What is going on in this nation? GI Joe, whose tag line since the 50's has been, "GI Joe, A real American Hero", is apparently coming out in an international UN task force uniform. The sound you just heard was the other shoe dropping. Why not, Mattell undoubtedly has them assembled in China. What shall become of us?
And add this to your "what the F%&! list" (a file that's getting pretty thick by the way) ... A Chicago school renamed today "Orange and Black Day" because a Wikken couple, with no children in that school, complained that the wich and warlock references and costumes were offensive. So scratch the wich costume little Mary, we wouldn't want to offend real witches. But Mommy, I thought you said witches were make-believe ... never you mind, put on this UN GI Jane outfit and come along.
And it's not limited to Chicago. Each Halloween at my sons' school has been renamed "Nevada Day." Never mind that the real Nevada Day was Monday, they simply extended it to the week day Halloween falls on. And in honor of Nevada Day - the second one - children are allowed to dress up as Cowboys and Cowgirls ... no Indians of course. And Christmas? Please ... that's entitled "Winter Break." And students can come to the evening school get-together right before the vacation, just don't call it a Christmas party - it's a "Winter Celebration." What are we - Druids?
Oh my Dear Lord ... what are things coming to?
FR
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
TAPS
My outrage knows no boundaries on this issue....
In a story I have linked to on the right it appears that a portion of the funeral services for our fallen soldiers has been banned by the VA, presumably under the approval of the White House. Due to a complaint by left-wing anti religion zealots in Riverside California, citing the separation of church and state, all 125 veteran's graveyards across this nation are now prevented from conducting the 13 point folding of the flag, which is then handed to the grieving widow. In this long standing tradition words are recited at each fold (a number which represents the original 13 colonies). At the first fold they speak of life, the second a belief in eternal life, and they continue at each turn, paying a much deserved homage to the sacrafice of the soldier. It is perhaps the most reverent tradition preformed by our armed services. The complaint was over the 11th fold in which the words recited celebrate Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The VA issued this memorandum on September 27th citing a need to have a "uniform procedure." And they noted that the surviving relatives of the fallen hero may contract out ex-soldiers or other private citizens to preform this ritual during the burial ceremonies if they so choose, but no current serving member of the military, or other government employee may conduct that portion of the ceremony. Why not? We contract out certain security aspects of the war to private citizens, right?
I learned of this disgrace just today, over a month after the fact. And to his tribute our local conservative radio host, Jerry Doyle (whom is syndicated nationally, but certainly not in the top tier of hosts) is the one whom brought it to my attention. Why is that? Why have I not heard about this gross abuse of government power and slavish caving into the fringe movements among us from every single conservative commentator alive? If it were a President Hillary Clinton allowing this to occur the speed at which Rush et al would run to their microphone could only be measured in Mach. So today I issue you in the conservative chattering class a challenge. We, your audience, have handed you record ratings; we have patronized your advertisers; we have defended your comments and positions .... and we now ask for something in return. We will take note at whether you call the administration out on this unjust decision. Will you rise and act out the patriotism you so claim to have? Or will you shrink from this challenge and allow the morals, institutions and traditions that we hold so dear to evaporate amongst the shifting sands of political correctness? The very definition of a conservative is one "resistant to change." Well, resist this. Take your influence and bully pulpit and effect pressure where pressure is needed. And yes, do it on behalf of all your fans, but more so, do it for the WWII veteran that will die by the time you finish reading this post. For the Iraqi veteran that will die before the end of this war; for the last living WWI combat veteran whom has witnessed this tradition for eight decades and who no doubt assumes that when his time finally comes, he will be afforded the same honor as his fallen comrades in arms.
And lastly do it for all those whom will join in the future. For those young boys who are now playing with their tanks and toy guns, dressing up like soldiers at Halloween who will one day be called upon to defend, some with their lives, this country that has given you so much.
Do it .... and do it now.
FR
In a story I have linked to on the right it appears that a portion of the funeral services for our fallen soldiers has been banned by the VA, presumably under the approval of the White House. Due to a complaint by left-wing anti religion zealots in Riverside California, citing the separation of church and state, all 125 veteran's graveyards across this nation are now prevented from conducting the 13 point folding of the flag, which is then handed to the grieving widow. In this long standing tradition words are recited at each fold (a number which represents the original 13 colonies). At the first fold they speak of life, the second a belief in eternal life, and they continue at each turn, paying a much deserved homage to the sacrafice of the soldier. It is perhaps the most reverent tradition preformed by our armed services. The complaint was over the 11th fold in which the words recited celebrate Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The VA issued this memorandum on September 27th citing a need to have a "uniform procedure." And they noted that the surviving relatives of the fallen hero may contract out ex-soldiers or other private citizens to preform this ritual during the burial ceremonies if they so choose, but no current serving member of the military, or other government employee may conduct that portion of the ceremony. Why not? We contract out certain security aspects of the war to private citizens, right?
I learned of this disgrace just today, over a month after the fact. And to his tribute our local conservative radio host, Jerry Doyle (whom is syndicated nationally, but certainly not in the top tier of hosts) is the one whom brought it to my attention. Why is that? Why have I not heard about this gross abuse of government power and slavish caving into the fringe movements among us from every single conservative commentator alive? If it were a President Hillary Clinton allowing this to occur the speed at which Rush et al would run to their microphone could only be measured in Mach. So today I issue you in the conservative chattering class a challenge. We, your audience, have handed you record ratings; we have patronized your advertisers; we have defended your comments and positions .... and we now ask for something in return. We will take note at whether you call the administration out on this unjust decision. Will you rise and act out the patriotism you so claim to have? Or will you shrink from this challenge and allow the morals, institutions and traditions that we hold so dear to evaporate amongst the shifting sands of political correctness? The very definition of a conservative is one "resistant to change." Well, resist this. Take your influence and bully pulpit and effect pressure where pressure is needed. And yes, do it on behalf of all your fans, but more so, do it for the WWII veteran that will die by the time you finish reading this post. For the Iraqi veteran that will die before the end of this war; for the last living WWI combat veteran whom has witnessed this tradition for eight decades and who no doubt assumes that when his time finally comes, he will be afforded the same honor as his fallen comrades in arms.
And lastly do it for all those whom will join in the future. For those young boys who are now playing with their tanks and toy guns, dressing up like soldiers at Halloween who will one day be called upon to defend, some with their lives, this country that has given you so much.
Do it .... and do it now.
FR
Russia...
Why does this nation stick out so much in my mind as a resource the Bush Administration is ignoring at every opportunity? Because it IS a resource we are ignoring.
Query: What nation, outside of Israel and Iraq, has had a greater number of terrorist attacks within its borders than Russia over the last 15 years?
My answer? None.
In the last 15 years, Russia has seen a greater rise in Islamic terrorist attacks than any other nation outside of the Middle East region. Counting yesterdays bus bombing, she has seen 7 attacks that have resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 innocent lives and the reported injuries of nearly 2900. Obviously, our own losses during the 9-11 attacks are greater, and these numbers probably seem laughable to those living in Iraq or Israel... but they represent a growing problem in Russia that should be looked at very carefully by the US government.
Russia has as much as declared openly that it is "at war" with Muslim extremists within its borders... something the US has catagoricly denied or refused to say, so as not to seem intolerant or biased in its focus. Russia shares this focus (declared or otherwise) with the US... as much as I may love to point out that the US's second most deadly terrorist attack was from domestic, non-Muslim radicals, our greatest danger lies in extremist Islamic groups, not in unhappy revolutionary "militias" based in the mountains of Idaho or the north woods of Michigan. Even our own "neo-Nazi" groups and racially motivated "Klan" radicals hate the terrorists as much as they hate "ethnic" Americans... perhaps even more.
Anyone that justifies the actions of the Chechnyan "insurgents" as a fight for independence from Russian or Soviet domination needs to do some research. The Chechnyan rebels are fighting to implement the same kind of Islamic regime as we have encountered in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the ultra-conservative extremist regime in Iran... exclusively ruled by ultra-conservative Muslim clerics with an iron fist (or worse) for any non-comformist. They are no different from al Queda or the PLO in their tactics and means of attack... in other words, they kill as many as they can at every opportunity. They employ the same "suicide" mentality that the PLO and Hamas have become famous for, and with stunning results.
The largest difference between Russia and the US is in how successfully they have combated terrorism. I'm not convinced that the US has maintained a "spotless" record since 9-11... but the Russians have had simply the biggest disasters imaginable when it comes to combating terror. If the US (and Carter) is going to be held accountable for the deaths of 8 American servicemen in the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages in 1979... then what kind of answers will the Russians have to give up for the rescue attempts of the Beslan school hostages and the Moscow theater hostage crisis? With only those two examples, the Russians have seen the deaths of more than 500 hostages... that is a hostage casaulty average of just over 25% for just those two attacks. Include the wounded and it goes to 81%. The use of internationally banned chemical agents from a "nonexistant" military arsenal didn't help them either, of course... but they tried.
The only Russian leader that hasn't begged the US to cooperate more openly with Russian anti-terror agencies is Putin... and I don't know what his issue is. However, the dozens of others that have begged have had their pleas fall on Bush's deaf ears. How long is this going to go on? How long are we going to continue to alienate the only possible candidate for a global "partnership" against organized international terror? Ranking the US and UK highest in their capacity to project force globally... who would argue that Russia is third? If not Russia, then who?
Query: What nation, outside of Israel and Iraq, has had a greater number of terrorist attacks within its borders than Russia over the last 15 years?
My answer? None.
In the last 15 years, Russia has seen a greater rise in Islamic terrorist attacks than any other nation outside of the Middle East region. Counting yesterdays bus bombing, she has seen 7 attacks that have resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 innocent lives and the reported injuries of nearly 2900. Obviously, our own losses during the 9-11 attacks are greater, and these numbers probably seem laughable to those living in Iraq or Israel... but they represent a growing problem in Russia that should be looked at very carefully by the US government.
Russia has as much as declared openly that it is "at war" with Muslim extremists within its borders... something the US has catagoricly denied or refused to say, so as not to seem intolerant or biased in its focus. Russia shares this focus (declared or otherwise) with the US... as much as I may love to point out that the US's second most deadly terrorist attack was from domestic, non-Muslim radicals, our greatest danger lies in extremist Islamic groups, not in unhappy revolutionary "militias" based in the mountains of Idaho or the north woods of Michigan. Even our own "neo-Nazi" groups and racially motivated "Klan" radicals hate the terrorists as much as they hate "ethnic" Americans... perhaps even more.
Anyone that justifies the actions of the Chechnyan "insurgents" as a fight for independence from Russian or Soviet domination needs to do some research. The Chechnyan rebels are fighting to implement the same kind of Islamic regime as we have encountered in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the ultra-conservative extremist regime in Iran... exclusively ruled by ultra-conservative Muslim clerics with an iron fist (or worse) for any non-comformist. They are no different from al Queda or the PLO in their tactics and means of attack... in other words, they kill as many as they can at every opportunity. They employ the same "suicide" mentality that the PLO and Hamas have become famous for, and with stunning results.
The largest difference between Russia and the US is in how successfully they have combated terrorism. I'm not convinced that the US has maintained a "spotless" record since 9-11... but the Russians have had simply the biggest disasters imaginable when it comes to combating terror. If the US (and Carter) is going to be held accountable for the deaths of 8 American servicemen in the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages in 1979... then what kind of answers will the Russians have to give up for the rescue attempts of the Beslan school hostages and the Moscow theater hostage crisis? With only those two examples, the Russians have seen the deaths of more than 500 hostages... that is a hostage casaulty average of just over 25% for just those two attacks. Include the wounded and it goes to 81%. The use of internationally banned chemical agents from a "nonexistant" military arsenal didn't help them either, of course... but they tried.
The only Russian leader that hasn't begged the US to cooperate more openly with Russian anti-terror agencies is Putin... and I don't know what his issue is. However, the dozens of others that have begged have had their pleas fall on Bush's deaf ears. How long is this going to go on? How long are we going to continue to alienate the only possible candidate for a global "partnership" against organized international terror? Ranking the US and UK highest in their capacity to project force globally... who would argue that Russia is third? If not Russia, then who?
"Crazy fools, the Irish."
We're up to our ass in election commercials here in sunny, warm Gulf Coast land. As Titus can relate, I'm sure, local races are plugging up the radio and TV time slots, interrupting my ESPN radio fix that I need to function daily. But what makes me angry is the gubernatorial race adds.
I'm not that much of a Barbour fan. Every time the man opens his mouth he sets the State back ten, maybe fifteen years. But I do have to admit, compared to our neighbors to the west we're doing just fine post storm. And since they've booted their incumbent, that seems to fuel John Arthur Eaves' campaign to do the same here.
What chaps my ass is this cheeto comes in and spouts all this crap, like "Health care for all Mississippi children," "Pay raises for all teachers," "We're on your side versus insurance," things that sound great to everyone. How will he pay for it? First off, a 17% raise of the casino tax.
Well. 17%. So what is the next thing that's published? Pre-Katrina revenue numbers, (2004 to be exact) and then slapping the 17% raise on the casinos. (They went with pre-storm numbers because revenue was higher) No less than six casinos would close. Six. A minimum of 10,000 jobs lost. Someone tell me how that helps recovery?
Other than that, he has no idea how he's going to come through on these campaign issues. Why do people do that? Why can't you make a statement and then provide a plan to make it happen? Or at least make a plan BEFORE you make the statements? Am I the only one that gets this?
On a closing note, this site averages 39.4 hits a day. Damn.
I'm not that much of a Barbour fan. Every time the man opens his mouth he sets the State back ten, maybe fifteen years. But I do have to admit, compared to our neighbors to the west we're doing just fine post storm. And since they've booted their incumbent, that seems to fuel John Arthur Eaves' campaign to do the same here.
What chaps my ass is this cheeto comes in and spouts all this crap, like "Health care for all Mississippi children," "Pay raises for all teachers," "We're on your side versus insurance," things that sound great to everyone. How will he pay for it? First off, a 17% raise of the casino tax.
Well. 17%. So what is the next thing that's published? Pre-Katrina revenue numbers, (2004 to be exact) and then slapping the 17% raise on the casinos. (They went with pre-storm numbers because revenue was higher) No less than six casinos would close. Six. A minimum of 10,000 jobs lost. Someone tell me how that helps recovery?
Other than that, he has no idea how he's going to come through on these campaign issues. Why do people do that? Why can't you make a statement and then provide a plan to make it happen? Or at least make a plan BEFORE you make the statements? Am I the only one that gets this?
On a closing note, this site averages 39.4 hits a day. Damn.
"Scully, grab me a drink and get your cute ass over here."
Alright, this you won't believe. First let me address one thing in Titus's last post. Ingraham is in fact still on the air, she's in the top five in terms of ratings, has a new best selling book (it was #1 on Amazon for several weeks entitled Power to the People), and she was one of 5 national hosts invited to the private meet and greet with the PoTUS (along with names such as Hannity and Beck). She precedes Rush starting at 10am East Coast time on most of the stations she is on. Now, I tell you all that not because I'm promoting her, it's just that I see you have no time for talk radio anymore and I find that unfortunate. As you know, along with blogs like the Bund, AM radio is perhaps the best representation of a "national discussion" on the pressing issues of the day. Also, perhaps because of the large market I'm in I have access to nearly ever nationally syndicated radio program out there, allowing me to "participate" in that discussion routinely. In the course of one business day I am exposed - should I choose - to Ingraham, Rush, Hannitty, Glenn Beck (who really is a funny guy and by far the most "entertaining" of the bunch), Savage (4 hrs worth), Mark Levine, Micheal Medved, Jerry Doyle, Rusty Humphries, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Tammy Bruce (the former pres of the CA chapter of NOW and a convert to conservatism obviously), and Jim Bohannan (whose show I don't care for at all) . Quite the conservative manifesto huh? I should note that I do listen to NPR on the weekend - but that's for A Prarie Home Companion - the only credible news on that station comes from Lake Wobbagon. So, you should perhaps request an Ipod for Christmas or satellite radio - especially with the hours you work, and with the pod casts you could listen to most of the above mentioned shows any time you want.
Alright - to what prompted my post and the subject header ...
Did anyone catch the Dem debate from last night in Philadelphia PA? Your neck of the woods T, but perhaps you were at work. As you might expect it was a parade of one socialist program after another being championed by these candidates, although for the first time the other candidates decided to go after Hillary, finally. The highlights were perhaps when Edwards claimed that in his first year as president he would have all combat troops out of Iraq, to which Hillary (shockingly so) responded, "I don't know how you combat Al Qeada if you're not willing to fight them in the field." My jaw dropped, and I quickly realized that she was the only Dem presidential hopeful who could get away with saying that in her party, and not get excoriated - mostly because she's not a "hopeful" at all, the nomination is hers and the rest are simply auditioning for VP. Also, this nonsense that NY Gov Spitzer is promoting came up and Hillary got slammed by Russert. He asked do you, as the NY Senator, support your govenor's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? Three times he rephrased the question and three times she gave a non-answer claiming, "we should have passed the comprehensive immigration reform." 72% of New Yorkers (the state) oppose this, that's why the non-answer. BUT, here is the big one, the one which held the sheer entertainment value of an SNL bit. Apparently Shirley McClain - the actress and known paranormal guru - is God Mother to Dennis Kucinich's daughter. She wrote a book recently in which she claims that Dennis once spotted a UFO over her home while visiting. So, Russert couldn't resist (I'm paraphrasing, but this is very close) -
Russert:"Congressman Kucinich, let me now turn to a much different but serious issue. Shirley McClain claims in her new book that you once spotted a UFO over her home. Did you, and do you believe there s life outside of earth?
