000 dollar maximums to 50,000! Can you believe that? The max on odds will also be 50k, no 250,000 odds on 6 & 8. Still, very strong.
Later,
FR
Excuse me while I use both hands to pick up my jaw ...
Titus - excellent post. Not that you're shocked that I like it mind you, but the facts and figures portion is just devastating to the other side of this argument. See, this is the essence of the Bund, intellectual growth through argument. I've certainly had to pop an occasional Advil to relieve my growing pains. At any rate, well done.
As to Beck's book - I had no intention of reading it. The day I need a pundit's reference guide to defend my positions within our friendship is the day when I ... well ... end up defending Joseph McCarthy fireside in your backyard (intoxicated as I was). No thanks, been there, done that, I'll draw my own conclusions. As to the mayor/poverty rates ... come on, you can't on the one hand say that "well there are city councils, Burroughs etc" to relieve those 10 mayors of their culpability, then turn right around and give Kotch (whom I personally like, how could you not) full credit for a healthy economy when he had those same bureaucracies. Either they are responsible or they are not. And I didn't mention this out of partisanship. I'm speaking to the ideology of enhancing the human experience through government - the DNC just happens to be the vehicle. Growing up so close to New Orleans i was continually shocked that people would continue to elect leadership (in their case nearly the entire city bureaucracy) that created an atmosphere which repelled new business but attracted new criminals. Look, if the PoTUS is going to get credit or be assigned blame for the vast economy of the United States, then surely mayors have a high level of responsibility as well. And I found it an interesting and indicting fact that the ten worst cities - economically - have been ran by those embracing a left of center ideology 92% of the time since 1965 (a date chosen, I assume, due to the huge expansion in social programs during the latter half of that decade). Don't brush that aside as partisan tripe. It's a real world example of an dysfunctional (in my opinion) ideology. Certainly if the ten best economies were run by Dems since 1965 you'd have no trouble embracing that.
The NIE ... "Houston we have a problem." Subsequent to my "NIE" post of the other day i have learned some disturbing news. I refer you to an editorial by the Wall street Journal entitled High Confidence Game, which raises some startling suspicions first broached in the NY Sun. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119682320187314033.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Here's just a taste, but I urge you to read the entire thing ... As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks was that "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons" and do so "despite its international obligations and international pressure." This was a "high confidence" judgment. The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 "in response to increasing international scrutiny." This too is a "high confidence" conclusion. One of the two conclusions is wrong, and casts considerable doubt on the entire process by which these "estimates" -- the consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies -- are conducted and accorded gospel status.
I find that disturbing in the extreme. in fact the last four NIE's have directly contradicted this latest. Lets put aside my claim that the Iraq invasion, the "shock and awe", is what got Iran's attention and caused them to rethink their illicit nuke program - I'm at the point, after an hour of various researching, that I don't even believe they've halted the program. Add to that the more passive, "let's do a tenth round of inspections" IAEA went on record to say that they don't buy into our estimate quote, "100%."
It gets more disturbing. There are three authors of this report whom are responsible for gathering the Intel of the various 16 agencies, and putting it into one cohesive form. More from the Journal: Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
They went on to describe why they are in fact "anti-Bush", how they were either fired, or ideas passed over. As a side note they detailed what "international pressure" was being brought on Iran in 2003, when they supposedly suspended the program, and the Europeans were just beginning their pressure, the only other thing going on was our invasion so your estimation that it was "renewed international pressure" is simply not supported by the facts, but it's neither here nor there, I believe no suspension occurred at all). Even more disturbing then these "disgruntled" partisans is that one of the authors of this report is said to be an advocate of Iran's sovereign "right" to develop nuclear technology. Has the Bush administration no control over who writes or reviews these reports? Again, from the Journal: ... the indications that the Bush Administration was surprised by this NIE, and the way it scrambled yesterday to contain its diplomatic consequences, hardly inspire even "medium confidence" that our spooks have achieved some epic breakthrough. The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy...
This now has people within our own country (namely the Dem presidential candidates) and more around the world, screaming that we should now negotiate, without condition, with Iran (whose secret police, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, was recently labeled via a congressional vote, including Hillary, a "terrorist organization"). This, despite the fact that ... ... the real issue is not Iran's nuclear weapons program, but its nuclear program, period. As the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- that is, build the capability to make the fuel for a potential bomb. And it is doing so in open defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. No less a source than the IAEA recently confirmed that Iran already has blueprints to cast uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core. The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile. And there is considerable evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion at the weapons testing facility in Parchin...
This entire fiasco raises several issues of immense importance. 1.) Exactly what is the state of our current ability to gather and vet intelligence? 2.) How will US and international pressure be brought to bare on Iran to dismantle her nuclear program if the global consensus is to take the "suspension" portion of this report as gospel? 3.) Is Israel once again left to defend herself and will she eventually need to send in her F-16's, perhaps setting off a new region-wide war? 4.) If we wake up to a Iran weeks away from nuclear armament due to intelligence failures, will our military be able to open up a second, deadly front in that region?
As you ponder these questions and this entire scenario keep this in mind - EVERY SINGLE nuclear power the world had ever seen has become so in secret, including us.
