Monday, June 30, 2008

"Hey Malarch, you wanted a Luger for kid brother, right?"

(Lipton in Bastogne ... as if you didn't know that!)

Man alive ... one little groundbreaking, first in over 100 years, landmark decision on the 2nd Amendment and this place becomes an NRA chat site! For my two cents I have a short barrel, pistol grip .357 silver Rossi revolver that rests in my night stand - easy access from the bed should any perpetrator decide he no longer needs his upper intestines. The weapon I really want (within my family) is the one still in possession of my father that he keeps promising to deliver on - my Grandfather's WWII military issued sidearm - the famous .45.

One other question, for Titus. You wrote:
Me? I'll take my Remmington .308 all day long. Give me a good scope, a good rest and a clear day... and I'll "ring the bell" at 400 yards ...

If that is so, and I have no cause to doubt you, then why may I ask is that "OBAMA 08" sign, unapologetically glaring across the road from you attached to an aging barn, sitting there completely unscathed??!!

Besides that, regarding this sibling firearm rivalry, all I can say is that possession is 9/10 of the law...

****

Regarding the political .... Obama gave a speech in Missouri recently on "his" patriotism trying to deflect the chatter questioning it. This right on the heels of a speech in which he attempted to deflect prejudices (in the voting booth) based on his race. The only problem is that no one has attacked either. And believe me, I listen to and read what Titus once described as a "right wing manifesto", so were it occurring, I would be the first to know. We question his views on America, his opinions regarding her and her history, and how he defines what America "should" be. That and the naivety he brings to the table regarding foreign policy and our enemies, but no one as far as I can tell thus far has referred to him as a Benedict Arnold or the like. We're not calling him a traitor for goodness sake, just his interpretations of and plans for our nation. The flag pin was an issue only because Obama made it one - it was HE that publicly announced (as an IL legislature) why he wouldn't wear one in the wake of 9/11. Clearly he is attempting to frame the debate in such a way that any criticism of his pacifist (regarding foreign policy) and socialist (regarding economics and health care) tendencies are to be seen as an attack on his "patriotism", thus invalid or illegitimate. It is a cheap political tool and disingenuous in the extreme. And one I hope McCain and his 527 friendlies don't fall for.

****
North Korea, that old chest nut.

This week Pyongyang handed over, to Beijing, 60 pages of documentation offering a look at their "entire" nuclear development past. In response President Bush announced that he was erasing trade sanctions imposed on North Korea under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notifying Congress that, in 45 days, the administration intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism, the infamous "terrorism blacklist." And to further demonstrate that it is serious about forgoing its nuclear weapons, North Korea planned (I don't know yet if it happened, I assume it did) the televised destruction Friday of a 65-foot-tall cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The tower being a key element of the reactor of course.

John Bolton, the former Bush UN Ambassador (who is seen as "the" foreign policy hawk making the rounds with the talking heads) described this as "shameful", and that it, "represents the final collapse of the Bush foreign policy [regarding N.Korea].

I don't know if I'd go that far, but the problem as I see it is that although the North Koreans declared much of their ongoing plutonium "work" and nuclear programs dating to 1986 in this 60 page document, there was next nothing about their already developed (or purchased) stockpile of nuclear weapons, nor suspected uranium enrichment programs, NOR their alleged role in helping Syria build a reactor. How does one get off the terrorism blacklist absent these? Bush referred to it as "action for action." I'll give him this, it IS an improvement over what transpired in the 90's. Clinton's dealings in this realm, supported whole heartily by the principles in his party, was a dismal failure that only enabled and emboldened Kim Jong. Which means no matter the "level" of progress Bush makes here, Democrats have no legitimate room to criticize him (not that a little thing like legitimacy would stop the likes of Pelosi, et al).