Kucinich: Yes. (chuckles in the audience) Yes, I saw a UFO, which is after all an Unidentified Flying Object. And I suppose that more people have spotted UFO's in this country than approve of this president (chuckles again, although the actual number of UFO spotters in the US is 14%, Bush's numbers are 32%, and more to the point the Congressional approval rating is 11% - Richards, the only Governor on stage, would have done well to point that out).
Now keep in mind, Kucinich just days earlier publicly questioned Bush's mental health! Saying something to the effect that there are millions of people in our country that suffer frommental disabilities and with the decisions the administration has made we should be questioning his mental well being! That's rich! HIS mental health?? At least when he addresses the issue of aliens he means Hispanics, not Klingons!!
Russert then asked Obama if he believed in UFO's and extraterrestial life and he said, "I don't know if they exist Tim, I do know that life exists here on earth and we need to do a better job taking care of that life." Again, chuckles in the crowd.
Post debate Chris Matthews (the debate was hosted by MSNBC) asked Richards, govenor of New Mexico, that since his state was home to Roswell he must have spent some time promoting it for tourism purposes. And instead of avoiding that topic all together (like Obama, who had the best answer of the bunch in that it wasn't insane) he said, "Yes Chris, of course I've done that to steer tourism dollars to my state, but more seriously the government has never fully released what happened there and they should come clean." Matthews erupted with a hearty "HA", and added, "let me get this straight, you are accusing the government of the United States of covering up an alien encounter?" Richards responded, "I'm just saying they should get all the documentation out there and come clean, that's all."
Alright - does anything occur to you here?
We are at war war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the globe wherever terrorism exists. Iran is pushing daily towards war with the US and Israel. N. Korea is trying to send fissile material to Syria. We have thousands of "tier 3" hardened terrorists in our nation at this moment. The southern border is a disaster, challenging our very sovereignty. Health care for the uninsured stands unaddressed. And China is using every American dollar spent in this trade deficit to arm their 10 million soldiers to the teeth. And what becomes a topic of discussion AMONG PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE THE F****ING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
ET!!!!!!!
For the love of everything holy and good, what has happened to this party? Any candidate with an ounce of presidential material within them would have said: Tim, what the hell are you talking about? The world's got its pants down around it's ankles and you're asking me this? I'm embarrassed for you and your network, and I won't even dignify that question with a serious answer. What else would you like to ask me?
But they didn't, and he did, and they all look like the intellectually immature dopes that they are.
FR
Alright - to what prompted my post and the subject header ...
Did anyone catch the Dem debate from last night in Philadelphia PA? Your neck of the woods T, but perhaps you were at work. As you might expect it was a parade of one socialist program after another being championed by these candidates, although for the first time the other candidates decided to go after Hillary, finally. The highlights were perhaps when Edwards claimed that in his first year as president he would have all combat troops out of Iraq, to which Hillary (shockingly so) responded, "I don't know how you combat Al Qeada if you're not willing to fight them in the field." My jaw dropped, and I quickly realized that she was the only Dem presidential hopeful who could get away with saying that in her party, and not get excoriated - mostly because she's not a "hopeful" at all, the nomination is hers and the rest are simply auditioning for VP. Also, this nonsense that NY Gov Spitzer is promoting came up and Hillary got slammed by Russert. He asked do you, as the NY Senator, support your govenor's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? Three times he rephrased the question and three times she gave a non-answer claiming, "we should have passed the comprehensive immigration reform." 72% of New Yorkers (the state) oppose this, that's why the non-answer. BUT, here is the big one, the one which held the sheer entertainment value of an SNL bit. Apparently Shirley McClain - the actress and known paranormal guru - is God Mother to Dennis Kucinich's daughter. She wrote a book recently in which she claims that Dennis once spotted a UFO over her home while visiting. So, Russert couldn't resist (I'm paraphrasing, but this is very close) -
Russert:"Congressman Kucinich, let me now turn to a much different but serious issue. Shirley McClain claims in her new book that you once spotted a UFO over her home. Did you, and do you believe there s life outside of earth?
Kucinich: Yes. (chuckles in the audience) Yes, I saw a UFO, which is after all an Unidentified Flying Object. And I suppose that more people have spotted UFO's in this country than approve of this president (chuckles again, although the actual number of UFO spotters in the US is 14%, Bush's numbers are 32%, and more to the point the Congressional approval rating is 11% - Richards, the only Governor on stage, would have done well to point that out).
Now keep in mind, Kucinich just days earlier publicly questioned Bush's mental health! Saying something to the effect that there are millions of people in our country that suffer frommental disabilities and with the decisions the administration has made we should be questioning his mental well being! That's rich! HIS mental health?? At least when he addresses the issue of aliens he means Hispanics, not Klingons!!
Russert then asked Obama if he believed in UFO's and extraterrestial life and he said, "I don't know if they exist Tim, I do know that life exists here on earth and we need to do a better job taking care of that life." Again, chuckles in the crowd.
Post debate Chris Matthews (the debate was hosted by MSNBC) asked Richards, govenor of New Mexico, that since his state was home to Roswell he must have spent some time promoting it for tourism purposes. And instead of avoiding that topic all together (like Obama, who had the best answer of the bunch in that it wasn't insane) he said, "Yes Chris, of course I've done that to steer tourism dollars to my state, but more seriously the government has never fully released what happened there and they should come clean." Matthews erupted with a hearty "HA", and added, "let me get this straight, you are accusing the government of the United States of covering up an alien encounter?" Richards responded, "I'm just saying they should get all the documentation out there and come clean, that's all."
Alright - does anything occur to you here?
We are at war war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the globe wherever terrorism exists. Iran is pushing daily towards war with the US and Israel. N. Korea is trying to send fissile material to Syria. We have thousands of "tier 3" hardened terrorists in our nation at this moment. The southern border is a disaster, challenging our very sovereignty. Health care for the uninsured stands unaddressed. And China is using every American dollar spent in this trade deficit to arm their 10 million soldiers to the teeth. And what becomes a topic of discussion AMONG PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE THE F****ING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
ET!!!!!!!
For the love of everything holy and good, what has happened to this party? Any candidate with an ounce of presidential material within them would have said: Tim, what the hell are you talking about? The world's got its pants down around it's ankles and you're asking me this? I'm embarrassed for you and your network, and I won't even dignify that question with a serious answer. What else would you like to ask me?
But they didn't, and he did, and they all look like the intellectually immature dopes that they are.
FR
Even Allen Colmes...
I had one really scary night tonight…
You see, I was sitting in the office at work trying to hammer out two weeks of schedule in a department that can’t keep a full staff (not an easy job), and to keep myself awake, I was listening to Fox Radio on an internet broadcast.
It was Allen Colmes doing his show. Now, while I don’t agree with everything that comes out of Colmes’ mouth, he is one of the FEW "left"-leaning radio hosts that offers a clear and clean counter to shows like Hannity, Limbaugh and Ingrahm (who may not even be on anymore).
While I know that any radio personality is an entertainer first and a reporter/commentator second, Colmes is pretty straight forward in his approach. The only name I can come up with that is remotely close to his style (and I am NOT a big talk-radio fan anymore… just don’t have the opportunity) would be Jim Bohannon.
Anyway… I know Colmes is anti-Bush, and more importantly anti-Iraqi War. But has anyone listened to his crap about Iran? I hadn’t, until tonight… and I am shocked.
He made a 10 or 12 minute segment about how Iran has never, in all of its modern history, ever attacked another country. Never! He stated clearly and unequivocally that Iran had never threatened the United States, or any other nation, and that neither Ahmad (the Pres.) nor the Ayatollah had ever threatened Israel… NEVER!
The man is a nationally recognized news commentator on one of the most popular cable networks… and he is spewing the very HEART of revisionism from one end of his show to the other. How is this possible?
More importantly, how is it possible that his on-air partner, Mr. Hannity, allows this kind of CRAP to go unquestioned? Were this Franken, or any other liberal radio smacker, he’d be all over the airwaves screaming "Treason!" and "Liar" and "Anti-American!" like Joe McCarthy reborn.
I can’t get over this show I just heard…
Wow.
You see, I was sitting in the office at work trying to hammer out two weeks of schedule in a department that can’t keep a full staff (not an easy job), and to keep myself awake, I was listening to Fox Radio on an internet broadcast.
It was Allen Colmes doing his show. Now, while I don’t agree with everything that comes out of Colmes’ mouth, he is one of the FEW "left"-leaning radio hosts that offers a clear and clean counter to shows like Hannity, Limbaugh and Ingrahm (who may not even be on anymore).
While I know that any radio personality is an entertainer first and a reporter/commentator second, Colmes is pretty straight forward in his approach. The only name I can come up with that is remotely close to his style (and I am NOT a big talk-radio fan anymore… just don’t have the opportunity) would be Jim Bohannon.
Anyway… I know Colmes is anti-Bush, and more importantly anti-Iraqi War. But has anyone listened to his crap about Iran? I hadn’t, until tonight… and I am shocked.
He made a 10 or 12 minute segment about how Iran has never, in all of its modern history, ever attacked another country. Never! He stated clearly and unequivocally that Iran had never threatened the United States, or any other nation, and that neither Ahmad (the Pres.) nor the Ayatollah had ever threatened Israel… NEVER!
The man is a nationally recognized news commentator on one of the most popular cable networks… and he is spewing the very HEART of revisionism from one end of his show to the other. How is this possible?
More importantly, how is it possible that his on-air partner, Mr. Hannity, allows this kind of CRAP to go unquestioned? Were this Franken, or any other liberal radio smacker, he’d be all over the airwaves screaming "Treason!" and "Liar" and "Anti-American!" like Joe McCarthy reborn.
I can’t get over this show I just heard…
Wow.
Monday, October 29, 2007
FEMA: Find Every Mexican Available
At least that's what the Hispanic comedian George Lopez says it stands for. THEY got put to work quick after Katrina, that's for certain.
For the first time in recorded history I have nothing, and I mean NOTHING ill to say of your post Titus. How could I? Each of us (and it would seem you more than I and James) have went through some level of private and/or govt bureaucratic BS. Remember the home in Long Beach you guys helped me make "presentable" for sale? Not sold yet. Why you ask? The type of sale attempting to be conducted by me is legally termed a "short sale." It allows me to sell it for the best market price I can get after the 15K in repairs were affected, and no matter what price that is, the lien holder - Chase Manhattan - will consider the loan paid in full. Fine, it's not a bad deal. Problem is that the mounds of receipts and paperwork I have to fax in to get "approval" is endless. And by the time they send me each list of what ELSE they need, the last package of check stubs and account info has "expired" because it's now more than 3 mos old! And during the whole time - since the collections dept has no contact with the homeowners assistance division - they are reporting my monthly mortgage to the credit bureau as "unpaid" - over 24 months worth of being late on my mortgage!! Anyone want to guess what my credit score is by now? Even with all the money I'm making now I couldn't get approved to finance a down payment on a jaw breaker (as my Dad would say during his first and most costly divorce).
Sallie Mae, my student loan lien holder? Well, it's federal law that if you spend more than 6 continuous months out of school that the lender can require you to start making the notes, otherwise they aren't applicable until you graduate. I called and explained to the guy - whom undoubtedly lives in a very nice subdivision of Calcutta - that the storm impacted my ability to maintain a current credit schedule, but now 14 mos after the storm I am ready to resume my schooling and I was requesting an extension on the 6 month rule. His response, "Sir, 6 months is more than ample time to restart your education." To which I said in less than a calm tone - "My satellite campus of USM was 50 feet from the Gulf of Mexico on August 29th, 2005. The Mother F***ing school isn't there any more! Oh, I'm sorry, one front wall is still there so if you drive by real fast and blink a lot it looks like there is some sort of structure standing. Do you want to tell me where I was supposed to register? Where my first class would be at? In fact my dear Indian brother, the only problem I would NOT have were I to attend that school is finding a parking spot because the whole damn thing is a vacant lot now!"
Nothing, no answer, and sure as hell no help. And both of those were private sector malfunctions - I can only imagine dealing with the feds on a large scale. All of my charity, save one 1,200 check I got for living expenses from FEMA after the move to Las Vegas even though I applied long before, were donated by my father in IL, and cousin in AZ. My cousin works for DR Horton, a large national construction corp, and their private fund set up for Katrina victims - for which I qualified as a relative of one of their employees - cut me two checks after ONE PHONE CALL for 4,500 each, and then they gave me one of their newly built Las Vegas home's to live in for 6 months free of charge. Between that and a used car given to me by my father - which he drove out to me from Illinois God bless his soul, caused my transition to go better than others and I considered myself blessed for the good fortune.
As far as the govt's responsability after a natural disaster - I think evryone here could guess my views on govt assistance to private citizens, HOWEVER, if they are going to have these assistance programs, and publicly claim they are available - not to mention collect taxes to run them - then they sure as hell better deliver on that promise when the salt water drenched sh** hits the fan. But a 65k grant Titus? Your neighbors qualified for that? What the hell did we do wrong? We should have been all over what ever form they filled out ... he he.
I'll let you know when I get the house sold. But unless you're contemplating suicide, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ryan.
For the first time in recorded history I have nothing, and I mean NOTHING ill to say of your post Titus. How could I? Each of us (and it would seem you more than I and James) have went through some level of private and/or govt bureaucratic BS. Remember the home in Long Beach you guys helped me make "presentable" for sale? Not sold yet. Why you ask? The type of sale attempting to be conducted by me is legally termed a "short sale." It allows me to sell it for the best market price I can get after the 15K in repairs were affected, and no matter what price that is, the lien holder - Chase Manhattan - will consider the loan paid in full. Fine, it's not a bad deal. Problem is that the mounds of receipts and paperwork I have to fax in to get "approval" is endless. And by the time they send me each list of what ELSE they need, the last package of check stubs and account info has "expired" because it's now more than 3 mos old! And during the whole time - since the collections dept has no contact with the homeowners assistance division - they are reporting my monthly mortgage to the credit bureau as "unpaid" - over 24 months worth of being late on my mortgage!! Anyone want to guess what my credit score is by now? Even with all the money I'm making now I couldn't get approved to finance a down payment on a jaw breaker (as my Dad would say during his first and most costly divorce).
Sallie Mae, my student loan lien holder? Well, it's federal law that if you spend more than 6 continuous months out of school that the lender can require you to start making the notes, otherwise they aren't applicable until you graduate. I called and explained to the guy - whom undoubtedly lives in a very nice subdivision of Calcutta - that the storm impacted my ability to maintain a current credit schedule, but now 14 mos after the storm I am ready to resume my schooling and I was requesting an extension on the 6 month rule. His response, "Sir, 6 months is more than ample time to restart your education." To which I said in less than a calm tone - "My satellite campus of USM was 50 feet from the Gulf of Mexico on August 29th, 2005. The Mother F***ing school isn't there any more! Oh, I'm sorry, one front wall is still there so if you drive by real fast and blink a lot it looks like there is some sort of structure standing. Do you want to tell me where I was supposed to register? Where my first class would be at? In fact my dear Indian brother, the only problem I would NOT have were I to attend that school is finding a parking spot because the whole damn thing is a vacant lot now!"
Nothing, no answer, and sure as hell no help. And both of those were private sector malfunctions - I can only imagine dealing with the feds on a large scale. All of my charity, save one 1,200 check I got for living expenses from FEMA after the move to Las Vegas even though I applied long before, were donated by my father in IL, and cousin in AZ. My cousin works for DR Horton, a large national construction corp, and their private fund set up for Katrina victims - for which I qualified as a relative of one of their employees - cut me two checks after ONE PHONE CALL for 4,500 each, and then they gave me one of their newly built Las Vegas home's to live in for 6 months free of charge. Between that and a used car given to me by my father - which he drove out to me from Illinois God bless his soul, caused my transition to go better than others and I considered myself blessed for the good fortune.
As far as the govt's responsability after a natural disaster - I think evryone here could guess my views on govt assistance to private citizens, HOWEVER, if they are going to have these assistance programs, and publicly claim they are available - not to mention collect taxes to run them - then they sure as hell better deliver on that promise when the salt water drenched sh** hits the fan. But a 65k grant Titus? Your neighbors qualified for that? What the hell did we do wrong? We should have been all over what ever form they filled out ... he he.
I'll let you know when I get the house sold. But unless you're contemplating suicide, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ryan.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Counter Rant
This is an old argument, but never successfully prosecuted. In times of natural disasters, how much responsibility does the federal government have to me?
August 29, 2005, my property sustains just short of $30,000 in damages. Now granted, substantially less than Titus, as I did not flood, but allow me to continue. My insured compensation is a touch over $15,000. Dispensing available capital on priority repairs, my roof is fixed by Christmas, the majority of debris is removed by Christmas as well, various repairs inside (drywall, flooring, cosmetic) are still ongoing, as is landscaping. That is a pay as you go operation and slow.
Far more catastrophic for both Titus and I was the loss of our employer for a combined thirty years.