FR
As to Beck's book - I had no intention of reading it. The day I need a pundit's reference guide to defend my positions within our friendship is the day when I ... well ... end up defending Joseph McCarthy fireside in your backyard (intoxicated as I was). No thanks, been there, done that, I'll draw my own conclusions. As to the mayor/poverty rates ... come on, you can't on the one hand say that "well there are city councils, Burroughs etc" to relieve those 10 mayors of their culpability, then turn right around and give Kotch (whom I personally like, how could you not) full credit for a healthy economy when he had those same bureaucracies. Either they are responsible or they are not. And I didn't mention this out of partisanship. I'm speaking to the ideology of enhancing the human experience through government - the DNC just happens to be the vehicle. Growing up so close to New Orleans i was continually shocked that people would continue to elect leadership (in their case nearly the entire city bureaucracy) that created an atmosphere which repelled new business but attracted new criminals. Look, if the PoTUS is going to get credit or be assigned blame for the vast economy of the United States, then surely mayors have a high level of responsibility as well. And I found it an interesting and indicting fact that the ten worst cities - economically - have been ran by those embracing a left of center ideology 92% of the time since 1965 (a date chosen, I assume, due to the huge expansion in social programs during the latter half of that decade). Don't brush that aside as partisan tripe. It's a real world example of an dysfunctional (in my opinion) ideology. Certainly if the ten best economies were run by Dems since 1965 you'd have no trouble embracing that.
The NIE ... "Houston we have a problem." Subsequent to my "NIE" post of the other day i have learned some disturbing news. I refer you to an editorial by the Wall street Journal entitled High Confidence Game, which raises some startling suspicions first broached in the NY Sun. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119682320187314033.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Here's just a taste, but I urge you to read the entire thing ... As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks was that "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons" and do so "despite its international obligations and international pressure." This was a "high confidence" judgment. The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 "in response to increasing international scrutiny." This too is a "high confidence" conclusion. One of the two conclusions is wrong, and casts considerable doubt on the entire process by which these "estimates" -- the consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies -- are conducted and accorded gospel status.
I find that disturbing in the extreme. in fact the last four NIE's have directly contradicted this latest. Lets put aside my claim that the Iraq invasion, the "shock and awe", is what got Iran's attention and caused them to rethink their illicit nuke program - I'm at the point, after an hour of various researching, that I don't even believe they've halted the program. Add to that the more passive, "let's do a tenth round of inspections" IAEA went on record to say that they don't buy into our estimate quote, "100%."
It gets more disturbing. There are three authors of this report whom are responsible for gathering the Intel of the various 16 agencies, and putting it into one cohesive form. More from the Journal: Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
They went on to describe why they are in fact "anti-Bush", how they were either fired, or ideas passed over. As a side note they detailed what "international pressure" was being brought on Iran in 2003, when they supposedly suspended the program, and the Europeans were just beginning their pressure, the only other thing going on was our invasion so your estimation that it was "renewed international pressure" is simply not supported by the facts, but it's neither here nor there, I believe no suspension occurred at all). Even more disturbing then these "disgruntled" partisans is that one of the authors of this report is said to be an advocate of Iran's sovereign "right" to develop nuclear technology. Has the Bush administration no control over who writes or reviews these reports? Again, from the Journal: ... the indications that the Bush Administration was surprised by this NIE, and the way it scrambled yesterday to contain its diplomatic consequences, hardly inspire even "medium confidence" that our spooks have achieved some epic breakthrough. The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy...
This now has people within our own country (namely the Dem presidential candidates) and more around the world, screaming that we should now negotiate, without condition, with Iran (whose secret police, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, was recently labeled via a congressional vote, including Hillary, a "terrorist organization"). This, despite the fact that ... ... the real issue is not Iran's nuclear weapons program, but its nuclear program, period. As the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- that is, build the capability to make the fuel for a potential bomb. And it is doing so in open defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. No less a source than the IAEA recently confirmed that Iran already has blueprints to cast uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core. The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile. And there is considerable evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion at the weapons testing facility in Parchin...
This entire fiasco raises several issues of immense importance. 1.) Exactly what is the state of our current ability to gather and vet intelligence? 2.) How will US and international pressure be brought to bare on Iran to dismantle her nuclear program if the global consensus is to take the "suspension" portion of this report as gospel? 3.) Is Israel once again left to defend herself and will she eventually need to send in her F-16's, perhaps setting off a new region-wide war? 4.) If we wake up to a Iran weeks away from nuclear armament due to intelligence failures, will our military be able to open up a second, deadly front in that region?
As you ponder these questions and this entire scenario keep this in mind - EVERY SINGLE nuclear power the world had ever seen has become so in secret, including us.
FR
The proverbial "Can of Worms" is now OPEN...
That's right, friends and neighbors... I am making a post about the upcoming Supreme Court case to review the DC Gun Ban as unconstitutional.
For our lurker readers out there, a bit of background on this Bund topic...
When the issue first arose within our circle, I was still a firm believer in the "collective" aspect of the 2nd Amendments protection. I felt that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms through the existence of a well regulated militia, for the security of the state. This is a common interpretation of the Amendment, and one shared by literally millions of Americans.
It goes without saying that F Ryan did not see my side of the argument.
The upcoming US Supreme Court review of the DC Gun Ban has been all over talk radio (at least when I am listening), and it has thus been on my mind a whole lot lately. One program in particular has been polling people on the street in the DC/Arlington areas, asking what they feel the 2nd Amendment means. This "man on the street" interview has shown me just how ignorant the nation as a whole, and myself only a few short years ago, really is. I am making this post to explain my position and why I think this is an important case for the USSC.