Titus bitches loudly and justifiably that aid has been slow, if at all. And what aid we received, meaningful aid, came from volunteer organizations, church groups, (and trust me, to hear me say "God Bless Bay Vista Baptist Church" and mean it is something, the cantankerous Catholic that I am.) and other grass roots organizations. But FEMA money? Red Cross? No.
Two years down the pipe and what could have been done differently? What do I miss the most, what most could have been fixed right then and there and made life better right away? Putting my casino on the right side of Highway 90.
There's a gubernatorial race getting ugly here in Mississippi. John Eaves says Haley Barbour (Rep. incumbent) funnelled money to Hard Rock to get it open, instead of giving the money to individuals like Titus. Other casinos, Harrahs, Beau Rivage and IP to name a few, also make the list of recipients of federal money dispersed through the state.
Is that bad? Where should the money have gone?
I wanted to stay. I had nowhere to go. And to keep from losing everything I did a variety of jobs, including K-Mart and Wal-Mart, before the Beau reopened August 29, 2006. I would have given ANYTHING to have my old job at my old place. Now granted, I never received a dime of FEMA money, but even then, if given a choice, big FEMA money or your old job back six months from the time of the storm, I'm taking old job.
That being said, what responsibility does the federal government have to the individual when it comes to storm relief?
August 29, 2005, my property sustains just short of $30,000 in damages. Now granted, substantially less than Titus, as I did not flood, but allow me to continue. My insured compensation is a touch over $15,000. Dispensing available capital on priority repairs, my roof is fixed by Christmas, the majority of debris is removed by Christmas as well, various repairs inside (drywall, flooring, cosmetic) are still ongoing, as is landscaping. That is a pay as you go operation and slow.
Far more catastrophic for both Titus and I was the loss of our employer for a combined thirty years.
Titus bitches loudly and justifiably that aid has been slow, if at all. And what aid we received, meaningful aid, came from volunteer organizations, church groups, (and trust me, to hear me say "God Bless Bay Vista Baptist Church" and mean it is something, the cantankerous Catholic that I am.) and other grass roots organizations. But FEMA money? Red Cross? No.
Two years down the pipe and what could have been done differently? What do I miss the most, what most could have been fixed right then and there and made life better right away? Putting my casino on the right side of Highway 90.
There's a gubernatorial race getting ugly here in Mississippi. John Eaves says Haley Barbour (Rep. incumbent) funnelled money to Hard Rock to get it open, instead of giving the money to individuals like Titus. Other casinos, Harrahs, Beau Rivage and IP to name a few, also make the list of recipients of federal money dispersed through the state.
Is that bad? Where should the money have gone?
I wanted to stay. I had nowhere to go. And to keep from losing everything I did a variety of jobs, including K-Mart and Wal-Mart, before the Beau reopened August 29, 2006. I would have given ANYTHING to have my old job at my old place. Now granted, I never received a dime of FEMA money, but even then, if given a choice, big FEMA money or your old job back six months from the time of the storm, I'm taking old job.
That being said, what responsibility does the federal government have to the individual when it comes to storm relief?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Relief...
So, today I am going to indulge myself in a rant...
On August 29, 2005, I experienced Hurricane Katrina. Like the 750,000 other people that experienced it and survived (my prayers for the souls of the 1,000 plus that didn't... especially for one little woman that was found in a ditch near my home... and never ID'd to my knowledge), that event changed my life forever.
I had a beautiful home in a beautiful development only ten or twelve blocks from the Gulf of Mexico, and only one block from a bayou with deep-water access and a great marina. I didn't know many of my neighbors prior to the storm, but those I did were genuinely good people that I enjoyed spending time with.
The storm brought five very large trees down onto my roof, blew my 12' by 16' shed into a pile of kindling (along with all in it) and carried 5 feet of saltwater and untold quantities of raw sewage into my home. My two vehicles were destroyed (my Dakota pickup actually floated out of my yard and onto my driveway before sinking).
After the storm, we lived with no power for 29 days, no transportation for over 45 days, and no drinkable water for 5 months. My roof wasn't replaced until January 20th of 2006, and my heater-a/c wasn't replaced until March of '06. The house was declared "fixed" and ready for sale in Nov. of last year.
In the past 2+ years since the storm, I have filled out or applied for every single dollar in relief, assistance, aide, or grant that the Federal Government, the State of Mississippi, the County of Jackson, or any private organization might offer.
Yesterday, I received word that my FIRST financial aid was being released to my account.
The Small Business Administration has finally gotten me the low-interest, Federally insured loan that I initially applied for in January of '06.
FEMA had estimated the value of my home (pre-storm) at $145,000. Both FEMA and my insurance company estimated my total damage and losses to exceed $117,000. My insurance cut me a check for a grand total of $38,483.61. Nothing from FEMA. Nothing to date from the Mississippi Development Authority. Nothing from the Red Cross. My profits from selling the home in Jan of '07? A net loss of $281.
My rant?
Why in God's good Name is it so frigging hard to get the assistance needed to put your life back together? I'm not even asking for charity, which I received MOUNTAINS of from good hearted volunteers in the days and weeks after the storm in the form of POD donations (Point of Distribution... which were organized and run by church groups, neighborhood organizations, PTA's, charity groups from around the nation) and in assistance and safe-guarding by the hundreds of National Guard and Reserve troops working in my neighborhood.... I'm simply asking that the process by which someone in my situation applies for and receives aid NOT be specifically designed to be MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH.
An example? My MDA grant is being held up because I cannot produce an original or certified copy of a "Certificate of Elevation" for my former home. I lost mine in the flood, it seems... and normally it would only require that I go the the County seat and pay $5 for a certified copy of that document. Unfortunately, the County Courthouse was located even closer to the water than my home... and ALL pre-Katrina property documents were lost in the flood. ALL OF THEM.
This certificate says that the property in question was at a specific and measured elevation aove sea level... and is used for insurance purposes. MDA states that they need this document to further process my application, and can proceed no further without it. It seems that in the rebuilding, I may have elevated or lowered the house... and that would be bad. It isn't enough to be able to SEE that the house is built on a SLAB, and that the SLAB hasn't moved at all in the 16 years the house has stood. It isn't good enough that I would be willing to sign an affidavit stating that the house is at the same elevation as when it was built. Nope... they need a pre-storm document.
I won't talk about FEMA at all... don't even get me started.
So, now fully two years and more after the storm, I get my first governmental assistance in rebuilding my life.
Better late than never, I guess.
On August 29, 2005, I experienced Hurricane Katrina. Like the 750,000 other people that experienced it and survived (my prayers for the souls of the 1,000 plus that didn't... especially for one little woman that was found in a ditch near my home... and never ID'd to my knowledge), that event changed my life forever.
I had a beautiful home in a beautiful development only ten or twelve blocks from the Gulf of Mexico, and only one block from a bayou with deep-water access and a great marina. I didn't know many of my neighbors prior to the storm, but those I did were genuinely good people that I enjoyed spending time with.
The storm brought five very large trees down onto my roof, blew my 12' by 16' shed into a pile of kindling (along with all in it) and carried 5 feet of saltwater and untold quantities of raw sewage into my home. My two vehicles were destroyed (my Dakota pickup actually floated out of my yard and onto my driveway before sinking).
After the storm, we lived with no power for 29 days, no transportation for over 45 days, and no drinkable water for 5 months. My roof wasn't replaced until January 20th of 2006, and my heater-a/c wasn't replaced until March of '06. The house was declared "fixed" and ready for sale in Nov. of last year.
In the past 2+ years since the storm, I have filled out or applied for every single dollar in relief, assistance, aide, or grant that the Federal Government, the State of Mississippi, the County of Jackson, or any private organization might offer.
Yesterday, I received word that my FIRST financial aid was being released to my account.
The Small Business Administration has finally gotten me the low-interest, Federally insured loan that I initially applied for in January of '06.
FEMA had estimated the value of my home (pre-storm) at $145,000. Both FEMA and my insurance company estimated my total damage and losses to exceed $117,000. My insurance cut me a check for a grand total of $38,483.61. Nothing from FEMA. Nothing to date from the Mississippi Development Authority. Nothing from the Red Cross. My profits from selling the home in Jan of '07? A net loss of $281.
My rant?
Why in God's good Name is it so frigging hard to get the assistance needed to put your life back together? I'm not even asking for charity, which I received MOUNTAINS of from good hearted volunteers in the days and weeks after the storm in the form of POD donations (Point of Distribution... which were organized and run by church groups, neighborhood organizations, PTA's, charity groups from around the nation) and in assistance and safe-guarding by the hundreds of National Guard and Reserve troops working in my neighborhood.... I'm simply asking that the process by which someone in my situation applies for and receives aid NOT be specifically designed to be MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH.
An example? My MDA grant is being held up because I cannot produce an original or certified copy of a "Certificate of Elevation" for my former home. I lost mine in the flood, it seems... and normally it would only require that I go the the County seat and pay $5 for a certified copy of that document. Unfortunately, the County Courthouse was located even closer to the water than my home... and ALL pre-Katrina property documents were lost in the flood. ALL OF THEM.
This certificate says that the property in question was at a specific and measured elevation aove sea level... and is used for insurance purposes. MDA states that they need this document to further process my application, and can proceed no further without it. It seems that in the rebuilding, I may have elevated or lowered the house... and that would be bad. It isn't enough to be able to SEE that the house is built on a SLAB, and that the SLAB hasn't moved at all in the 16 years the house has stood. It isn't good enough that I would be willing to sign an affidavit stating that the house is at the same elevation as when it was built. Nope... they need a pre-storm document.
I won't talk about FEMA at all... don't even get me started.
So, now fully two years and more after the storm, I get my first governmental assistance in rebuilding my life.
Better late than never, I guess.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Reciprocity
It's a good word, and a better concept. It also seems its about time that Bush and the Boys learned it.
The Bush Administration actually had the nutz to question Turkey's right to "unilateral" action against the PKK forces operating out of Iraq. This, according to the WSJ, happened yesterday. Does this strike anyone else as staggeringly myopic?
The authors of the "pre-emptive" doctrine of national security have ISSUES with an ally doing whatever it takes to stop terrorist attacks from across an international boundary? Didn't Cheney DEFEND the Israeli attacks on Lebanon as unfortunate but justified? What is the difference here? I am forced to assume it is ONLY different in that the US did not have 160,000 troops in Lebanon at the time, and such attacks might make their job even more unsafe and immeasurably harder to accomplish. Wasn't it just this kind of "action" that brought about the March '03 invasion? A perceived threat of terrorist nature by a hostile regime? Hadn't it been determined that negotiations HADN'T worked?
If the Iraqi's can't stop the PKK, and the US military won't... then I say the Turks have EVERY RIGHT to storm across that border and secure their own safety and security. I am fully aware that this will place US troops in even greater danger... and I cannot stress enough how unfortunate I find that situation to be... but I really feel this is disaster of Bush's own design. The Kurdish independence issue isn't new, and should have been an expected side effect of the liberation of Iraq. It is the single greatest reason why Turkey refused to support us in the '03 invasion, when they had been so supportive of the efforts in Afghanistan... they didn't want to stir up the Kurds.
Well, the Kurds are stirred up, and Turkish citizens and soldiers are being kidnapped and murdered... and if we won't stop them, and the Iraqi's can't stop them, then I hope the Turks do.
The lack of planning and foresight in this debacle staggers the imagination... it really does!
The Bush Administration actually had the nutz to question Turkey's right to "unilateral" action against the PKK forces operating out of Iraq. This, according to the WSJ, happened yesterday. Does this strike anyone else as staggeringly myopic?
The authors of the "pre-emptive" doctrine of national security have ISSUES with an ally doing whatever it takes to stop terrorist attacks from across an international boundary? Didn't Cheney DEFEND the Israeli attacks on Lebanon as unfortunate but justified? What is the difference here? I am forced to assume it is ONLY different in that the US did not have 160,000 troops in Lebanon at the time, and such attacks might make their job even more unsafe and immeasurably harder to accomplish. Wasn't it just this kind of "action" that brought about the March '03 invasion? A perceived threat of terrorist nature by a hostile regime? Hadn't it been determined that negotiations HADN'T worked?
If the Iraqi's can't stop the PKK, and the US military won't... then I say the Turks have EVERY RIGHT to storm across that border and secure their own safety and security. I am fully aware that this will place US troops in even greater danger... and I cannot stress enough how unfortunate I find that situation to be... but I really feel this is disaster of Bush's own design. The Kurdish independence issue isn't new, and should have been an expected side effect of the liberation of Iraq. It is the single greatest reason why Turkey refused to support us in the '03 invasion, when they had been so supportive of the efforts in Afghanistan... they didn't want to stir up the Kurds.
Well, the Kurds are stirred up, and Turkish citizens and soldiers are being kidnapped and murdered... and if we won't stop them, and the Iraqi's can't stop them, then I hope the Turks do.
The lack of planning and foresight in this debacle staggers the imagination... it really does!
I've been thinking...
As impressed as I was with meeting the last living combat veteran of WWI in America the other night, I have been thinking...
I am not entirely comfortable having his name and picture SO prominent on the Bund blog. Not that I fear a lawsuit or copyright infringement (he was far too friendly to think that would be an issue), but mainly because we are so OPEN with our opinions and feelings, and they might not reflect things he would agree with.
So, only being a casual aquaintence of about 25 minutes... I guess I'd rather keep his name and pic out of our own little lime-lights. Our blog gets too many hits from too many sources to constitute a "private" site... and I certainly wouldn't want his name or face associated with anything he didn't expressly state he wanted.
So, let's do ME a favor, and we'll simply NOT speak his name or post his pic anymore, okay?
I posted the link to the Living History page on our favorites (as Ryan suggested)... that is too important a project to ignore... and people can make the associations from there. How's that sound?
I am not entirely comfortable having his name and picture SO prominent on the Bund blog. Not that I fear a lawsuit or copyright infringement (he was far too friendly to think that would be an issue), but mainly because we are so OPEN with our opinions and feelings, and they might not reflect things he would agree with.
So, only being a casual aquaintence of about 25 minutes... I guess I'd rather keep his name and pic out of our own little lime-lights. Our blog gets too many hits from too many sources to constitute a "private" site... and I certainly wouldn't want his name or face associated with anything he didn't expressly state he wanted.
So, let's do ME a favor, and we'll simply NOT speak his name or post his pic anymore, okay?
I posted the link to the Living History page on our favorites (as Ryan suggested)... that is too important a project to ignore... and people can make the associations from there. How's that sound?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
I met a veteran last night...
You'll love this.
Do either Jambo or Ryan recall dealing to a little hunch-backed guy at the Grand that ALWAYS wore a 1st Marine Division cap and a red satin VFW jacket? He sticks out in my mind because he was COVERED in pins and buttons proclaiming his affiliation with every single veterans association or group known to man... VFW, American Legion, AVA, et al... plus his ribbons and medals from the war. He was always worming in next to stick, and picked a fight with Miss Selma one night over the "pole" position they both wanted so badly.
Anyway... I'm walking the slot floor last night, about 0130 local, and I see a little hunch-backed guy walking with a really pronounced limp... and he is wearing nearly the same outfit. The one exception is that he is also wearing a sash across his chest, like the "Girl Scouts" wear for their merit badges (no disrespect intended to other veterans that wear them, mind you... I just don't know what they are called).
He is proudly covered in his regalia, and I notice he is wearing a red satin jacket emblazoned with the "Indian Head" insignia of the 2nd Infantry Division. This caught my eye, as it isn't one you see all that often... at least not as often as the "Big Red One" or 1st Marine or the "Screaming Eagles". I am curious enough to walk around the slot bank to intentionally get a better look at his jacket, and I catch a glimpse of his hat.
It's a black baseball cap, with the word VETERAN embossed across the front and "scrambled eggs" on the bill (now I don't know if that automatically means officer... this didn't look like an official cap or anything, but I am going to assume from his obvious pride of service, he was an officer at some point in his career). I took no further notice of the cap... yet.
The afore mentioned sash caught my eyes now. It was olive-drab, and looked to be made from US O.D. canvas (very nice touch... the same material that the Army made packs and duffels out of for nearly 80 years), and was covered in his pins and buttons. What I noticed first were his campaign patches...
They were oversizes versions of his service ribbons, I suppose... but they looked way different than I am used to spotting from my own experience. The ones I am used to are long and narrow, usually three-color schemes that uniquely denote the campaign or action served in. These were round, or oval (I think)... still three color, but looked more like shoulder patches than service ribbons. What told me they were service ribbons (I keep using that phrase for lack of a better) was the fact that they had the names of the actions embossed below each one. The first I noticed was the lowest on his sash... "Meuse-Argonne". The one above was "Chateau-Thierry". I simply assumed he started his service after June 6th, 1944... and his ribbons denoted actions in France after the invasion... mainly because I didn't recognize the actions, only the language they denoted (French, of course).
It was the ribbon at the top that REALLY got my attention, though...
"Belleau Woods"
I am not exaggerating when I say this stopped me in my tracks. Could this moderately ancient-looking man have actually SERVED at the Battle of Belleau Woods? The summer of 1918? World War One, for the love of all that is holy? Even if he enlisted at the tender age of 16, he'd be 102 (or very nearly) now... and he's spry enough to be walking a casino floor at 1:30 am? Walking? No canes or chairs or Pride scooters... walking.
Needless to say, I reached into my bag of "craps dealer" ice-breakers and struck up a conversation that lasted 20 minutes. He did serve in the AEF under General "Blackjack" Pershing... but the story he told me that blew my mind was this:
About two months after the battle, he was in a hospital tent (unrelated injury, I guess... he never took a bullet in France), and found himself in the cot next to the then Gunnery Sergeant, Danny Daly. Danny Daly is credited with shouting to his platoon on June 6th, 1918, "Come on, you sons of bitches... do you want to live forever?" He is one of only two Marines and nineteen American servicemen to have received TWO Medals of Honor for separate actions.
I went to bed this morning and pondered having met this man. My brother (Jambo, for those unaware) and I grew up with a neighbor who had served as an aircraft ground crew member and actually serviced with the 94 Aero Squadron... and Eddie Rickenbacker, who ALSO won the Medal of Honor for his 26 confirmed "kills" in WWI, the highest till WWII. I can now have claimed to have shaken the hands that shook the hands of two of the most famous hero's our nation has ever produced... Rickenbacker and Daly, with three Medals of Honors between them.
(Incidental, this neighbor was even older than you may think. He not only followed Pershing into France in 1918, but also went with him for the US invasion of Mexico and the hunt for Pancho Villa in 1916. Call me crazy, but how many people today can say they knew a veteran of the last invasion of MEXICO personally?)
Anyway... that's my update for today. I pride myself on knowing a lot of crap... too much pride for too much crap... but I will take this encounter, and my friendship with John Oschenbaur, to the grave as one of my most memorable meetings in my life. I certainly hope my new "friend" returns to the casino soon, and during my shifts... I can't imagine a better way to kill a long and boring graveyard stint than listening to THOSE war stories.
Do either Jambo or Ryan recall dealing to a little hunch-backed guy at the Grand that ALWAYS wore a 1st Marine Division cap and a red satin VFW jacket? He sticks out in my mind because he was COVERED in pins and buttons proclaiming his affiliation with every single veterans association or group known to man... VFW, American Legion, AVA, et al... plus his ribbons and medals from the war. He was always worming in next to stick, and picked a fight with Miss Selma one night over the "pole" position they both wanted so badly.
Anyway... I'm walking the slot floor last night, about 0130 local, and I see a little hunch-backed guy walking with a really pronounced limp... and he is wearing nearly the same outfit. The one exception is that he is also wearing a sash across his chest, like the "Girl Scouts" wear for their merit badges (no disrespect intended to other veterans that wear them, mind you... I just don't know what they are called).
He is proudly covered in his regalia, and I notice he is wearing a red satin jacket emblazoned with the "Indian Head" insignia of the 2nd Infantry Division. This caught my eye, as it isn't one you see all that often... at least not as often as the "Big Red One" or 1st Marine or the "Screaming Eagles". I am curious enough to walk around the slot bank to intentionally get a better look at his jacket, and I catch a glimpse of his hat.
It's a black baseball cap, with the word VETERAN embossed across the front and "scrambled eggs" on the bill (now I don't know if that automatically means officer... this didn't look like an official cap or anything, but I am going to assume from his obvious pride of service, he was an officer at some point in his career). I took no further notice of the cap... yet.
The afore mentioned sash caught my eyes now. It was olive-drab, and looked to be made from US O.D. canvas (very nice touch... the same material that the Army made packs and duffels out of for nearly 80 years), and was covered in his pins and buttons. What I noticed first were his campaign patches...
They were oversizes versions of his service ribbons, I suppose... but they looked way different than I am used to spotting from my own experience. The ones I am used to are long and narrow, usually three-color schemes that uniquely denote the campaign or action served in. These were round, or oval (I think)... still three color, but looked more like shoulder patches than service ribbons. What told me they were service ribbons (I keep using that phrase for lack of a better) was the fact that they had the names of the actions embossed below each one. The first I noticed was the lowest on his sash... "Meuse-Argonne". The one above was "Chateau-Thierry". I simply assumed he started his service after June 6th, 1944... and his ribbons denoted actions in France after the invasion... mainly because I didn't recognize the actions, only the language they denoted (French, of course).
It was the ribbon at the top that REALLY got my attention, though...
"Belleau Woods"
I am not exaggerating when I say this stopped me in my tracks. Could this moderately ancient-looking man have actually SERVED at the Battle of Belleau Woods? The summer of 1918? World War One, for the love of all that is holy? Even if he enlisted at the tender age of 16, he'd be 102 (or very nearly) now... and he's spry enough to be walking a casino floor at 1:30 am? Walking? No canes or chairs or Pride scooters... walking.
Needless to say, I reached into my bag of "craps dealer" ice-breakers and struck up a conversation that lasted 20 minutes. He did serve in the AEF under General "Blackjack" Pershing... but the story he told me that blew my mind was this:
About two months after the battle, he was in a hospital tent (unrelated injury, I guess... he never took a bullet in France), and found himself in the cot next to the then Gunnery Sergeant, Danny Daly. Danny Daly is credited with shouting to his platoon on June 6th, 1918, "Come on, you sons of bitches... do you want to live forever?" He is one of only two Marines and nineteen American servicemen to have received TWO Medals of Honor for separate actions.
I went to bed this morning and pondered having met this man. My brother (Jambo, for those unaware) and I grew up with a neighbor who had served as an aircraft ground crew member and actually serviced with the 94 Aero Squadron... and Eddie Rickenbacker, who ALSO won the Medal of Honor for his 26 confirmed "kills" in WWI, the highest till WWII. I can now have claimed to have shaken the hands that shook the hands of two of the most famous hero's our nation has ever produced... Rickenbacker and Daly, with three Medals of Honors between them.
(Incidental, this neighbor was even older than you may think. He not only followed Pershing into France in 1918, but also went with him for the US invasion of Mexico and the hunt for Pancho Villa in 1916. Call me crazy, but how many people today can say they knew a veteran of the last invasion of MEXICO personally?)
Anyway... that's my update for today. I pride myself on knowing a lot of crap... too much pride for too much crap... but I will take this encounter, and my friendship with John Oschenbaur, to the grave as one of my most memorable meetings in my life. I certainly hope my new "friend" returns to the casino soon, and during my shifts... I can't imagine a better way to kill a long and boring graveyard stint than listening to THOSE war stories.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Start the presses !!!
Where is the front page above the fold coverage and "breaking news" commentary on the BIGGEST story in the world right now??
According to a Reuters report released yesterday, violence in Iraq IS DOWN 70% in the last 3 months - i.e. since the full implementation of the surge!
Where are all the headlines? Every time an Iraqi sets off a cherry bomb and a kid has the potential to "put his eye out" the presses scream into action so as to deliver us this must know news, so where are the cameras and print media now? This also proves that many (including Titus/Jambo/McCain/Powell) were right in their original assessment that more troops were needed. I of course had originally defended Rumsfeild for every syllable he uttered, but as soon as the PoTUS elected to send in 30,000 more troops as part of the "surge", being the intellectually honest guy that I am, I was forced to ask the question - if 30 thousand more are good, then how could 300,000 more not be even better? So, as a side note here Rummy is a big loser. Pelosi and co, and especially my native Senator Harry Reid, whom actually declared the war "lost" 4 months ago in a press conference, are made to look like the fools they are. Now, this is a 3 month average - the 70% - but we can only hope and pray that it continues. Ah, I mentioned the losers, well the big winner here is the US, period ... and the nation we're building, Iraq. So a big and hearty - JOB WELL DONE to all those serving ... you guys sure as hell earned it !!!
Now, to our recent discussion ....
"Me and Ollie North" - that was funny. Titus, I see that you would "get the information." I was sure you would say that. Despite the many jests to the contrary I have never pegged you for weak on national security, especially in times of war. No one could be that big of fan of Band of Brothers, or look in wide eyed awe at the D-Day Museum when we went, and also be a linguini spined weenie when facing our enemies. And I am not going to defend every instance of "bending" the rules for national security that went array - in the case of Reagan I simply choose to live in denial that he ever did anything wrong, as all good conservatives are required to do ... he he. This discussion, of executive authority, especially in times of war, has been with us since the inception of this nation. Our fore fathers designed the constitution so as to make it purposely unclear in certain areas in order to ensure that just this type of healthy discussion and debate would produce the closest thing to "balance" on the issue at the time it occurs. And I think it has served us rather well. When it comes to executive "violations" to the letter of the law - again pertaining to national security and particularly during times of war - the formula for whether it was "justified" or "correct" is quite simple: if it worked or was a failed part of an overall plan that worked, it's looked on favorably or forgiven. If it failed, it is not. There's your formula. It's not any more complicated then that. Carter gets no pass for the downed helicopters while Reagan and FDR get passes galore and high schools named after them. As far as it pertains to the Bund it would seem that you Titus would prefer that either the congress be consulted to change the law, or these decisions be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than implementing an executive policy that contradicts current law. In that latter scenario it would seem that you give the CIC more leeway. That outlook is not far from my own, or it would appear, badboy's. I would simply be more sympathetic to allowing that set policy of the executive "bending" the law during war time, that you oopose, and let history be the judge of where I (or Bush) is viewed within the afore mentioned formula of history.
One last point - you asked a fair question of a slippery slope scenario - would I afford the next president, say madam Hillary, that much leeway within the law during war time? In answering that I would apply my own version of a case by case basis, only inserting the words a "president by president" basis. I personally believe Bush (despite all his flaws, of which there are many) to be an honest man whom has the country's security in mind. So, in this scenario - our current war with Islamo-fascists - I as a US citizen will afford him a great deal of leeway within the law in combating these terrorists. With Hillary, although I am inclined to believe she is NOT an honest person whom has only her own power in mind, I would reserve judgment on the amount of executive "leeway" I am personally prepared to give her until such time as she is elected president, combined with the war time events being acted out at the time, i.e. "events on the ground" as it were..
Well, tell your friends - violence down 70%! They sure as hell won't read it in the newspaper or see it on TV, which means for millions of Americans it didn't happen.
FR
According to a Reuters report released yesterday, violence in Iraq IS DOWN 70% in the last 3 months - i.e. since the full implementation of the surge!
Where are all the headlines? Every time an Iraqi sets off a cherry bomb and a kid has the potential to "put his eye out" the presses scream into action so as to deliver us this must know news, so where are the cameras and print media now? This also proves that many (including Titus/Jambo/McCain/Powell) were right in their original assessment that more troops were needed. I of course had originally defended Rumsfeild for every syllable he uttered, but as soon as the PoTUS elected to send in 30,000 more troops as part of the "surge", being the intellectually honest guy that I am, I was forced to ask the question - if 30 thousand more are good, then how could 300,000 more not be even better? So, as a side note here Rummy is a big loser. Pelosi and co, and especially my native Senator Harry Reid, whom actually declared the war "lost" 4 months ago in a press conference, are made to look like the fools they are. Now, this is a 3 month average - the 70% - but we can only hope and pray that it continues. Ah, I mentioned the losers, well the big winner here is the US, period ... and the nation we're building, Iraq. So a big and hearty - JOB WELL DONE to all those serving ... you guys sure as hell earned it !!!
Now, to our recent discussion ....
"Me and Ollie North" - that was funny. Titus, I see that you would "get the information." I was sure you would say that. Despite the many jests to the contrary I have never pegged you for weak on national security, especially in times of war. No one could be that big of fan of Band of Brothers, or look in wide eyed awe at the D-Day Museum when we went, and also be a linguini spined weenie when facing our enemies. And I am not going to defend every instance of "bending" the rules for national security that went array - in the case of Reagan I simply choose to live in denial that he ever did anything wrong, as all good conservatives are required to do ... he he. This discussion, of executive authority, especially in times of war, has been with us since the inception of this nation. Our fore fathers designed the constitution so as to make it purposely unclear in certain areas in order to ensure that just this type of healthy discussion and debate would produce the closest thing to "balance" on the issue at the time it occurs. And I think it has served us rather well. When it comes to executive "violations" to the letter of the law - again pertaining to national security and particularly during times of war - the formula for whether it was "justified" or "correct" is quite simple: if it worked or was a failed part of an overall plan that worked, it's looked on favorably or forgiven. If it failed, it is not. There's your formula. It's not any more complicated then that. Carter gets no pass for the downed helicopters while Reagan and FDR get passes galore and high schools named after them. As far as it pertains to the Bund it would seem that you Titus would prefer that either the congress be consulted to change the law, or these decisions be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than implementing an executive policy that contradicts current law. In that latter scenario it would seem that you give the CIC more leeway. That outlook is not far from my own, or it would appear, badboy's. I would simply be more sympathetic to allowing that set policy of the executive "bending" the law during war time, that you oopose, and let history be the judge of where I (or Bush) is viewed within the afore mentioned formula of history.
One last point - you asked a fair question of a slippery slope scenario - would I afford the next president, say madam Hillary, that much leeway within the law during war time? In answering that I would apply my own version of a case by case basis, only inserting the words a "president by president" basis. I personally believe Bush (despite all his flaws, of which there are many) to be an honest man whom has the country's security in mind. So, in this scenario - our current war with Islamo-fascists - I as a US citizen will afford him a great deal of leeway within the law in combating these terrorists. With Hillary, although I am inclined to believe she is NOT an honest person whom has only her own power in mind, I would reserve judgment on the amount of executive "leeway" I am personally prepared to give her until such time as she is elected president, combined with the war time events being acted out at the time, i.e. "events on the ground" as it were..
Well, tell your friends - violence down 70%! They sure as hell won't read it in the newspaper or see it on TV, which means for millions of Americans it didn't happen.
FR
President Titus says...
Citizen Ryan needs to purchase himself a sense of "irony", because these conversations are getting God damn dull when I have to defend every single bit of sarcasm that comes out of my mouth.
In my posts, I was indicating a shared sense of "irony" with the author of the editorial I had read. I found it ironic that the Administration would wonder at the outcry and resistance these very same policies are meeting in the mainstream media, when they, themselves, have chosen to employ and damn near quote agendas and procedures from the likes of the Gestapo... regardless of how tame you may feel these procedures are.
I find it ironic now that the very man who incorporated the phrase "slippery slope" every single time topics like "gun control" or "big government" crop up is now this ready to give ONE man (or woman) this much control over "legal trifles" like determining if and when the Executive Branch of the United States government needs follow the Rule of Law. I mean, what is to stop the NEXT PotUS from deciding that it is in the best interests of the nation to incorporate the same interrogation procedures against "suspected" anti-American Americans? The GOP's biggest slur on FDR for incarcerating Japanese-Americans in the Arizona and California deserts was to call him a "fascist"... just like Franco, Mussolini and Hitler (who were all doing the same thing). I'm still waiting for evidence that even ONE of those incarcerated Japanese-Americans was later known to have been an insurgent agent working for the Imperial Army of Japan.
I find it ironic that I am hearing you defend past exercises of executive authority that history has not only shown to be ILLEGAL, but also simply BAD POLICY, based only on the premise that the President in question was doing SOMETHING rather than nothing. Clinton did SOMETHING when he ordered 4 cruise missiles to vaporize an aspirin factory, yet you called that a criminal act when discussing it on your patio. Carter did SOMETHING when he ordered the doomed rescue attempt in 1980, yet you mocked the effort from beginning to end every single time we have discussed it.
I find it ironic that you cite ONE instance where this procedure has produced verifiable results (without showing that alternative methods would NOT have worked), but ignore the many examples I have given of Presidents that have broken the Law and the results have been American lives endangered or lost. An example? Reagan agreeing to the Algiers Accords in 1981, in which the US promised (and has maintained) to:
In my posts, I was indicating a shared sense of "irony" with the author of the editorial I had read. I found it ironic that the Administration would wonder at the outcry and resistance these very same policies are meeting in the mainstream media, when they, themselves, have chosen to employ and damn near quote agendas and procedures from the likes of the Gestapo... regardless of how tame you may feel these procedures are.
I find it ironic now that the very man who incorporated the phrase "slippery slope" every single time topics like "gun control" or "big government" crop up is now this ready to give ONE man (or woman) this much control over "legal trifles" like determining if and when the Executive Branch of the United States government needs follow the Rule of Law. I mean, what is to stop the NEXT PotUS from deciding that it is in the best interests of the nation to incorporate the same interrogation procedures against "suspected" anti-American Americans? The GOP's biggest slur on FDR for incarcerating Japanese-Americans in the Arizona and California deserts was to call him a "fascist"... just like Franco, Mussolini and Hitler (who were all doing the same thing). I'm still waiting for evidence that even ONE of those incarcerated Japanese-Americans was later known to have been an insurgent agent working for the Imperial Army of Japan.
I find it ironic that I am hearing you defend past exercises of executive authority that history has not only shown to be ILLEGAL, but also simply BAD POLICY, based only on the premise that the President in question was doing SOMETHING rather than nothing. Clinton did SOMETHING when he ordered 4 cruise missiles to vaporize an aspirin factory, yet you called that a criminal act when discussing it on your patio. Carter did SOMETHING when he ordered the doomed rescue attempt in 1980, yet you mocked the effort from beginning to end every single time we have discussed it.
I find it ironic that you cite ONE instance where this procedure has produced verifiable results (without showing that alternative methods would NOT have worked), but ignore the many examples I have given of Presidents that have broken the Law and the results have been American lives endangered or lost. An example? Reagan agreeing to the Algiers Accords in 1981, in which the US promised (and has maintained) to:
- Never again interfere in any way, politically, economically or militarily, in the internal affairs of Iran.
- Iran was given back the $8 BILLION in assets the US had seized during the Hostage Crisis.