After Ryan and I had our (probably numerous) arguments over the "collective" versus "individual" aspect of the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment, I determined to research the question to better arm myself in my defense of the "collective" nature I was convinced was correct. Needless to say, all I did was convince myself that I was wrong.
The biggest factor in this "Loyolan" conversion was the fact that since 1920, no fewer than 16 Supreme Court decisions had determined that "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981). If the cops and police of the country have no direct OR general duty to the individual... then who does? If even the GOVERNMENT isn't answerable to the individual in matters of safety and protection... then who is? If no Federal, State, county or municipal authority can be held responsible for the safety and protection of an individual... then I have to believe that the primary provider for that safety and protection must be the individual himself, right?
Other factors in my change of mind came from the fact that the Founding Fathers used the same words and phrases in the other 9 Amendments as they did in the 2nd, and that includes the Amendments that DO specify individual rights, as opposed to collective public rights (the IV, V, and VI for example). Extra-Constitutional works such as the Federalist Papers and letters and correspondence from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin also point to intention of individual protection under the 2nd Amendment, leaving no room for doubt, in my mind, that the 2nd Amendment DOES guaranty the Right of the individual to Keep and Bear arms for the defense of his person, family and property, thus insuring the security of the State by his own hands.
Since the news of the Court's review of the DC Gun Ban, I have heard MOUNTAINS of statistics about crime and violence in the US since the end of WWII (which seems to be a popular demarcation in the historic time-line of this issue... don't ask me why). These facts and stats come from both sides of the issue, seemingly equally, to be quite frank. So I chose to investigate these facts (as I did the original question), but chose to take only US Federal statistics as "usable" to remove or reduce the chance of the word "BIASED" entering into the equation. I can think of no more bureaucratic institution than the US Government, and nothing makes for arbitrary objectivity like a good bureaucracy.
One of the issues that I felt was an important factor in my former "collective" mind-set was the number of accidental shootings in the US. With organizations like the NRA so vocally defending the right of the individual to keep firearms in the home or on the person as a self defense measure, surely the rate of accidental deaths due to handguns and firearms must be reflected, right?
Here's the FACTS as presented by the US Federal government:
For our lurker readers out there, a bit of background on this Bund topic...
When the issue first arose within our circle, I was still a firm believer in the "collective" aspect of the 2nd Amendments protection. I felt that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms through the existence of a well regulated militia, for the security of the state. This is a common interpretation of the Amendment, and one shared by literally millions of Americans.
It goes without saying that F Ryan did not see my side of the argument.
The upcoming US Supreme Court review of the DC Gun Ban has been all over talk radio (at least when I am listening), and it has thus been on my mind a whole lot lately. One program in particular has been polling people on the street in the DC/Arlington areas, asking what they feel the 2nd Amendment means. This "man on the street" interview has shown me just how ignorant the nation as a whole, and myself only a few short years ago, really is. I am making this post to explain my position and why I think this is an important case for the USSC.
After Ryan and I had our (probably numerous) arguments over the "collective" versus "individual" aspect of the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment, I determined to research the question to better arm myself in my defense of the "collective" nature I was convinced was correct. Needless to say, all I did was convince myself that I was wrong.
The biggest factor in this "Loyolan" conversion was the fact that since 1920, no fewer than 16 Supreme Court decisions had determined that "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981). If the cops and police of the country have no direct OR general duty to the individual... then who does? If even the GOVERNMENT isn't answerable to the individual in matters of safety and protection... then who is? If no Federal, State, county or municipal authority can be held responsible for the safety and protection of an individual... then I have to believe that the primary provider for that safety and protection must be the individual himself, right?
Other factors in my change of mind came from the fact that the Founding Fathers used the same words and phrases in the other 9 Amendments as they did in the 2nd, and that includes the Amendments that DO specify individual rights, as opposed to collective public rights (the IV, V, and VI for example). Extra-Constitutional works such as the Federalist Papers and letters and correspondence from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin also point to intention of individual protection under the 2nd Amendment, leaving no room for doubt, in my mind, that the 2nd Amendment DOES guaranty the Right of the individual to Keep and Bear arms for the defense of his person, family and property, thus insuring the security of the State by his own hands.
Since the news of the Court's review of the DC Gun Ban, I have heard MOUNTAINS of statistics about crime and violence in the US since the end of WWII (which seems to be a popular demarcation in the historic time-line of this issue... don't ask me why). These facts and stats come from both sides of the issue, seemingly equally, to be quite frank. So I chose to investigate these facts (as I did the original question), but chose to take only US Federal statistics as "usable" to remove or reduce the chance of the word "BIASED" entering into the equation. I can think of no more bureaucratic institution than the US Government, and nothing makes for arbitrary objectivity like a good bureaucracy.
One of the issues that I felt was an important factor in my former "collective" mind-set was the number of accidental shootings in the US. With organizations like the NRA so vocally defending the right of the individual to keep firearms in the home or on the person as a self defense measure, surely the rate of accidental deaths due to handguns and firearms must be reflected, right?