- Iran was held "blameless" in the event that any American corporation or individual attempted to file suit against the Iranian government for actions or events that occurred during the Crisis. (http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf)
I define that as "negotiating with terrorists"... how's THAT for irony?
I could go on and list such "success stories" ad nauseum... Operation LINEBACKER in 1972 (which cost 61 pilots and crewmen their freedom or their lives)... selling arms to IRAN in 1983 (which resulted in the kidnapping of 30 people, 16 of which were Americans)... the use of those funds to pay for rebel actions in Central America that same year (which resulted in the death of 7 American advisers)... and the best of all for last... the GIFT of chemical and biological agents and munitions to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. I'm quite sure I don't need to elaborate on how THAT little policy faux pas turned out for us, do I?
If you honestly can justify each of THESE illegal executive actions simply by saying "it's okay, because American lives were in danger!", then you and Ollie North can carry this discussion as far as you like. I'll stick it out on the sidelines.
Now, FINALLY, to address your rather direct point... what would I do if I were PotUS and faced with a nuclear terrorist plot that ONE man knew the details of and we had him in custody?
I would get the information.
Yes.
I would drop the bomb on Hiroshima, too... and Nagasaki. I'd have fire-bombed Dresden and Hamburg. Want to carpet-bomb Tokyo into a desert waste to hasten the end of the war? DO IT!
Those are individual executive determinations made as the occasion required.
What I was referring to in my original post was a POLICY put in place by and ADMINISTRATION as it re-writes US LAW to suit its political agendas. I would NOT make it policy to BREAK THE LAW simply to further a political agenda, and if I, as the highest elected official in the USA, found that the overwhelming majority of my associates and constituents did not approve of that action, then I would rescind it post haste.
I can't be more direct than that.
Monday, October 22, 2007
There's no crying in casinos!
Suck it up and stop your whining ... he he. Easy to say from my cozy day shift hours, huh?
To your Klaus Barbie analysis (if you can call it that)....
Let me first address badboy's comments. He is part of a long list of military personnel - up to and including the president - that have borne personal witness to how effective these techniques are. The president went as far as to say it saved American lives in a 1:1 ratio, and that is partly why the Dems completely and utterly lost this argument and are no longer pursuing it politically.
Now to Titus - if you want to go on the record and say that those bullet points, which we now practice, are - no matter how many lives they save - unconscionable based on your definition of morality, then fine. I disagree wholeheartedly and I think you're dead wrong, but reasonable people can disagree within the context of that argument. HOWEVER - don't give me this shit about Barbie and the Nazi's. I'm sure the author of that article correctly did his research and those were in fact recorded and defined techniques of the Nazis, but that IS NOT the extent of their crimes, as you well know, and THOSE specific bullet points are NOT the reason the word Nazi is synonymous with evil. Whatever was their written, prescribed method of "enhanced interrogation", it went miles further in practice. And I repeat, those techniques are not why they epitomize what man is capable of at his worst. To go back and find a technique that Waffen/SS/Nazi officials prescribed, that is similar to ours, and then claim THAT is the reason we should abandon their use is a disingenuous argument. The Nazi's also ate breakfast, some of them were professed Christians, and they drank beer as well - should we forsake all of those too? No. And neither shall we forsake effective techniques just because Klaus and co had them in their military field guide. Bottom line - those techniques aren't why they define evil, and you said as much, Titus, when citing your numbers: Klaus couldn't have killed 4,000 with these measures, so by definition he (and Nazi's in general) went far beyond them. And THAT is why they were wrong (along with so many more reasons of course). So please, it was clever, but no more of these false comparisons for sport, okay?
To your Klaus Barbie analysis (if you can call it that)....
Let me first address badboy's comments. He is part of a long list of military personnel - up to and including the president - that have borne personal witness to how effective these techniques are. The president went as far as to say it saved American lives in a 1:1 ratio, and that is partly why the Dems completely and utterly lost this argument and are no longer pursuing it politically.
Now to Titus - if you want to go on the record and say that those bullet points, which we now practice, are - no matter how many lives they save - unconscionable based on your definition of morality, then fine. I disagree wholeheartedly and I think you're dead wrong, but reasonable people can disagree within the context of that argument. HOWEVER - don't give me this shit about Barbie and the Nazi's. I'm sure the author of that article correctly did his research and those were in fact recorded and defined techniques of the Nazis, but that IS NOT the extent of their crimes, as you well know, and THOSE specific bullet points are NOT the reason the word Nazi is synonymous with evil. Whatever was their written, prescribed method of "enhanced interrogation", it went miles further in practice. And I repeat, those techniques are not why they epitomize what man is capable of at his worst. To go back and find a technique that Waffen/SS/Nazi officials prescribed, that is similar to ours, and then claim THAT is the reason we should abandon their use is a disingenuous argument. The Nazi's also ate breakfast, some of them were professed Christians, and they drank beer as well - should we forsake all of those too? No. And neither shall we forsake effective techniques just because Klaus and co had them in their military field guide. Bottom line - those techniques aren't why they define evil, and you said as much, Titus, when citing your numbers: Klaus couldn't have killed 4,000 with these measures, so by definition he (and Nazi's in general) went far beyond them. And THAT is why they were wrong (along with so many more reasons of course). So please, it was clever, but no more of these false comparisons for sport, okay?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
This is tough...
You see, I start my new shift at the casino today. I move from an extended stint on day shift to my permanent position of supervisor of graveyard. That shift is 11 pm to 7:30 am, and I have only tonight to get into the "nite shift" groove.
So, to help me along with this effort, I am spending an awful lot of time at the computer. This has a two-fold effect:
Keeps me up and alert.
Makes me write multiple posts to the Bund which you have to read.
Read an interesting editorial from our brothers to the North... about the question of torture versus the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation".
In 1945-46, the US Government made the following definition of a specific "war crime":
So, to help me along with this effort, I am spending an awful lot of time at the computer. This has a two-fold effect:
Keeps me up and alert.
Makes me write multiple posts to the Bund which you have to read.
Read an interesting editorial from our brothers to the North... about the question of torture versus the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation".
In 1945-46, the US Government made the following definition of a specific "war crime":
- Simple and intentionally low-calorie rations
- Hard, uncomfortable beds specifically designed to interrupt REM sleep
- Darkened cells
- Deprivation of sleep
- Forced exercise intended to exhaust the prisoner
- repeated blows with a padded stick or baton
- Hypothermia (specifically induced by a very cold cell environment augmented with ice-water wetting)
- "Waterboarding" (strapping a prisoner to a board and simulating drowning)
These crimes were defined by actions laid out in inter-governmental documents written by the Gestapo... actually, authored by the office of Klaus Barbie himself, the "Butcher of Lyon", who is credited with having tortured and killed as many as 4,000 French, Romani (Gypsy), Jewish and Catholic men, women and children... by his own hands... in the years he was Station Chief of the Nazi Gestapo in Lyon.
American jurists at Nuremberg paved the way for international agreements banning and decrying this very sort of "interrogation" that have defined the word "torture" for the last 60+ years in nearly every civilized nation on the face of the earth.
None the less, each of those bulleted-items listed above are now accepted forms of "enhanced interrogation", according to the Bush Administration. The author of the afore mentioned article even made this point: the German word used to define the "bulleted" procedure in official Nazi terminology is "verscharfte vernehmung"... literally, "enhanced interrogation".
We have discussed here (numerous times) the validity of the practice of "waterboarding" as a means of gaining intelligence in the War on Terror, and I'm not restarting that again. I am only asking why it would seem like a good idea to so completely emulate in action and policy the words and deeds of an organization like the Gestapo... and worse still, a man like Barbie... in explaining interrogation and intel-gathering techniques to the media today?
More advice, Mr. President?
So, here’s how I see things shaping up in the region once known as Mesopotamia… and here’s what I think our PotUS can do about it.
We have a NATO ally in Turkey that is shelling the be-jesus out of the Iraqi frontier because of PKK terror and kidnapping raids into Turkey. There may now be as many as 150,000 Turkish troops on the Iraqi border, simply waiting for the word to invade one third of Iraq and remove, once and for all, the “threat” they perceive from the Kurdish nationals.
We also have a NATO ally in Turkey that is seven kinds of pissed off at the US Congress for even considering to pass a resolution stating in no uncertain terms that the acts of a 92-year-old (and now non-existent) regime were, in fact, genocide and should be seen as “Crimes against Humanity”.
Furthermore, we have yet another organization in Iraq that is operating outside of the Iraqi, Coalition, US or UN efforts with acts of terror, kidnapping and murder across international boundaries, and that organization is the PKK. This is simply another group of militant murderers who will commit any crime they feel needed to get what they want, regardless of cost or consequences. It is also just another group of radicals that are accomplishing nothing if they are not helping to promote the destabilization of Iraq in the eyes of the world.
My advice to you, Mr. President, is really rather simple…
Coordinate with the Turks and the “legitimate” Iraqi and Kurdish authorities and allow a “joint” Turkish-US-Iraqi force to go into the Kurdish areas and wipe out the PKK as the terrorists they have shown themselves to be. The elected Kurdish leaders in Baghdad have decried and denounced the PKK actions, and have even called on the US to intervene to avoid direct Turkish action across the border, so they must have admitted that nothing the PKK is doing is in the Iraqi Kurd’s best interests, right? All the PKK is doing is bring a WHOLE lot of unwanted heat on the Iraqi Kurds, who are close enough to autonomy to taste it for the first time since Saladin ruled the region.
This accomplishes several ends at once, with minimum exposure for the US.
1) The Turks are forced by necessity to deal with the Iraqi Kurds as legitimate statesmen… something that has never happened in the past.
2) The Turks are allowed a hand in defining how the Iraqi “security forces” are to view their northern neighbor… as an ally willing to assist and aid, or as a constant potential enemy, simply waiting to invade and destroy another version of an ethnic group that has plagued them for nearly two centuries.
3) The President would be giving the Turks the means to “write” their own record of how modern-day Turkey deals with ethnic issues. Were Turkey to cooperate in an operation against PKK with the Iraqi and US forces in Iraq, and the operation went smoothly and ended to the satisfaction of all involved (barring the PKK, that is), then it could throw that right back into Pelosi and Co.’s face, just as the House votes on whether or not to officially condemn the “Ottomans” for the murder and carnage of June, 1915.
4) The US as a whole, and the US Forces in Iraq specifically, see one more insurgent terrorist threat eliminated by civilized Western forces cooperating against them… while nations like Syria and Iran get to see that the ties and allegiances of international groups like NATO and the Coalition aren’t simply “paper tigers”… all roar and no bite.
This could, given a lot of luck and even more planning and preparation, be as short an operation as 30 to 60 days… or it could embroil the Turks in an Iraqi meat-grinder the likes of which it hasn’t seen since Gallipoli in 1915. Still, it’s worth the chance and the possibility of rewards (I think) out weigh the possibility of high costs.
If the President is going to “talk” to Turkey anyway… why not talk about this? Plan this out, and get it done… fast and furious.
We have a NATO ally in Turkey that is shelling the be-jesus out of the Iraqi frontier because of PKK terror and kidnapping raids into Turkey. There may now be as many as 150,000 Turkish troops on the Iraqi border, simply waiting for the word to invade one third of Iraq and remove, once and for all, the “threat” they perceive from the Kurdish nationals.
We also have a NATO ally in Turkey that is seven kinds of pissed off at the US Congress for even considering to pass a resolution stating in no uncertain terms that the acts of a 92-year-old (and now non-existent) regime were, in fact, genocide and should be seen as “Crimes against Humanity”.
Furthermore, we have yet another organization in Iraq that is operating outside of the Iraqi, Coalition, US or UN efforts with acts of terror, kidnapping and murder across international boundaries, and that organization is the PKK. This is simply another group of militant murderers who will commit any crime they feel needed to get what they want, regardless of cost or consequences. It is also just another group of radicals that are accomplishing nothing if they are not helping to promote the destabilization of Iraq in the eyes of the world.
My advice to you, Mr. President, is really rather simple…
Coordinate with the Turks and the “legitimate” Iraqi and Kurdish authorities and allow a “joint” Turkish-US-Iraqi force to go into the Kurdish areas and wipe out the PKK as the terrorists they have shown themselves to be. The elected Kurdish leaders in Baghdad have decried and denounced the PKK actions, and have even called on the US to intervene to avoid direct Turkish action across the border, so they must have admitted that nothing the PKK is doing is in the Iraqi Kurd’s best interests, right? All the PKK is doing is bring a WHOLE lot of unwanted heat on the Iraqi Kurds, who are close enough to autonomy to taste it for the first time since Saladin ruled the region.
This accomplishes several ends at once, with minimum exposure for the US.
1) The Turks are forced by necessity to deal with the Iraqi Kurds as legitimate statesmen… something that has never happened in the past.
2) The Turks are allowed a hand in defining how the Iraqi “security forces” are to view their northern neighbor… as an ally willing to assist and aid, or as a constant potential enemy, simply waiting to invade and destroy another version of an ethnic group that has plagued them for nearly two centuries.
3) The President would be giving the Turks the means to “write” their own record of how modern-day Turkey deals with ethnic issues. Were Turkey to cooperate in an operation against PKK with the Iraqi and US forces in Iraq, and the operation went smoothly and ended to the satisfaction of all involved (barring the PKK, that is), then it could throw that right back into Pelosi and Co.’s face, just as the House votes on whether or not to officially condemn the “Ottomans” for the murder and carnage of June, 1915.
4) The US as a whole, and the US Forces in Iraq specifically, see one more insurgent terrorist threat eliminated by civilized Western forces cooperating against them… while nations like Syria and Iran get to see that the ties and allegiances of international groups like NATO and the Coalition aren’t simply “paper tigers”… all roar and no bite.
This could, given a lot of luck and even more planning and preparation, be as short an operation as 30 to 60 days… or it could embroil the Turks in an Iraqi meat-grinder the likes of which it hasn’t seen since Gallipoli in 1915. Still, it’s worth the chance and the possibility of rewards (I think) out weigh the possibility of high costs.
If the President is going to “talk” to Turkey anyway… why not talk about this? Plan this out, and get it done… fast and furious.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Now is the Winter of our Discontent...
Russia vowes to "retaliate" for any further incursions into the region (meaning Iran)... Putin promises a new generation that Russian nuclear weapons will again be the envy of the world, in both number and capabilities... and no amount of "friendly offers" by Ms. Rice or Mr. Gates could induce the Russian President to ease his tough stance on issues like the war in Iraq and the need for more cooperation between the two former enemies.
As I said in the past (right here on this forum, in fact), Russia, under Putin or not, is gearing up for another run at "superpower" status. She wants to be able to project force globally, and as long as her navy is undermanned and outdated, then ICBMs and MRBMs and lots and lots of "boomers" will have to do.
It isn't her navy that gives me pause, though... it is her ability to control HUGE portions of the globes natural resources. With her out-dated and poorly maintained facilities, she is currently the number 2 producer and exported of oil, natural gas, gasoline... and the single largest producer of such commodities as fuel oil, diesel fuel and liquid propane in Eurasia (constituting nearly half of the globe!). If the country can continue to upgrade and invest in its production capacity, she has the means to increase her GDP growth rate by a factor 300-400% in the next 10 years.
In ten years time, how much can Russia regain of her former (admittedly questionable) military might? The Soviet system did not provide for the best in service and incentive drives, but it's tactical and strategic planning was more than adequate enough to remain effective even today. Many still feel the T-80/T-84 is the second best MBT in production, and the MiG 33 continues to impress experts at airshows around the world. Russia maintains the single, largest stockpile of conventional infantry and infantry support weapons and platforms on the face of the earth... enough AKs, equipment, artillery, support-supply-transportation vehicles, and (most important) munitions to supply every uniformed soldier in the EU twice over.
I still contend that it is RUSSIA, not China or the EU, that will be the "new" big-boy on the block. China and the EU have the simple fact that they cannot supply even half of the energy or resource needs that they have to maintain current national consumption levels... while Russia is MORE than capable of supplying its own energy and resource needs AND exporting vast quantities to those nations that need it and can pay through the teeth (like the EU and China).
Question: What does the US do if Russia (now or in the near future) decides to review past policies of seeing the world in general as divided into "spheres of influence"? The US is drooling at the prospect of placing a military base in one of the former Soviet republics that dot the Middle East region, and Putin has as much as said that won't happen in his lifetime.
Say what you will about Putin's questionable record of "democratic process"... he has worked enough magic to eliminate the abusive elitist billionarre upper class, and has watch the Russian "middle class" (those earning between $20k and $100k) more than 300% in his tenure as President. Compare that to the US and its middle class growth of only 2.5% since 2000 (and how many of those are illegal immigrants thataren't supposed to be here anyway?), and I think my point is clear.
Russia has the will AND the means to become a military and economic superpower in the next 10-20 years. Who is going to make the most of ensuring Russia's friendly position with the US and not sacrifice US global bargaining power? When is this going to become a primary factor in US foreign policy with Russia?
As I said in the past (right here on this forum, in fact), Russia, under Putin or not, is gearing up for another run at "superpower" status. She wants to be able to project force globally, and as long as her navy is undermanned and outdated, then ICBMs and MRBMs and lots and lots of "boomers" will have to do.
It isn't her navy that gives me pause, though... it is her ability to control HUGE portions of the globes natural resources. With her out-dated and poorly maintained facilities, she is currently the number 2 producer and exported of oil, natural gas, gasoline... and the single largest producer of such commodities as fuel oil, diesel fuel and liquid propane in Eurasia (constituting nearly half of the globe!). If the country can continue to upgrade and invest in its production capacity, she has the means to increase her GDP growth rate by a factor 300-400% in the next 10 years.
In ten years time, how much can Russia regain of her former (admittedly questionable) military might? The Soviet system did not provide for the best in service and incentive drives, but it's tactical and strategic planning was more than adequate enough to remain effective even today. Many still feel the T-80/T-84 is the second best MBT in production, and the MiG 33 continues to impress experts at airshows around the world. Russia maintains the single, largest stockpile of conventional infantry and infantry support weapons and platforms on the face of the earth... enough AKs, equipment, artillery, support-supply-transportation vehicles, and (most important) munitions to supply every uniformed soldier in the EU twice over.
I still contend that it is RUSSIA, not China or the EU, that will be the "new" big-boy on the block. China and the EU have the simple fact that they cannot supply even half of the energy or resource needs that they have to maintain current national consumption levels... while Russia is MORE than capable of supplying its own energy and resource needs AND exporting vast quantities to those nations that need it and can pay through the teeth (like the EU and China).
Question: What does the US do if Russia (now or in the near future) decides to review past policies of seeing the world in general as divided into "spheres of influence"? The US is drooling at the prospect of placing a military base in one of the former Soviet republics that dot the Middle East region, and Putin has as much as said that won't happen in his lifetime.
Say what you will about Putin's questionable record of "democratic process"... he has worked enough magic to eliminate the abusive elitist billionarre upper class, and has watch the Russian "middle class" (those earning between $20k and $100k) more than 300% in his tenure as President. Compare that to the US and its middle class growth of only 2.5% since 2000 (and how many of those are illegal immigrants thataren't supposed to be here anyway?), and I think my point is clear.
Russia has the will AND the means to become a military and economic superpower in the next 10-20 years. Who is going to make the most of ensuring Russia's friendly position with the US and not sacrifice US global bargaining power? When is this going to become a primary factor in US foreign policy with Russia?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
But Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 19:14 .
Whether through the ACLU or individual citizens, those whom champion a secular purist state have succeeded in renaming Christmas Vacation a "winter break"; have allowed students to abstain from saying the words "under God" as they recite the pledge of allegiance; and they have reduced moments of prayer at scholastic sporting events to "a minute of silence." The unyielding offensive to remove all moral guidance and clarity from our public institutions of learning has left a vacuum within the hearts and minds of students and their instructors. Now witness the results .....
According to the Department of Health and Human Services the Portland, Maine school committee, in a 5-2 vote, will allow King Middle School nurses to administer birth control pills and patches to female students as young as 11 years old - without parental consent or notification. This in a state where it is illegal to engage in sex with an 11 year old, even when both participants are under age. A spokeswoman for the school said, "This addresses a medical need for children whose adult in their life has, for whatever reason, abandoned them." Really madam? Abandoned them? Implicit in this is the assertion that any parent of an 11 year old girl whom does not grant the child access to birth control devices is in fact "abandoning" - a legal term mind you - their child. As any parent knows every adolescent at some point realizes that if he or she can split their parents against one another in any given argument involving the child, that the sum effect is the child emerging with more power in the family than was previously or knowingly granted by the parents. This decision places the school, i.e. the government, directly between the child and parent, and as in all divide and conquer scenarios throughout time, those in the middle emerge more powerful than either of the two halves. This is undoubtedly the state's goal. Notice how she doesn't even grant the parent the status of being a quote, "parent." Instead they are assigned the dubious title of "adult in their lives." Clearly those such as Planned Parent Hood and secular school officials have convinced parents that the ideals and morals of the state are of equal or greater value to those whom gave birth to the child - after all, whether it's a school nurse or a father, they're all just another "adult in their life" - no one being of greater significance or importance than the other. As Father Jonathan Morris noted (article available to the right) in his response to a Portland parent whom wanted his daughter to have access to a trusted adult in school when he is not "available", [His] idea of a trusted adult is abnormal. In the real world, a trusted adult does not give an eleven-year-old girl a birth control pill when the little girl comes to his office saying she is about to have sex and can’t reach her daddy."
There is little mystery in why the number of students enrolled in home based schooling programs increases exponentially each year. Does anyone doubt that this policy will only increase the amount of child pregnancies and STD's within the King Middle School student body? My mother always recited the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Unfortunately her warnings would be lost on these secular bureaucrats, for in their world neither heaven nor hell exists.
FR
Whether through the ACLU or individual citizens, those whom champion a secular purist state have succeeded in renaming Christmas Vacation a "winter break"; have allowed students to abstain from saying the words "under God" as they recite the pledge of allegiance; and they have reduced moments of prayer at scholastic sporting events to "a minute of silence." The unyielding offensive to remove all moral guidance and clarity from our public institutions of learning has left a vacuum within the hearts and minds of students and their instructors. Now witness the results .....
According to the Department of Health and Human Services the Portland, Maine school committee, in a 5-2 vote, will allow King Middle School nurses to administer birth control pills and patches to female students as young as 11 years old - without parental consent or notification. This in a state where it is illegal to engage in sex with an 11 year old, even when both participants are under age. A spokeswoman for the school said, "This addresses a medical need for children whose adult in their life has, for whatever reason, abandoned them." Really madam? Abandoned them? Implicit in this is the assertion that any parent of an 11 year old girl whom does not grant the child access to birth control devices is in fact "abandoning" - a legal term mind you - their child. As any parent knows every adolescent at some point realizes that if he or she can split their parents against one another in any given argument involving the child, that the sum effect is the child emerging with more power in the family than was previously or knowingly granted by the parents. This decision places the school, i.e. the government, directly between the child and parent, and as in all divide and conquer scenarios throughout time, those in the middle emerge more powerful than either of the two halves. This is undoubtedly the state's goal. Notice how she doesn't even grant the parent the status of being a quote, "parent." Instead they are assigned the dubious title of "adult in their lives." Clearly those such as Planned Parent Hood and secular school officials have convinced parents that the ideals and morals of the state are of equal or greater value to those whom gave birth to the child - after all, whether it's a school nurse or a father, they're all just another "adult in their life" - no one being of greater significance or importance than the other. As Father Jonathan Morris noted (article available to the right) in his response to a Portland parent whom wanted his daughter to have access to a trusted adult in school when he is not "available", [His] idea of a trusted adult is abnormal. In the real world, a trusted adult does not give an eleven-year-old girl a birth control pill when the little girl comes to his office saying she is about to have sex and can’t reach her daddy."
There is little mystery in why the number of students enrolled in home based schooling programs increases exponentially each year. Does anyone doubt that this policy will only increase the amount of child pregnancies and STD's within the King Middle School student body? My mother always recited the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Unfortunately her warnings would be lost on these secular bureaucrats, for in their world neither heaven nor hell exists.
FR
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Move to the back deck and bring your violin.
Is it possible?
I am determined to not sound as if I am a right-wing version of the loathsome conspiracy theory nuts that would have people believe Bush and Cheney were in frog suits setting charges along the levees in New Orleans during the storm. However ...
Let me first set the stage. By all the media accounts I have encountered - not to mention General Patraeus - things on the ground in Iraq are going "better." I flank the word with the dubious quotation marks because "better" can be viewed as a rather subjective term given the point at which we were at. That being said it would seem that the "clear, hold, build" policy that worked so well in the An Bar province, and was subsequently exported to other regions via the surge, has resulted in weekly deaths being at all time lows; indigenous tribal leaders are siding with US forces in significant numbers in combating Al Qeada; and there are reports that Al Qeada is suffering larger casualty rates.
Now enter this - Members of Turkey's government are urging the full parliament to authorize a Northern invasion to Kurdish held Iraq and the proposal has popular public support. Officials said the Turkish military has deployed tens of thousands of troops, backed by attack helicopters, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, in forward positions along the Iraqi border. They went on to say the Turkish force could cross the Iraqi border and attack the Kurdish Workers Party (The "PKK" which I will describe in a minute) within hours of any order. The Prime Minister says such a move will be decided after November. Also, they have threatened to embargo all US military cargo currently transported through their country. The hamper such a move would put on our war efforts can only be descibed as catastrophic - Turkey has served as the route for 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq. And about one-third of U.S. military fuel as well as 95 percent of new vehicles designed to resist improvised explosive devices in Iraq pass through Turkey. Not good.
Apparently since 1984 the Turkish government has been fighting a separatist political faction, the PKK, which has its current base in Northern Iraq. The PKK has made several raids and committed several terrorists attacks into Turkey proper over the years and they have not ceased during our war in Iraq. What has changed is that Turkey's retalitorial responses, which in the past has involved moving in with as many as 50,000 troops, have been tempered by Washington in fear that Turkish troops in Iraq would upset the most peaceful region of the nation - Kurd held territory in the North.
So why all of a sudden is Turkey considering parliamentary approval for a fresh offensive into Iraq and threatening to cut off their country as a vital supply route for US forces in combat? If you guessed the US House resolution, set to be voted on soon, that condemns the Ottoman Empire as committing an act of genocide against 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, then you guessed correctly. So I ask, is it possible that comrade Pelosi and company decided to schedule this vote - and it IS her driving this over the objections of the White House - in order to ensure continued or increased chaos in Iraq in the run up to the 08' election? Seeing the improvements post surge has she sought to guarantee chaos will return (or continue depending on who you believe)? In a past essay I have accused the Democratic party, and more specifically its elected leadership, of willingly allowing US military deaths in order to further their political fortune, and I believe this to be part and parcel of that traitorous pattern. It boggles the mind to think Pelosi gives as much or more weight to passing a resolution which labels a now non-existent government as genocidal, as she does the catastrophic war time geopolitical ramifications such a resolution would surely incur.
It's my "theory", but one that happens to fit the facts as we know them. With all that is going on in the world can anyone possibly believe that the madam Speaker of the House finds that this resolution is the most valuable use of her time - based SOLELY out of a historical humanitarian concern that the Armenians be validated in their claims? Please. It's laughable on its face ... and so is her patriotism.
FR
Side note - I posted an article on the right for your own reading (and it's where I got the bulk of my information), but Titus, you need to explain to me how to set it as a link using a phrase or word rather than the URL I cut and pasted.
I am determined to not sound as if I am a right-wing version of the loathsome conspiracy theory nuts that would have people believe Bush and Cheney were in frog suits setting charges along the levees in New Orleans during the storm. However ...
Let me first set the stage. By all the media accounts I have encountered - not to mention General Patraeus - things on the ground in Iraq are going "better." I flank the word with the dubious quotation marks because "better" can be viewed as a rather subjective term given the point at which we were at. That being said it would seem that the "clear, hold, build" policy that worked so well in the An Bar province, and was subsequently exported to other regions via the surge, has resulted in weekly deaths being at all time lows; indigenous tribal leaders are siding with US forces in significant numbers in combating Al Qeada; and there are reports that Al Qeada is suffering larger casualty rates.
Now enter this - Members of Turkey's government are urging the full parliament to authorize a Northern invasion to Kurdish held Iraq and the proposal has popular public support. Officials said the Turkish military has deployed tens of thousands of troops, backed by attack helicopters, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, in forward positions along the Iraqi border. They went on to say the Turkish force could cross the Iraqi border and attack the Kurdish Workers Party (The "PKK" which I will describe in a minute) within hours of any order. The Prime Minister says such a move will be decided after November. Also, they have threatened to embargo all US military cargo currently transported through their country. The hamper such a move would put on our war efforts can only be descibed as catastrophic - Turkey has served as the route for 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq. And about one-third of U.S. military fuel as well as 95 percent of new vehicles designed to resist improvised explosive devices in Iraq pass through Turkey. Not good.
Apparently since 1984 the Turkish government has been fighting a separatist political faction, the PKK, which has its current base in Northern Iraq. The PKK has made several raids and committed several terrorists attacks into Turkey proper over the years and they have not ceased during our war in Iraq. What has changed is that Turkey's retalitorial responses, which in the past has involved moving in with as many as 50,000 troops, have been tempered by Washington in fear that Turkish troops in Iraq would upset the most peaceful region of the nation - Kurd held territory in the North.
So why all of a sudden is Turkey considering parliamentary approval for a fresh offensive into Iraq and threatening to cut off their country as a vital supply route for US forces in combat? If you guessed the US House resolution, set to be voted on soon, that condemns the Ottoman Empire as committing an act of genocide against 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, then you guessed correctly. So I ask, is it possible that comrade Pelosi and company decided to schedule this vote - and it IS her driving this over the objections of the White House - in order to ensure continued or increased chaos in Iraq in the run up to the 08' election? Seeing the improvements post surge has she sought to guarantee chaos will return (or continue depending on who you believe)? In a past essay I have accused the Democratic party, and more specifically its elected leadership, of willingly allowing US military deaths in order to further their political fortune, and I believe this to be part and parcel of that traitorous pattern. It boggles the mind to think Pelosi gives as much or more weight to passing a resolution which labels a now non-existent government as genocidal, as she does the catastrophic war time geopolitical ramifications such a resolution would surely incur.
It's my "theory", but one that happens to fit the facts as we know them. With all that is going on in the world can anyone possibly believe that the madam Speaker of the House finds that this resolution is the most valuable use of her time - based SOLELY out of a historical humanitarian concern that the Armenians be validated in their claims? Please. It's laughable on its face ... and so is her patriotism.
FR
Side note - I posted an article on the right for your own reading (and it's where I got the bulk of my information), but Titus, you need to explain to me how to set it as a link using a phrase or word rather than the URL I cut and pasted.
Is that a Neil Caglienelli brand trench coat?
While you get some sleep, let me see if I can clarify something.
You may be surprised to learn, Titus, that I agree with you more than you think. The Dems have been running on "we're not Bush" since he won the Florida recount (save right after 9/11). And if they were to offer a measurable and specific plan it would help their chances (or seal the deal) in 08' immensely. I guess I thought we were discussing which was more important - plans or personality. No one would argue that they haven't been used in concert for electoral victory in the past, it's just my assertion (and apparently Jambo's although I won't presume to speak for him) that the plans compliment what is essential and foremost -personality.
But just for the sake of clarity this is what started this thread ...
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.
Now I'm not trying to pick on you, I really am not. But the following comment on what you were trying to get across involves a different thesis in it's assertion entirely ...
Obviously, I am incapable of making the point to you that is so abundantly clear to me… that SOMETIMES, when an incumbent President is unpopular enough come election time, the opposition party has a chance to take the election by showing they have a PLAN. This doesn’t always work, but it has worked in the past on some occasions.
With that I have no quarrel. Yes, this is a possible scenario. But, if you are telling me that a candidate wins when his plan wins, I have to disagree with the order in which you assign value. I would argue that a candidate's plans win when his personality wins. If they don't "like you" or perhaps "feel comfortable with you" is more apt, then they won't even bother listening to the plan - especially in this day and age.
You were admittedly sleepy when you wrote this but I want to address it just the same. You asserted that Quayle, Dukakis and Gore were all good-looking (w/Dukakis listed as questionable) photogenic candidates and by my analysis of "personality" being the deal maker on electability, they should have won based on that alone, yet they lost. Well, in each of those instances I would argue that they lost because the candidate with whom they competed against at the time was even more photogenic and "likable." Quayle (ala the Bush administration) was beaten by Clinton - no one has more used his personal charisma to get what he wants done since Napoleon. With Gore he ran against "W." That nickname alone says mounds about why Gore lost. He was robotic, a policy wonk, and sometimes down right strange (remember he walked up on Bush in the debate, almost in his face, and Bush won the debate cold at that moment by stopping in mid sentence and looking him up and down like he was some weirdo). Did anyone outside of the 2% category of political nuts (which we fall in) even bother to invest time in what a "lock box" was or did after that? I don't think so. In other words, and this was said at the time by all the talking heads, ol' dubya was the kind of guy you can sit down and have a beer with where as Gore seemed elitist and unapproachable - a death knell in American electoral politics. People were more comfortable with, or liked Bush. Now Dukakis is the weakest link here whereas Bush 41 isn't a classic example of "photogenic." BUT people did like Reagan, a lot, and 41 basically won because people liked and trusted the Reagan administration from which Bush came, rather than Dukakis - who looked like a duphus riding around in that tank with an over sized (it looked it anyway) helmet on his head. It was just plain laughable - and they were laughing at him, not with him.
At any rate, rest up my friend. I'll check in later.
FR
You may be surprised to learn, Titus, that I agree with you more than you think. The Dems have been running on "we're not Bush" since he won the Florida recount (save right after 9/11). And if they were to offer a measurable and specific plan it would help their chances (or seal the deal) in 08' immensely. I guess I thought we were discussing which was more important - plans or personality. No one would argue that they haven't been used in concert for electoral victory in the past, it's just my assertion (and apparently Jambo's although I won't presume to speak for him) that the plans compliment what is essential and foremost -personality.
But just for the sake of clarity this is what started this thread ...
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.
Now I'm not trying to pick on you, I really am not. But the following comment on what you were trying to get across involves a different thesis in it's assertion entirely ...
Obviously, I am incapable of making the point to you that is so abundantly clear to me… that SOMETIMES, when an incumbent President is unpopular enough come election time, the opposition party has a chance to take the election by showing they have a PLAN. This doesn’t always work, but it has worked in the past on some occasions.