Here's the FACTS as presented by the US Federal government:
- Eight times as many children die from "non-gun" violent acts than from gun crimes. (BATF, 06)
- 83% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun. (BATF, '04)
- In 2001, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released the figure that "each day in America, 13 children are killed by guns". This "fact" is based on the US Treasury and Justice Dept. report of 1999 that 68% of all gun murders in this country are perpetrated on 18-20 year old victims, and more than 40% of those committing these crimes are ALSO 18-20 years old. The fact that at no time in the last 65 years has it been legal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase or carry a firearm is completely disregarded by the Brady Campaign. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, '05)
- Since 1960, more than 22,000 NEW gun control laws have been passed at a city, state and federal level in this country, yet at no point since 1960 has the number of gun-related crimes FALLEN to pre-1960 levels, and in only 4 of those 47 years has it ever fallen PERIOD. (BATF '02)
- 90% of ALL violent crime in the US does not involve guns AT ALL, and 77% of the remaining crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally, meaning the gun-control laws never came into play. (BATF '07)
- MOST STAGGERING OF ALL... since 1995, every year in the US a legally obtained and registered gun is used in personal defense against criminals 2.5 MILLION times. That's 6,500 people a day defending themselves with a firearm from a crime. Of those 2.5 million acts of defense, the gun is actually FIRED less than 1% of the time. (2005, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology)
If these facts are to be understood in the context of such Supreme Court decisions as Warren v District of Columbia (1981), then I fail to see how ANY interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that denies the individual the right to keep and bear arms for self defense can have any reasonable weight with a rational person.
Anyway... just my thoughts.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Say what you will...
I don't agree.
In fact, I have issues with almost everything you wrote... but I'll mention the things I agree with first.
If the report is accurate and the Iranian nuclear program was dropped in 2003, then there is little doubt that American and international opposition to a new, regional WMD program prompted the change in attitude. As has been stated here before, the years since 2001 have seen Iranian regional security fall by orders of magnitude. Where once they faced only ONE enemy on their border (Saddam's Iraq), they now face the potential of having THREE (a US-friendly Iraq, a US friendly Afghanistan, and Pakistan... all "committed" to stopping terror). That is more than two-thirds of their land borders constituting a 'threat" of one kind or another to the current regime, added to the simple FACT that US naval power denies them any security from their shores on the Gulf. No one has accused the Iranian leadership of being stupid... only evil and belligerent.
I also give credit for the Administration, and Bush in particular, in having made this report public as soon as it was released... even though there was the distinct chance that it would make them look vulnerable in the eyes of the opposition. It seems that 7 years into the administration, someone has finally learned something from past experience.
Now, to points I disagree with...
At no point in the summary of the report (linked under "Articles of the Week") do you see the invasion of Iraq listed as a contributing factor. This doesn't negate the fact that the invasion probably did effect the resulting suspension of the program, but let's not stuff any more creme into this pastry than it can handle. If we are going to now use the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as proof positive that aggressive military actions against foreign nations can have a "deterent" effect on rogue nations, then we are walking down the path to a very long and costly conflict-ridden 25 years.
In fact, given the information found in the summary, I can now say that an invasion of Iran rather than Iraq might not have been justified, either (although all indicators show that Iran WAS actively pursuing nuclear weapons prior to 2003)... at least based on the information I had (as the single, LOUDEST advocate of that action in this group) as a "civillian". With no observable or measurable evidence that Iran had the capacity to produce or procure enough fissible material until 2015, I fail to see how they could have constituted any greater a threat to regional security (in a WMD manner) than any other rogue nation actively trying to secure a black-market nuke. That's not saying I still don't think that of the two countries, Iran wasn't the greater threat to regional security based on their open support of terror and anti-American actions... but if I am to trust this NIE, then it seems they weren't any closer to a nuke than Iraq was.
Next...
I have read Beck's An Inconvenient Book, and it is absolute CRAP! The facts he uses are (probably) irrefutable... unless he employs the same researcher as Ann Coulter... but his conclusions are so outlandish as to make the book nearly worthless. In fact, had the book not been a gift from a VERY liberal friend here in NEPA, and had I not been expected to return it knowing questions and comments would follow, I'd have stopped reading after the first two chapters.
His claims that the mayoral election results of the poorest cities represent a reflection on Democratic leadership abilities are asinine in the extreme, and very painful to read. I'm not claiming that a mayor doesn't have some control of a cities fiscal well-being, but I would hesitate to vaunt that "control" in cities the size of those listed... they have Councils and Borroughs that dictate the fiscal future of cities the same way Congress does the country, and NO consideration was given to how those groups were oriented politically. No mention is made of such Democratic success stories as Ed Koch, the FIRST and subsequently ONLY Mayor of New York since 1948 to EXPAND social programs while at the same time REDUCING crime and doing it with a BALANCED BUDGET... and he accomplished that in his FIRST of three terms. That's solid Democratic leadership, if you ask me.
He completely MISSES the fact that the contributor list of the DNC for the last 17 years has exceeded the RNC's list in the number and gross amounts of money donated by multi-millionaire by as much as 25%! That's right, the "Party of the Working Man" now has more multi-millionaires contributing and swaying the agenda than the RNC... people like Soros, Gates, Oprah, Turner, nearly every member of the Screen Actors Guild that can afford to contribute, Leno, Trump... the list is long and shockingly RICH... and VERY biased.
Trust me when I say... save yourself the $15.99 or whatever they are charging for the book. It isn't worth the paper its printed on.
In fact, I have issues with almost everything you wrote... but I'll mention the things I agree with first.
If the report is accurate and the Iranian nuclear program was dropped in 2003, then there is little doubt that American and international opposition to a new, regional WMD program prompted the change in attitude. As has been stated here before, the years since 2001 have seen Iranian regional security fall by orders of magnitude. Where once they faced only ONE enemy on their border (Saddam's Iraq), they now face the potential of having THREE (a US-friendly Iraq, a US friendly Afghanistan, and Pakistan... all "committed" to stopping terror). That is more than two-thirds of their land borders constituting a 'threat" of one kind or another to the current regime, added to the simple FACT that US naval power denies them any security from their shores on the Gulf. No one has accused the Iranian leadership of being stupid... only evil and belligerent.