With that I have no quarrel. Yes, this is a possible scenario. But, if you are telling me that a candidate wins when his plan wins, I have to disagree with the order in which you assign value. I would argue that a candidate's plans win when his personality wins. If they don't "like you" or perhaps "feel comfortable with you" is more apt, then they won't even bother listening to the plan - especially in this day and age.
You were admittedly sleepy when you wrote this but I want to address it just the same. You asserted that Quayle, Dukakis and Gore were all good-looking (w/Dukakis listed as questionable) photogenic candidates and by my analysis of "personality" being the deal maker on electability, they should have won based on that alone, yet they lost. Well, in each of those instances I would argue that they lost because the candidate with whom they competed against at the time was even more photogenic and "likable." Quayle (ala the Bush administration) was beaten by Clinton - no one has more used his personal charisma to get what he wants done since Napoleon. With Gore he ran against "W." That nickname alone says mounds about why Gore lost. He was robotic, a policy wonk, and sometimes down right strange (remember he walked up on Bush in the debate, almost in his face, and Bush won the debate cold at that moment by stopping in mid sentence and looking him up and down like he was some weirdo). Did anyone outside of the 2% category of political nuts (which we fall in) even bother to invest time in what a "lock box" was or did after that? I don't think so. In other words, and this was said at the time by all the talking heads, ol' dubya was the kind of guy you can sit down and have a beer with where as Gore seemed elitist and unapproachable - a death knell in American electoral politics. People were more comfortable with, or liked Bush. Now Dukakis is the weakest link here whereas Bush 41 isn't a classic example of "photogenic." BUT people did like Reagan, a lot, and 41 basically won because people liked and trusted the Reagan administration from which Bush came, rather than Dukakis - who looked like a duphus riding around in that tank with an over sized (it looked it anyway) helmet on his head. It was just plain laughable - and they were laughing at him, not with him.
At any rate, rest up my friend. I'll check in later.
FR
"That, and I put a case of it in your foot locker."
The personality versus plan issue arose as Titus was bestowing some pearls of wisdom upon me, in the event of any political future. My thoughts were, and remain, that while plans are immeasurably important, that personality is the deal maker or breaker. The American electorate basically knows what it wants - victory (in war time), security, low taxes, "fixes" to problems such as health care etc .., and each candidate will sell their version of a solution to those issues. And while the policy differences will be huge to political wonks, what gets a candidate elected is how well he sells himself, not his plans.
Did Reagan sell people on his economics or any other plan? No, he gave them something even more valuable and unassailable - he gave them hope. He made them feel good about being Americans again. And he did all of this via his personality, not a 100 day plan. The historical examples are endless, and Jambo has elaborated quite nicely, but everyone should keep in mind that this originated as how best to get elected in the future - and this puts particular emphasis on personality. The break neck speed of media in this day and age is beyond extraordinary. I have heard estimates that technological break throughs in the last 100 years surpassed the sum total of the previous 1000. I can only imagine at what measure the last 25 years of information accessibility has grown by - perhaps more than all of prior times combined. And that very much lends itself to personality. Impressions, likability, sense of humor, timing, camera friendly, a good smile - for better or worse in the world of instant downloads, 5 second sound bites and 6 minute baked potatoes, all of these will be more decisive in an election then "plans." Post election, then the plans will play a larger role - but even then - as we have seen countless times, the affability factor gets sh** passed. Could Reagan have gone over the heads of the media and gotten people to call and write their congressman in order to secure passage had he not been "liked?" And as I mentioned before, an entire candidacy was based on the phrase "I like Ike." Not, "here's what Ike wants to do once he's elected." That's much less catchy.
Now, in terms of whom is running now ... Hillary seems to me to be void of any personality whatsoever. She's bland. Outside of the base who loves her, and the opposition which hates her, she's plain yougurt - not a good formula come the general election.I wouldn't vote for her because she's a socialist by any other name (5000 just for being born? Shut up.), but if I suddenly awoke from a coma (some here may think that has yet to happen) and I saw clips of "Rudy" at ground zero, with the hard hat on, compared to clips of Hillary basically walking around in meets and greets, that's not even close on the personality or personal impression front. And don't think those 9/11 clips won't be in ads. And by the way, he earned the right to that in my opinion although the Dems will no doubt scream that he is politicising 9/11 to his benefit. What they really mean is that they can't, so he shouldn't. Also, in the debates I think much of his stump speech will shine through. Have you heard him discuss the war on terror? He gets it man, and he's passionate and to the point. In a debate will Hillary be able to pull off "likability" when she has yet to utter the word victory in a single debate to date? I doubt it.
Also, this business about the letters G-O-P being a hindrance due to Bush's low poll numbers. That is an opportunity for a Guliani. Bush's numbers are so low that Dems, as they have demonstrated over the years, are going to mention him - and his poor performance (their words) - every ten seconds if not more. In other words they will go negative. Guliani needs to sell what Reagan did - hope. Be positive, a bright future is ahead, we can win, etc. Chris Matthews once said that "Americans always vote for a president that has the sun on his face." The upbeat personality of "America is great", here's how I'll make it even greater, head held high will always win if packaged with a short, to the point message of what you'll do. But you see what comes first there - the messenger, not the message.
FR
Did Reagan sell people on his economics or any other plan? No, he gave them something even more valuable and unassailable - he gave them hope. He made them feel good about being Americans again. And he did all of this via his personality, not a 100 day plan. The historical examples are endless, and Jambo has elaborated quite nicely, but everyone should keep in mind that this originated as how best to get elected in the future - and this puts particular emphasis on personality. The break neck speed of media in this day and age is beyond extraordinary. I have heard estimates that technological break throughs in the last 100 years surpassed the sum total of the previous 1000. I can only imagine at what measure the last 25 years of information accessibility has grown by - perhaps more than all of prior times combined. And that very much lends itself to personality. Impressions, likability, sense of humor, timing, camera friendly, a good smile - for better or worse in the world of instant downloads, 5 second sound bites and 6 minute baked potatoes, all of these will be more decisive in an election then "plans." Post election, then the plans will play a larger role - but even then - as we have seen countless times, the affability factor gets sh** passed. Could Reagan have gone over the heads of the media and gotten people to call and write their congressman in order to secure passage had he not been "liked?" And as I mentioned before, an entire candidacy was based on the phrase "I like Ike." Not, "here's what Ike wants to do once he's elected." That's much less catchy.
Now, in terms of whom is running now ... Hillary seems to me to be void of any personality whatsoever. She's bland. Outside of the base who loves her, and the opposition which hates her, she's plain yougurt - not a good formula come the general election.I wouldn't vote for her because she's a socialist by any other name (5000 just for being born? Shut up.), but if I suddenly awoke from a coma (some here may think that has yet to happen) and I saw clips of "Rudy" at ground zero, with the hard hat on, compared to clips of Hillary basically walking around in meets and greets, that's not even close on the personality or personal impression front. And don't think those 9/11 clips won't be in ads. And by the way, he earned the right to that in my opinion although the Dems will no doubt scream that he is politicising 9/11 to his benefit. What they really mean is that they can't, so he shouldn't. Also, in the debates I think much of his stump speech will shine through. Have you heard him discuss the war on terror? He gets it man, and he's passionate and to the point. In a debate will Hillary be able to pull off "likability" when she has yet to utter the word victory in a single debate to date? I doubt it.
Also, this business about the letters G-O-P being a hindrance due to Bush's low poll numbers. That is an opportunity for a Guliani. Bush's numbers are so low that Dems, as they have demonstrated over the years, are going to mention him - and his poor performance (their words) - every ten seconds if not more. In other words they will go negative. Guliani needs to sell what Reagan did - hope. Be positive, a bright future is ahead, we can win, etc. Chris Matthews once said that "Americans always vote for a president that has the sun on his face." The upbeat personality of "America is great", here's how I'll make it even greater, head held high will always win if packaged with a short, to the point message of what you'll do. But you see what comes first there - the messenger, not the message.
FR
Be "DONE" all you want ...
This is necessary. I have been gone for a few days and clearly the blog, along with the rest of the world, has moved on from the Rush "controversies." So, why am I bringing it up? Quite frankly I was extremely disturbed by Titus's "Rushing To Justice" post. Not due to his assailment of Limbaugh mind you - I couldn't care less whether you "like" the guy, I'm not attempting a conversion here - but because there were SEVERAL inaccuracies regarding what I have written in previous posts on the matter. That, combined with the obvious - Titus had fused the two controversies together and was unwittingly attributing quotes (of both Rush and I) from one controversy and saying it was a response to the other. Now, knowing Titus I am assuming it was done on accident, attributable to his self confessed hatred of Rush. Nonetheless it was done and I will give you the most glaring example (of many mistakes) for I will not be impugned as some rouge mouth breathing Rush ditto head when in fact I made a crystal clear, defensible, and accurate presentation proving Titus's conclusions about Rush's intent were misguided and that his overall argument was riddled with inaccuracies. BUT, as I said, this isn't about him anymore, it's about my reputation and I will not stand to have it sullied in the interest of "moving on."
In the "comments" under my post "Head Rush" Titus has written:
I’m not going to discuss this anymore… I hate Rush, you think the sun shines out of his ass… what is the point?
I am only going to make one more comment, to clear my name of your “cry foul” point.The quote you claim you never wrote is still to be found within the last sentence of the #2 item in your “Rush to Judgment” post of Oct 10. I cut it out right from the site, and only changed “he” to (Rush) for ease of understanding (a lot of good THAT did!).
You posted it. I cut it.
And the "quote" you attributed to me:
Ryan writes: “(Rush) did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison."
Alright, below is the #2 item you referred to, complete and unedited. In the last sentence I asked for you to retract your assertion - that Limbaugh had made a literal comparison - and I asked for it "post haste." And what you did was cut and paste that request in order to make it appear as if I was making a declarative statement of fact rather than describing the assertion I was requesting YOU to retract. Furthermore, the entire #2 item was me asserting that he was making an analogy. How you read this paragraph and then cut and pasted what you did and came to the conclusions that you did, lies beyond comprehension.
2.) You wrote, "I have read the transcript and to say he was simply making an analogy is flat out untrue." Really? So if not an analogy then you are asserting he made a literal description or comparison in his statement. Where? Where did he literally call the "soldiers", which we now have established was in fact ONE soldier, a quote suicide bomber? How about saying (literally mind you since the claim of an analogy according to you is "flat untrue") that their actions were equivalent to "blowing yourself up in a crowded street." I mean if you have completely dismissed the possibility of a metaphorical analogy then surely you are able to back that up by pointing to the only thing left - a literal comparison in which he uses the words blowing yourself up in a crowded street. Hmmmm, not there is it? Well, absent a literal description all that is left is a metaphorical ANALOGY. It would seem your hate for all things Rush has caused you to cast aside English Comp I ... and II. No matter, I am here. In fact it is crystal clear that he was making a metaphorical analogy. Any one - outside of rabid Rush haters - can see this. I didn't say it was a "good" one, but one none the less. I will expect that retraction - that he did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison, post haste as well.
Clearly anyone not consumed within a hazy hate-filled fog can see that I was in fact asking you to retract something, not saying the "something" as a declaration. Also, you wrote: You’re so busy trying to catch me in a screw up… how did you miss the fact that Rush never said those words (suicide bomber) in the first place? Dumb ass… I didn't miss it Titus - the entire paragraph was me NOT missing it. How could YOU miss THAT? When, and if, you decide to apologize for blatantly misrepresenting what I said, via your cutting and pasting, I shall expect you to also withdraw the description of me as a"dumb ass."
At this point Titus you should realize what I have said from the beginning of this thread is true - your biased towards Limbaugh causes you to make irrational arguments and draw questionable conclusions. AT THE VERY LEAST it causes you to repeatedly misread posts and transcripts.
So ... you have two choices. Either live in denial or apologize to me and our readers for having misquoted me AND for having put in less then the proper amount of research so as to correctly identify and separate the two controversies - in layman's terms: you didn't accurately read my posts nor the shows transcripts.
You can be "done" with this all you want, and I'm perfectly willing to let others whom might read this decide for themselves whether your above error is indicative of your overall performance in this area, but in the end you at least owe me an apology.
FR
In the "comments" under my post "Head Rush" Titus has written:
I’m not going to discuss this anymore… I hate Rush, you think the sun shines out of his ass… what is the point?
I am only going to make one more comment, to clear my name of your “cry foul” point.The quote you claim you never wrote is still to be found within the last sentence of the #2 item in your “Rush to Judgment” post of Oct 10. I cut it out right from the site, and only changed “he” to (Rush) for ease of understanding (a lot of good THAT did!).
You posted it. I cut it.
And the "quote" you attributed to me:
Ryan writes: “(Rush) did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison."
Alright, below is the #2 item you referred to, complete and unedited. In the last sentence I asked for you to retract your assertion - that Limbaugh had made a literal comparison - and I asked for it "post haste." And what you did was cut and paste that request in order to make it appear as if I was making a declarative statement of fact rather than describing the assertion I was requesting YOU to retract. Furthermore, the entire #2 item was me asserting that he was making an analogy. How you read this paragraph and then cut and pasted what you did and came to the conclusions that you did, lies beyond comprehension.
2.) You wrote, "I have read the transcript and to say he was simply making an analogy is flat out untrue." Really? So if not an analogy then you are asserting he made a literal description or comparison in his statement. Where? Where did he literally call the "soldiers", which we now have established was in fact ONE soldier, a quote suicide bomber? How about saying (literally mind you since the claim of an analogy according to you is "flat untrue") that their actions were equivalent to "blowing yourself up in a crowded street." I mean if you have completely dismissed the possibility of a metaphorical analogy then surely you are able to back that up by pointing to the only thing left - a literal comparison in which he uses the words blowing yourself up in a crowded street. Hmmmm, not there is it? Well, absent a literal description all that is left is a metaphorical ANALOGY. It would seem your hate for all things Rush has caused you to cast aside English Comp I ... and II. No matter, I am here. In fact it is crystal clear that he was making a metaphorical analogy. Any one - outside of rabid Rush haters - can see this. I didn't say it was a "good" one, but one none the less. I will expect that retraction - that he did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison, post haste as well.
Clearly anyone not consumed within a hazy hate-filled fog can see that I was in fact asking you to retract something, not saying the "something" as a declaration. Also, you wrote: You’re so busy trying to catch me in a screw up… how did you miss the fact that Rush never said those words (suicide bomber) in the first place? Dumb ass… I didn't miss it Titus - the entire paragraph was me NOT missing it. How could YOU miss THAT? When, and if, you decide to apologize for blatantly misrepresenting what I said, via your cutting and pasting, I shall expect you to also withdraw the description of me as a"dumb ass."
At this point Titus you should realize what I have said from the beginning of this thread is true - your biased towards Limbaugh causes you to make irrational arguments and draw questionable conclusions. AT THE VERY LEAST it causes you to repeatedly misread posts and transcripts.
So ... you have two choices. Either live in denial or apologize to me and our readers for having misquoted me AND for having put in less then the proper amount of research so as to correctly identify and separate the two controversies - in layman's terms: you didn't accurately read my posts nor the shows transcripts.
You can be "done" with this all you want, and I'm perfectly willing to let others whom might read this decide for themselves whether your above error is indicative of your overall performance in this area, but in the end you at least owe me an apology.
FR
Sunday, October 14, 2007
"Mind your tongue, Pasha..."
Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez.
I can understand a little resentment at being passed over for an obvious, and probably deserved promotion to 4 stars after complete command of both the V Corps and the MNF-Iraq by the President in light of the problems in Iraq, and I don't really have issues with any of the things he said in his "speech" the other day.
However, was this the best venue and means to get that particular message out and into the public's eye?
I don't think General Sanchez has said anything I haven't voiced, myself... and many others have said via this forum. So are his comments going to be seen as "sour grapes" or will they actually have an impact on debate before the election?
I was especially intrigued by his comments about the "surge". He is of the opinion (with NO gray area here) that the surge will have no long term impact if their is no strategy behind the increase in deployments. That tells me two things:
1) As a commander in the "loop", he is privy to knowledge that all of us would love to have, but don't. I am inclined to think that, short of coming out and saying something that might compromise his security clearance restrictions, he has as much as stated that the "surge" is simply more troops doing the same thing that has been done for the last four and a half years... to no avail. More meat in the grinder, so to say. I take that as an indictment of MORE poor planning on the administration's part... simply following Rummy's plan, without Rummy.
2) The likelihood of more and more high-level commanders coming forth to repeat what Sanchez has said is looking increasingly likely. This can result in NOTHING but good things for the Democrats... none of which I can, in good conscience, support in this issue. I haven't heard a Dem yet (that is running for PotUS, that is) that has said they want to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to fix the damage and create a functioning state. Even Sanchez, in his rant, stated time and again that we MUST finish the job, or the results will have global ramifications that will be felt for decades, and will cost more lives than we can imagine.
How much will you guys lay against the likelihood of the GOP candidates taking up even a portion of what Sanchez said in debate and platform discussion? 1 to 2? 2 to 3? As bad as $30 behind the 6 and 8? Sanchez will be as troublesome a speaker to them as he is to Bush right now... perhaps more so, as Bush can't run for re-election.
Which candidate has the nuts to take up this cause and run with it? Criticize the President and your Party's policies to ensure continued control of the White House and the war in Iraq? Tough call.