I also give credit for the Administration, and Bush in particular, in having made this report public as soon as it was released... even though there was the distinct chance that it would make them look vulnerable in the eyes of the opposition. It seems that 7 years into the administration, someone has finally learned something from past experience.
Now, to points I disagree with...
At no point in the summary of the report (linked under "Articles of the Week") do you see the invasion of Iraq listed as a contributing factor. This doesn't negate the fact that the invasion probably did effect the resulting suspension of the program, but let's not stuff any more creme into this pastry than it can handle. If we are going to now use the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as proof positive that aggressive military actions against foreign nations can have a "deterent" effect on rogue nations, then we are walking down the path to a very long and costly conflict-ridden 25 years.
In fact, given the information found in the summary, I can now say that an invasion of Iran rather than Iraq might not have been justified, either (although all indicators show that Iran WAS actively pursuing nuclear weapons prior to 2003)... at least based on the information I had (as the single, LOUDEST advocate of that action in this group) as a "civillian". With no observable or measurable evidence that Iran had the capacity to produce or procure enough fissible material until 2015, I fail to see how they could have constituted any greater a threat to regional security (in a WMD manner) than any other rogue nation actively trying to secure a black-market nuke. That's not saying I still don't think that of the two countries, Iran wasn't the greater threat to regional security based on their open support of terror and anti-American actions... but if I am to trust this NIE, then it seems they weren't any closer to a nuke than Iraq was.
Next...
I have read Beck's An Inconvenient Book, and it is absolute CRAP! The facts he uses are (probably) irrefutable... unless he employs the same researcher as Ann Coulter... but his conclusions are so outlandish as to make the book nearly worthless. In fact, had the book not been a gift from a VERY liberal friend here in NEPA, and had I not been expected to return it knowing questions and comments would follow, I'd have stopped reading after the first two chapters.
His claims that the mayoral election results of the poorest cities represent a reflection on Democratic leadership abilities are asinine in the extreme, and very painful to read. I'm not claiming that a mayor doesn't have some control of a cities fiscal well-being, but I would hesitate to vaunt that "control" in cities the size of those listed... they have Councils and Borroughs that dictate the fiscal future of cities the same way Congress does the country, and NO consideration was given to how those groups were oriented politically. No mention is made of such Democratic success stories as Ed Koch, the FIRST and subsequently ONLY Mayor of New York since 1948 to EXPAND social programs while at the same time REDUCING crime and doing it with a BALANCED BUDGET... and he accomplished that in his FIRST of three terms. That's solid Democratic leadership, if you ask me.
He completely MISSES the fact that the contributor list of the DNC for the last 17 years has exceeded the RNC's list in the number and gross amounts of money donated by multi-millionaire by as much as 25%! That's right, the "Party of the Working Man" now has more multi-millionaires contributing and swaying the agenda than the RNC... people like Soros, Gates, Oprah, Turner, nearly every member of the Screen Actors Guild that can afford to contribute, Leno, Trump... the list is long and shockingly RICH... and VERY biased.
Trust me when I say... save yourself the $15.99 or whatever they are charging for the book. It isn't worth the paper its printed on.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
N.I.E.
Today 16 separate entities, including but not limited to, the CIA, FBI, DIA, Navy Intel, Marine Core Intel, Army Intel, the Sate Dept, Homeland Security, and the Treasury Dept, released the National Intelligence Estimate for the coming year. The big news? Iran. It was revealed that Iran abandoned work on its primary nuclear weapons project (centrifuges, etc, although they are still seeking to enrich uranium) in 2003. Now, what event occurred in 2003 that we can all think of? It was in that region, it involved a neighbor of Iran .... oh that's right, we invaded Iraq and demonstrated to Ahmeddenajad et al that we could depose in a few weeks a man they couldn't beat in two wars over 25 years. Now the insurgency post war is a different group by and large, but the point is he saw first hand just what we could do with minimal forces. And the larger point is that had we not gone in it is highly likely that Iran would be nuclear by now, Saddam wouldn't have stood for that, he goes nuclear, we have to arm Jordan and the most incendiary region of the world flies full bore into a new arms race. What a disaster. And no, that was not the reason given for invasion, I'm simply pointing out that if current trends hold and even progress in Iraq, combined with scaring Iran into not going nuclear, add Qaddafi's about face and things are shaping up in a way that will cause history to look quite favorably on one GW Bush's overall action and results in that theater.
Of course opponents are jumping on this report saying that it shows that once again Bush & co were beating the drums of war over WMD's that didn't yet exist, but I find that a rather juvenile attack. Like the case with Saddam every Intel agency in the world believed Iran was heading towards nuclear armament (and they obviously were), but it was OUR intelligence agencies that, unlike last time, vetted the situation and broke the news that primary nuclear development was halted 4 years ago, and Bush held a press conference stating just that right away (earlier today), and noting that they will continue to push for the dismantlement of already made progress.
On a separate note Glenn Beck has a new book entitled "An Inconvenient Book" that is supposed to be a very comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on a wide range of issues, charts, graphs etc that, among other things, conservatives can reference in refuting liberal talking points and stereotypes. He was reading from it on the radio today and this got my attention ... of the ten most poverty stricken large cities in the US (including Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, New Orleans and Toledo Ohio which Dennis Kucinich as mayor ran into the ground) the political affiliation broke down that on average Republican mayors governed for 8% of the time since 1965. In some instances such as New Orleans and Detroit there hasn't been a Republican mayor elected at all since that date. Isn't that interesting? These are the cities which are supposed to be the grand, shining examples of how a society should function once a cacophony of "caring" social programs are implemented and yet these people live in abject poverty.
Also, Registered Republicans give 30% more in charitable donations each year, and before you go saying it's because they're wealthier on average (a bit of a misnomer), let me add that out of the 25 highest donating states, 24 went red for Bush in 2004 - that's a lot of rural middle class Republicans with big hearts. Not to mention the majority congressional districts with the highest number of millionaire's per capita are Democrat held. So much for the stereotype of the greedy, unsympathetic GOP member, huh?
FR
Of course opponents are jumping on this report saying that it shows that once again Bush & co were beating the drums of war over WMD's that didn't yet exist, but I find that a rather juvenile attack. Like the case with Saddam every Intel agency in the world believed Iran was heading towards nuclear armament (and they obviously were), but it was OUR intelligence agencies that, unlike last time, vetted the situation and broke the news that primary nuclear development was halted 4 years ago, and Bush held a press conference stating just that right away (earlier today), and noting that they will continue to push for the dismantlement of already made progress.
On a separate note Glenn Beck has a new book entitled "An Inconvenient Book" that is supposed to be a very comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on a wide range of issues, charts, graphs etc that, among other things, conservatives can reference in refuting liberal talking points and stereotypes. He was reading from it on the radio today and this got my attention ... of the ten most poverty stricken large cities in the US (including Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, New Orleans and Toledo Ohio which Dennis Kucinich as mayor ran into the ground) the political affiliation broke down that on average Republican mayors governed for 8% of the time since 1965. In some instances such as New Orleans and Detroit there hasn't been a Republican mayor elected at all since that date. Isn't that interesting? These are the cities which are supposed to be the grand, shining examples of how a society should function once a cacophony of "caring" social programs are implemented and yet these people live in abject poverty.
Also, Registered Republicans give 30% more in charitable donations each year, and before you go saying it's because they're wealthier on average (a bit of a misnomer), let me add that out of the 25 highest donating states, 24 went red for Bush in 2004 - that's a lot of rural middle class Republicans with big hearts. Not to mention the majority congressional districts with the highest number of millionaire's per capita are Democrat held. So much for the stereotype of the greedy, unsympathetic GOP member, huh?
FR
The Prosecution of Global Terrorism
As promised, but I've got a hard deadline. Have to get the kids in 45 minutes and I'm working off the fly.
The problem with looking at terrorism as global crime as opposed to global war is our generation has the "War against Drugs" taste in our mouths. We all know how well that's gone. As I said to both Ryan and Badboy, prosecuting terror as crime is different in several ways.
1) It requires no war powers on the part of the President. All intelligence agencies, military, law enforcement, you name it, gather the information and our people either a) initiate a surgical strike or b) snatch the bad guy for trial. None of this needs blanket authority that the Patriot Act or the Defense Authorization Act gives the President.
2) It keeps Congress in the loop. As has been done since WWII, high level congressional members are briefed on operations. This ensures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, fosters a cooperative atmosphere, and diffuses partisan bickering at the top levels of the two branches.
This in no way removes how we view "rogue" states. My personal favorite example is Lybia in 1986. Rome and Vienna have bombs detonated in their airports. Reagan drops the warning. The disco in Germany gets bombed and within 24 hours Quaddaffi has bombs punching skylights in his palace roof. That required no war powers act, no trampling of Congress. It was decisive, effective and had minimal collateral damage. This scenario becomes particularly pertinent when dealing with "satellite" states like Syria. Make the support of terrorism supremely expensive and all of a sudden Damascus isn't so hip on the idea any more.
In the case that an invasion becomes necessary, (the example I used was the North Korea exporting a nuclear device used in a terrorist attack) then the President stands before Congress and says "We're in this together. This is what it means. This is what we need to do. Are you with me?" As opposed to once again, riding over Congress and dismissing the balance of power designed into the Constitution.
Another example I used with Ryan was the Reagan gem of manipulating Congress as opposed to ignoring them. Reagan would plop down in the Oval Office, chat with the American public about what he wanted and why Congress was opposing him, ask the public to call or write their congressmen to vote with the President on the proposed legislation, and cause Tip O'Neal to lose his mind. That's manipulation, and there's nothing illegal about that. One could almost argue that George W. is treading the thin ice at the edge when it comes to casual dismissal of Congressional authority. And the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act crack that thin ice.
Gotta boogie. More later.
The problem with looking at terrorism as global crime as opposed to global war is our generation has the "War against Drugs" taste in our mouths. We all know how well that's gone. As I said to both Ryan and Badboy, prosecuting terror as crime is different in several ways.
1) It requires no war powers on the part of the President. All intelligence agencies, military, law enforcement, you name it, gather the information and our people either a) initiate a surgical strike or b) snatch the bad guy for trial. None of this needs blanket authority that the Patriot Act or the Defense Authorization Act gives the President.
2) It keeps Congress in the loop. As has been done since WWII, high level congressional members are briefed on operations. This ensures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, fosters a cooperative atmosphere, and diffuses partisan bickering at the top levels of the two branches.