I can understand a little resentment at being passed over for an obvious, and probably deserved promotion to 4 stars after complete command of both the V Corps and the MNF-Iraq by the President in light of the problems in Iraq, and I don't really have issues with any of the things he said in his "speech" the other day.
However, was this the best venue and means to get that particular message out and into the public's eye?
I don't think General Sanchez has said anything I haven't voiced, myself... and many others have said via this forum. So are his comments going to be seen as "sour grapes" or will they actually have an impact on debate before the election?
I was especially intrigued by his comments about the "surge". He is of the opinion (with NO gray area here) that the surge will have no long term impact if their is no strategy behind the increase in deployments. That tells me two things:
1) As a commander in the "loop", he is privy to knowledge that all of us would love to have, but don't. I am inclined to think that, short of coming out and saying something that might compromise his security clearance restrictions, he has as much as stated that the "surge" is simply more troops doing the same thing that has been done for the last four and a half years... to no avail. More meat in the grinder, so to say. I take that as an indictment of MORE poor planning on the administration's part... simply following Rummy's plan, without Rummy.
2) The likelihood of more and more high-level commanders coming forth to repeat what Sanchez has said is looking increasingly likely. This can result in NOTHING but good things for the Democrats... none of which I can, in good conscience, support in this issue. I haven't heard a Dem yet (that is running for PotUS, that is) that has said they want to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to fix the damage and create a functioning state. Even Sanchez, in his rant, stated time and again that we MUST finish the job, or the results will have global ramifications that will be felt for decades, and will cost more lives than we can imagine.
How much will you guys lay against the likelihood of the GOP candidates taking up even a portion of what Sanchez said in debate and platform discussion? 1 to 2? 2 to 3? As bad as $30 behind the 6 and 8? Sanchez will be as troublesome a speaker to them as he is to Bush right now... perhaps more so, as Bush can't run for re-election.
Which candidate has the nuts to take up this cause and run with it? Criticize the President and your Party's policies to ensure continued control of the White House and the war in Iraq? Tough call.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
"Ivan's not the only one with troubles..."
I have been thinking about our "PLAN" discussion, and thought I'd venture this idea for debate and discussion...
I have maintained that FDR had a PLAN when campaigning for his '32 election... and perhaps that is too much credit. I'm not taking anything away from the man, but how much of the New Deal was mapped out prior to January or '33? Not much, I'd bet.
However, the man had one thing going for him that Hoover lacked from the start back in '29... some serious initiative and a drive to do SOMETHING, even if it didn't work.
When 9-11 happened, we saw Bush standing on the rubble of Ground Zero and talking to the rescue workers with a bullhorn. It was inspiring stuff, and it will make his legacy in the end, mark my words. A century from now, when school kids learn about 9-11... they'll read, hear or watch that speech, and hopefully they'll get the same goosebumps that I got when I was watching it.
This speech was followed very quickly by the invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was textbook in its execution and delivery, and it was (at least tacitly) approved of by the entire civilized world as completely justified in its reasoning. We saw the Taliban flaunt their tyranical ways in front of the cameras, and we watched them pay for their tyrany in spades.
That was all well and good... but there seems to have come a time when our "unilateral" efforts progressed beyond our ability. I'm not saying the war in Iraq can't be won... only that it was poorly planned, even more poorly executed, and has been run like absolute shit.
FDR's actions from the day he took office to the day he died had a clear and measurable purpose to them... a purpose that every right-thinking American could clearly see. Bush had that same purpose from 9-11... but that purpose wained somewhere between Feb '02 and March '03... and hasn't been regained since.
There are other Presidents that can have the same said of them... Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Carter (bigtime!) and Clinton can all show similar lack of purpose. Either they perpetuate the status quo or react to outside action only... never proactive, only reactive. Reagan and Bush Sr (and to a smaller degree, Ford and Kennedy) are the major exceptions to this observation. They chose to be proactive in a clear and measurable manner... and both can be said to have changed the paradigm of American foreign politics during their tenures as C-in-C.
I guess I am saying that the GOP candidate that can show a PURPOSE (i.e. PLAN) for his Presidency is the one that MIGHT win in a general election against the PERSONALITY candidate like Hillary or Obama. No PLAN or PURPOSE will emerge from the Democrat camp... other than the continued chanting of "I'm NOT Bush... Bush is BAD!"
I have maintained that FDR had a PLAN when campaigning for his '32 election... and perhaps that is too much credit. I'm not taking anything away from the man, but how much of the New Deal was mapped out prior to January or '33? Not much, I'd bet.
However, the man had one thing going for him that Hoover lacked from the start back in '29... some serious initiative and a drive to do SOMETHING, even if it didn't work.
When 9-11 happened, we saw Bush standing on the rubble of Ground Zero and talking to the rescue workers with a bullhorn. It was inspiring stuff, and it will make his legacy in the end, mark my words. A century from now, when school kids learn about 9-11... they'll read, hear or watch that speech, and hopefully they'll get the same goosebumps that I got when I was watching it.
This speech was followed very quickly by the invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was textbook in its execution and delivery, and it was (at least tacitly) approved of by the entire civilized world as completely justified in its reasoning. We saw the Taliban flaunt their tyranical ways in front of the cameras, and we watched them pay for their tyrany in spades.
That was all well and good... but there seems to have come a time when our "unilateral" efforts progressed beyond our ability. I'm not saying the war in Iraq can't be won... only that it was poorly planned, even more poorly executed, and has been run like absolute shit.
FDR's actions from the day he took office to the day he died had a clear and measurable purpose to them... a purpose that every right-thinking American could clearly see. Bush had that same purpose from 9-11... but that purpose wained somewhere between Feb '02 and March '03... and hasn't been regained since.
There are other Presidents that can have the same said of them... Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Carter (bigtime!) and Clinton can all show similar lack of purpose. Either they perpetuate the status quo or react to outside action only... never proactive, only reactive. Reagan and Bush Sr (and to a smaller degree, Ford and Kennedy) are the major exceptions to this observation. They chose to be proactive in a clear and measurable manner... and both can be said to have changed the paradigm of American foreign politics during their tenures as C-in-C.
I guess I am saying that the GOP candidate that can show a PURPOSE (i.e. PLAN) for his Presidency is the one that MIGHT win in a general election against the PERSONALITY candidate like Hillary or Obama. No PLAN or PURPOSE will emerge from the Democrat camp... other than the continued chanting of "I'm NOT Bush... Bush is BAD!"
They moved swiftly, silently, with purpose.
I can't believe you have my New Deal Politics book, you ass. At least it didn't drown in the flood. You have my Red Storm Rising as well, and I admit the Force is strong with you, but you're cheating if you crack that book open to yank more quotes. And I haven't touched it in almost ten years.
Of all the crap we did on the mailing list, this is what I miss the most, the kick ass titles to the e-mails.
Of all the crap we did on the mailing list, this is what I miss the most, the kick ass titles to the e-mails.
Friday, October 12, 2007
"Roger, Doghouse. You want size in inches..."
Can't let this go, and as long as Jambo wants front-page coverage, I may as well take it too.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the 1932 Presidential election.
"Roosey" only had one real opponent in '32... Al Smith of NY. Former Governor and three time Presidential nomination candidate within the Democratic party and wildly popular among his Irish-American voting block. So "blue-collar" you could smell the Brylcreem at 20 yards away. All of America knew who he was, and he was popular... big time.
Frank knew he had to beat the "elitist" label that was sure to fall from the Smith camp, and try to appeal to the working class American ASAP. How did he do it?
With his opening speech to the DNC in Chicago, he stated clearly and with real gusto... "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a NEW DEAL for the American people."
No plan, so to speak... more of a slogan, really. But it got him the nomination over Smith, who spent his floor time blaming Hoover for the Depression. Roosevelt had a "New Deal" and all Al could do was blame Hoover... something the rest of the world was doing anyway. That PLAN got him the nomination in just four ballots. He then went on to WIN the election in what even today is considered a "landslide".
So, I still attest that FDR had a PLAN for the people in the run for the White House, and it won him the longest tenure in office... ever.
More to the point, the after-effects of the election are even more shocking. Allow me to elaborate...
In the first two years in Office, Roosevelt maintained many of Hoover's policies concerning depression relief... and took ALL the credit. FDR's own initiatives were all mainly failures (or flat out illegal)... James listed several in his post: NRA, WPA, CCC, NIRA... all of it questionable, and at least two illegal (NIRA-NRA). The most successfull of "Roosevelt's" New Deal plans were all Hoover institutions... FERA, RFC and the AAA (the only BIG exception was the TVA... wildly successfull and a flower in FDR's cap... no doubt!).
Now, when Hoover and the GOP tried to take the credit for these initial successes, did the people care? NOT AT ALL! FDR gave them the New Deal... that is what they knew, and no one was going to tell them different.
So, I maintain that not only did FDR have a "PLAN" prior to being elected... he had one through the first term, too.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the 1932 Presidential election.
"Roosey" only had one real opponent in '32... Al Smith of NY. Former Governor and three time Presidential nomination candidate within the Democratic party and wildly popular among his Irish-American voting block. So "blue-collar" you could smell the Brylcreem at 20 yards away. All of America knew who he was, and he was popular... big time.
Frank knew he had to beat the "elitist" label that was sure to fall from the Smith camp, and try to appeal to the working class American ASAP. How did he do it?
With his opening speech to the DNC in Chicago, he stated clearly and with real gusto... "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a NEW DEAL for the American people."
No plan, so to speak... more of a slogan, really. But it got him the nomination over Smith, who spent his floor time blaming Hoover for the Depression. Roosevelt had a "New Deal" and all Al could do was blame Hoover... something the rest of the world was doing anyway. That PLAN got him the nomination in just four ballots. He then went on to WIN the election in what even today is considered a "landslide".
So, I still attest that FDR had a PLAN for the people in the run for the White House, and it won him the longest tenure in office... ever.
More to the point, the after-effects of the election are even more shocking. Allow me to elaborate...
In the first two years in Office, Roosevelt maintained many of Hoover's policies concerning depression relief... and took ALL the credit. FDR's own initiatives were all mainly failures (or flat out illegal)... James listed several in his post: NRA, WPA, CCC, NIRA... all of it questionable, and at least two illegal (NIRA-NRA). The most successfull of "Roosevelt's" New Deal plans were all Hoover institutions... FERA, RFC and the AAA (the only BIG exception was the TVA... wildly successfull and a flower in FDR's cap... no doubt!).
Now, when Hoover and the GOP tried to take the credit for these initial successes, did the people care? NOT AT ALL! FDR gave them the New Deal... that is what they knew, and no one was going to tell them different.
So, I maintain that not only did FDR have a "PLAN" prior to being elected... he had one through the first term, too.
They want to come here, in our air cover, fine.
As the flight leader of the Nimitz Interceptor wing told Lt. Commander Toland in Stornaway, let's play. Can't leave this one buried in some obscure comment thread no one will see.
Titus says that people elect plans, and popularity is secondary.
He scoffed at my example of FDR as a popular figure in 1932.
Let's look at your boy Hoover for a second.
I'm checking my books, online stuff, all resource materials and I have nothing concerning regular radio addresses to the public during the crunch of the Depression. Now, I'm not saying Hoover was the cause of it, I'm not saying Hoover's inaction furthered it, the great Depression was global and there were too many factors to lay blame at one man's feet. But during the campaign of '32, FDR initiated radio interviews and "talk time," which after his election became the fireside chats history remembers. Keeping in mind campaigning then and now is apple and orange comparison, and FDR's ability to press the flesh was greatly enhanced by his ability to move and not be restricted by the pressures of the White House an incumbent faces, his personality was far more visible than Hoover's. Granted, Hoover had four years to make himself known, make himself heard when it came to policy. It's what got him elected in the first place. But he's a cold turd compared to FDR. The election wasn't even close, even by modern standards. He didn't outline the first hundred days. He didn't map out the NRA or the TVA or the BLR or Social Security. He smiled, he laughed, he told people that he heard them and everything was going to be better, that there'd be change, and he won. personality, no plan. No elitist family, no governor scandals, he was the people's man even as a millionaire. Which Hoover wasn't.
Fast forward to 1948. Truman had no plan. Truman had nothing, including campaign money. But he jumped on a train and "stole" the election of Dewey because 1) he made himself visible, and 2) he was a more likable guy. He didn't sell a plan. He certainly didn't ride on the laurels of WWII victory. Dewey was the elitist snob and Dewey is the historical model for why polls fail. (Something modern politicians keep forgetting. Go figure.)
1960 is too easy but I'll stop here anyway. Kennedy had no plan. Camelot was never a policy initiative. Nixon went in knowing what he was going to do, moving ahead with the same policies Eisenhower had championed for 8 years. Nixon sounded good but looked bad, and in the brand new world of television Kennedy wins by a nose hair. Nixon almost fits your bill of personable (before the paranoia of the hostile vocal minority takes root) and plan touting, but still loses to youth and good looks.
1980 is my personal favorite. St. Ron is a massive underdog going into the early debates in California. Ron has shown a plan, sketchy but identifiable by the catchy slogan "Reaganomics," and the plan, not the person is being shredded by the front runner, some cheesy war vet named George Bush, who uses the equally catchy and damaging slogan "Voodoo-economics" to describe the "trickle down" theory of tax cuts to the economy and the common man. The flaw in Reaganomics should cost St. Ron the debate, the primary and the election but for the immortal confrontation Ron has, not with George Sr, but with the moderator of the debate over microphone time. He wins on pure personality. He's called the Teflon president for the same reason. He's liked. He's likable. Not since Kennedy has there been a movie star president (no pun intended) like Ron. And the plan almost cost him the nomination and the presidency.
So, in review:
Charisma is mandatory. Popularity wins. That's why the opposition throws mud.
Plans without charisma fail.
Plans with charisma tend to hurt more than help. Use them only in closing when rebuttal is impossible, and keep them simple enough to be defended without a PhD in the appropriate field. Ron sold an economic plan doomed to fail, and an economic plan that he didn't follow in terms of government spending. But he also sold hope and that was the biggest part of the plan. (Man, I hope I get some of this trickle down.)
Titus says that people elect plans, and popularity is secondary.
He scoffed at my example of FDR as a popular figure in 1932.
Let's look at your boy Hoover for a second.
I'm checking my books, online stuff, all resource materials and I have nothing concerning regular radio addresses to the public during the crunch of the Depression. Now, I'm not saying Hoover was the cause of it, I'm not saying Hoover's inaction furthered it, the great Depression was global and there were too many factors to lay blame at one man's feet. But during the campaign of '32, FDR initiated radio interviews and "talk time," which after his election became the fireside chats history remembers. Keeping in mind campaigning then and now is apple and orange comparison, and FDR's ability to press the flesh was greatly enhanced by his ability to move and not be restricted by the pressures of the White House an incumbent faces, his personality was far more visible than Hoover's. Granted, Hoover had four years to make himself known, make himself heard when it came to policy. It's what got him elected in the first place. But he's a cold turd compared to FDR. The election wasn't even close, even by modern standards. He didn't outline the first hundred days. He didn't map out the NRA or the TVA or the BLR or Social Security. He smiled, he laughed, he told people that he heard them and everything was going to be better, that there'd be change, and he won. personality, no plan. No elitist family, no governor scandals, he was the people's man even as a millionaire. Which Hoover wasn't.
Fast forward to 1948. Truman had no plan. Truman had nothing, including campaign money. But he jumped on a train and "stole" the election of Dewey because 1) he made himself visible, and 2) he was a more likable guy. He didn't sell a plan. He certainly didn't ride on the laurels of WWII victory. Dewey was the elitist snob and Dewey is the historical model for why polls fail. (Something modern politicians keep forgetting. Go figure.)
1960 is too easy but I'll stop here anyway. Kennedy had no plan. Camelot was never a policy initiative. Nixon went in knowing what he was going to do, moving ahead with the same policies Eisenhower had championed for 8 years. Nixon sounded good but looked bad, and in the brand new world of television Kennedy wins by a nose hair. Nixon almost fits your bill of personable (before the paranoia of the hostile vocal minority takes root) and plan touting, but still loses to youth and good looks.
1980 is my personal favorite. St. Ron is a massive underdog going into the early debates in California. Ron has shown a plan, sketchy but identifiable by the catchy slogan "Reaganomics," and the plan, not the person is being shredded by the front runner, some cheesy war vet named George Bush, who uses the equally catchy and damaging slogan "Voodoo-economics" to describe the "trickle down" theory of tax cuts to the economy and the common man. The flaw in Reaganomics should cost St. Ron the debate, the primary and the election but for the immortal confrontation Ron has, not with George Sr, but with the moderator of the debate over microphone time. He wins on pure personality. He's called the Teflon president for the same reason. He's liked. He's likable. Not since Kennedy has there been a movie star president (no pun intended) like Ron. And the plan almost cost him the nomination and the presidency.
So, in review:
Charisma is mandatory. Popularity wins. That's why the opposition throws mud.
Plans without charisma fail.
Plans with charisma tend to hurt more than help. Use them only in closing when rebuttal is impossible, and keep them simple enough to be defended without a PhD in the appropriate field. Ron sold an economic plan doomed to fail, and an economic plan that he didn't follow in terms of government spending. But he also sold hope and that was the biggest part of the plan. (Man, I hope I get some of this trickle down.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