This in no way removes how we view "rogue" states. My personal favorite example is Lybia in 1986. Rome and Vienna have bombs detonated in their airports. Reagan drops the warning. The disco in Germany gets bombed and within 24 hours Quaddaffi has bombs punching skylights in his palace roof. That required no war powers act, no trampling of Congress. It was decisive, effective and had minimal collateral damage. This scenario becomes particularly pertinent when dealing with "satellite" states like Syria. Make the support of terrorism supremely expensive and all of a sudden Damascus isn't so hip on the idea any more.
In the case that an invasion becomes necessary, (the example I used was the North Korea exporting a nuclear device used in a terrorist attack) then the President stands before Congress and says "We're in this together. This is what it means. This is what we need to do. Are you with me?" As opposed to once again, riding over Congress and dismissing the balance of power designed into the Constitution.
Another example I used with Ryan was the Reagan gem of manipulating Congress as opposed to ignoring them. Reagan would plop down in the Oval Office, chat with the American public about what he wanted and why Congress was opposing him, ask the public to call or write their congressmen to vote with the President on the proposed legislation, and cause Tip O'Neal to lose his mind. That's manipulation, and there's nothing illegal about that. One could almost argue that George W. is treading the thin ice at the edge when it comes to casual dismissal of Congressional authority. And the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act crack that thin ice.
Gotta boogie. More later.
Testing ...
HA! That computer thought it could stop me? I think not. Chaulk one up for my improved computer literacy.
Ryan, political suicide, and other topics...
Well, somehow, Ryan and I are going to have to figure out what aspect of his computer illiteracy is so hampering his ability to post on this blog. I haven't heard from him (as in a phone call) in more than 6 months... but put a glitch in his posting schedule, and he calls me four times in an evening. My friend, that's called OCD, if you were wondering.
As you can see, the "I blame Ryan" setting is still positioned at MAX. Hehe...
I know Ron Paul is a bit off center with the rest of the GOP... perhaps not in principle, but certainly in applicability in this day and age. I have also noted that he makes many grand plans for a Paul Presidency... but offers no solid, measurable means to achieve them. He seems to have taken a page out of the Democrat's play-book there.
Still, this ties in nicely with what James had mentioned as an important point in his post... the manner in which we (as a society and a government) view terrorism. Declaring war on terrorists and nations that support and sponsor them is fine, IF we are willing to do whatever it takes to WIN that war. This nation OBVIOUSLY isn't going to stand by as books of ration-stamps are distributed from the Post Office, dictating that only 40 gallons of fuel will be sold to each American household for private use. We still haven't stopped BITCHING about having to take our shoes off at the airport security checks, for the love of Pete! Forcing the American people to save and turn in old cooking oil or recyclable materials to support and pay for the effort is completely out of the question... even for Ryan, it seems.
Prosecuting terror as a "crime" has its advantages, too. I have thought about this a lot since Jambo posted it. I won't list the advantages yet... only because the hurdles need to be addressed first.
There has never been, nor is there going to be anytime soon, a UNIFIED code of international law by which terrorists would be prosecuted in the event of capture or detainment. Extradition is a nightmare in normal circumstances, but on a global stage and on a nearly daily basis... the logistics and coordination needed are mind-boggling. The level of cooperation needed between so many countries is unprecedented... and I do not use that word lightly. At no point in world history has the global community been THAT coordinated and together in purpose and prosecution, so there is little hope of seeing it anytime soon.
Limiting the "War" on terror to nations that support or promote it (i.e. the Taliban, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc) has its own problems... we can't agree NOW (as an international community of nations) what constitutes support and aid. Pat Buchannon has been pissing and moaning about our association with the likes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years... how often has he mentioned the lack of zeal our "allies" are employing in fighting terror within their own borders? The Saudi Royal Family is STILL paying families of suicide bombers in Israel for each Israeli soldier killed... yet we still list Saudi Arabia as an integral part of our coalition against Terror. I'm still waiting for an explanation on that... and it's not very often you'll find me agreeing with Pat Buchannon, let me tell you!
I just don't know that a change in paradigm concerning HOW the nation views our efforts against terrorists and the states that aid them is a good idea right now. We fought an un-declared war against Communism for 65 years... and won. As much as I could HOPE that the War on Terror won't last that long... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
A good point was brought up on a BBC talk show I was listening to on the sat-radio (calm down, Ryan... they do occasionally have CONSERVATIVE discussions on the BBC). NATO requires its signatory members to treat attacks and threats on ONE member as an attack or threat on ALL. This should not mean that it is only the US that responds to these threats, however. If nations like Poland, Turkey, the Ukraine, et al want to remain member states, then they will need to pick up some of the slack. We currently have about 35% of our active forces deployed between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the UK has about 11% spread over their respective theaters of action... no other nation has even 1% of their available active troops in theater.
The same show also brought up this point... perhaps the US needs to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. I agree in as much as we are IN Iraq up to our eyeballs, and we MUST be able to walk away knowing a stable, legitimate government is in control. If that course of action is going to require 100 to 150 thousand troops for the next 2 to 5 years, then it is going to seriously curb our ability to exercise military operations in other theaters or regions. The extended War on Terror, outside of Iraq and "the 'Stan", will simply have to remain a more diplomatic effort (unless something major changes in the interim). This hearkens back to our argument that by throwing the full weight of our armed forces and their capabilities at Iraq and Afghanistan, we can finish the job faster (and, I firmly believe, at a lower cost in lives and equipment) and better implement what we learn in the larger military scheme of things. If it means doubling the number of troops, but reducing our time in theater... then so be it.
On this same point, James brought up a good point. The PotUS has, since 2006, the authority to do just that WITHOUT Congressional approval... if he chose to exercise it. All he would sweat is the funding after the initial "surge". Not a small point, in my eyes.
Anyway, just my thoughts...
As you can see, the "I blame Ryan" setting is still positioned at MAX. Hehe...
I know Ron Paul is a bit off center with the rest of the GOP... perhaps not in principle, but certainly in applicability in this day and age. I have also noted that he makes many grand plans for a Paul Presidency... but offers no solid, measurable means to achieve them. He seems to have taken a page out of the Democrat's play-book there.
Still, this ties in nicely with what James had mentioned as an important point in his post... the manner in which we (as a society and a government) view terrorism. Declaring war on terrorists and nations that support and sponsor them is fine, IF we are willing to do whatever it takes to WIN that war. This nation OBVIOUSLY isn't going to stand by as books of ration-stamps are distributed from the Post Office, dictating that only 40 gallons of fuel will be sold to each American household for private use. We still haven't stopped BITCHING about having to take our shoes off at the airport security checks, for the love of Pete! Forcing the American people to save and turn in old cooking oil or recyclable materials to support and pay for the effort is completely out of the question... even for Ryan, it seems.
Prosecuting terror as a "crime" has its advantages, too. I have thought about this a lot since Jambo posted it. I won't list the advantages yet... only because the hurdles need to be addressed first.
There has never been, nor is there going to be anytime soon, a UNIFIED code of international law by which terrorists would be prosecuted in the event of capture or detainment. Extradition is a nightmare in normal circumstances, but on a global stage and on a nearly daily basis... the logistics and coordination needed are mind-boggling. The level of cooperation needed between so many countries is unprecedented... and I do not use that word lightly. At no point in world history has the global community been THAT coordinated and together in purpose and prosecution, so there is little hope of seeing it anytime soon.
Limiting the "War" on terror to nations that support or promote it (i.e. the Taliban, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc) has its own problems... we can't agree NOW (as an international community of nations) what constitutes support and aid. Pat Buchannon has been pissing and moaning about our association with the likes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years... how often has he mentioned the lack of zeal our "allies" are employing in fighting terror within their own borders? The Saudi Royal Family is STILL paying families of suicide bombers in Israel for each Israeli soldier killed... yet we still list Saudi Arabia as an integral part of our coalition against Terror. I'm still waiting for an explanation on that... and it's not very often you'll find me agreeing with Pat Buchannon, let me tell you!
I just don't know that a change in paradigm concerning HOW the nation views our efforts against terrorists and the states that aid them is a good idea right now. We fought an un-declared war against Communism for 65 years... and won. As much as I could HOPE that the War on Terror won't last that long... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
A good point was brought up on a BBC talk show I was listening to on the sat-radio (calm down, Ryan... they do occasionally have CONSERVATIVE discussions on the BBC). NATO requires its signatory members to treat attacks and threats on ONE member as an attack or threat on ALL. This should not mean that it is only the US that responds to these threats, however. If nations like Poland, Turkey, the Ukraine, et al want to remain member states, then they will need to pick up some of the slack. We currently have about 35% of our active forces deployed between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the UK has about 11% spread over their respective theaters of action... no other nation has even 1% of their available active troops in theater.
The same show also brought up this point... perhaps the US needs to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. I agree in as much as we are IN Iraq up to our eyeballs, and we MUST be able to walk away knowing a stable, legitimate government is in control. If that course of action is going to require 100 to 150 thousand troops for the next 2 to 5 years, then it is going to seriously curb our ability to exercise military operations in other theaters or regions. The extended War on Terror, outside of Iraq and "the 'Stan", will simply have to remain a more diplomatic effort (unless something major changes in the interim). This hearkens back to our argument that by throwing the full weight of our armed forces and their capabilities at Iraq and Afghanistan, we can finish the job faster (and, I firmly believe, at a lower cost in lives and equipment) and better implement what we learn in the larger military scheme of things. If it means doubling the number of troops, but reducing our time in theater... then so be it.
On this same point, James brought up a good point. The PotUS has, since 2006, the authority to do just that WITHOUT Congressional approval... if he chose to exercise it. All he would sweat is the funding after the initial "surge". Not a small point, in my eyes.
Anyway, just my thoughts...
Monday, December 3, 2007
Due to Technical Difficulties beyond our control...
F Ryan's post is being made by Titus:
"I've Been Busy..."
Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.
At any rate,
Ron Paul ....
We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "kooksville." And did I mention he's practically neighbors with one Ross perot - need I say more? Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives", do not support Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."
****
The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.
****
As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? High tea at noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.
****
On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the "Code Pink's" or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.
****
Global warming ...
A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's, or bad pornos.
The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."
It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate .50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that's another roughly .40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, rather than setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.
****
On Naomi Wolfe ....
I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."
****
Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.
FR
"I've Been Busy..."
Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.
At any rate,
Ron Paul ....
We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "kooksville." And did I mention he's practically neighbors with one Ross perot - need I say more? Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives", do not support Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."
****
The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.
****
As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? High tea at noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.
****
On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the "Code Pink's" or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.
****
Global warming ...
A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's, or bad pornos.
The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."
It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate .50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that's another roughly .40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, rather than setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.
****
On Naomi Wolfe ....
I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."
****
Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.
FR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