****

On a side note - during the speech Barry quoted Mark Twain (he was in Missouri after all), noting that their favorite literary son defined patriotism as "Always supporting your country but only supporting your government when it deserves it." This got a laugh and was meant to explain why he has opposed everything Bush. And it raised my eyebrow. Quoting Samuel Clemons? Obama? First, he referred to him as Mark Twain. He was born in Missouri as Samuel Langehorn Clemons. The name Twain, his pen name my dear Barak, was one taken from his experiences on the Mississippi (that's the river, not the state Barry). The phrase is a notation of water depth used by river boat captains and crew that literally translates into "noting two feet" (of water). But then again I don't expect the good Senator from IL to be familiar with all this ... somehow I doubt that Huck Finn was on Reverend Wright's summer reading requirements for his flock. I can only imagine what he'd do with the phrase "white washing" let alone references to Huck's boyhood friend. At any rate perhaps I can take this opportunity to familiarize Senator Obama with another of Clemons's quotes. Especially given that Barak has defined as the hallmark of "his" patriotism one which must be inherently critical of his government's response to 9/11 and the subsequent disarming of Saddam Hussein:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. "


Hmmm... where to begin?

I claim as mine the Stevens, the High Standard, the SECOND Mauser that you failed to write about (the Austrian model, stamped and numbered from a manufacturer in 1919 as a "sport rifle" because the Treaty of Versailles allowed no military arms to be manufactured in either Austria or Germany in 1919), the .30-06 and the Marlin .22 semi-auto. I am only claiming the .22 because YOU said you didn't want it as badly as you wanted the old Model 12... which was very clearly given to ME by our father more than 20 years ago. I already had another 12 gauge (a Winchester 1200, in fact), so I gave YOU the Model 12 and claimed the Marlin as my own.

The only reason you have ANY of these guns is because you also have the GUN CABINET that I couldn't fit into the U-Haul when I left MS for PA, and I would have no safe place to put them here in the far northeast.

So, fair is fair... if you feel the need or desire to fire any of these very fine and perfectly serviceable weapons, by all means do so, since they are in your care until such time as I can return and claim them. Simply understand that the FIVE listed above are MY firearms, and that is NOT up for debate. I have particular plans for the Stevens and the Mauser, in fact... so be especially careful with them.

As anyone can see, I have three firearms that I USE with any regularity... my Remington .308, my Ruger 10-.22, and my 12 gauge Winchester (which are the only guns I have with me in NEPA). The rest, while perfectly serviceable and fully functional, are far more valuable to me for their sentimental value than for any actual monetary value they may have. I admit that there may be a degree of value to the Mauser and the High Standard that stems from their collectible nature... but that isn't why I have them.

The piece that Jambo failed to talk about though... the treasure of our family's collection over the years, is the actual, honest-to-God, documented "as issued" Springfield Model 1863 US Army musket that was issued to one John Henry Foster upon his enlistment into the 28th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Co. D) in Mukwonago, WI in April of 1862. Along with this rather tired-looking but priceless family heirloom goes the actual "as issued" bayonet, bayonet scabbard, possible bag, shot pouch, percussion cap carrier, and ramrod. All worn, carried and used by my Great-great Grandfather while he fought in the Vicksburg Campaign, beginning in December, 1862, as a "wagoneer" for Company D and recieved a Confederate ball in his mid-section that caused him health problems for the rest of his life.

THAT piece? It's mine too.

OOOHHHHH THE DRAMA

Oh my God does that do my heart good to get that whole family squabble straightened out. Wait...or started. Either way I'm good

Thanks Jambo

Baddboy

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Jambo is NOT a liar...

... and looking at the gun cabinet, Titus had better hope I DON'T have some of his guns because I don't see any of them.

For the completely disinterested bystanders, I apologize, but this is a point of family pride and heritage, and a story that really should be told.

Inside a water stained oak gun cabinet are seven rifles and shotguns, with one rifle sitting against the wall outside the cabinet and one handgun locked in the bottom drawer.

From left to right, the first is a Winchester Model 12 12 gauge shotgun pump, circa pre WW2. I have been told two stories about this, one that it was once my great grandfather's, the other that it was my grandfather's. I tend to believe the second as my great grandfather was a small man with both legs amputated mid thigh as a result of a train accident, and that Model 12 is a large gun. This gun in turn was my father's and passed to my brother and I.

The second is a Remington 720 bolt action 30-.06 minus the original vintage Weaver scope that Titus still has. This rifle I will admit was never mine nor meant for me. I am a left handed shooter and do not use a bolt action. I am not sure how this rifle has remained in my possession but it is more than likely destined for Titus or my nephew, Mini-Titus.

Third is my semi-automatic twelve gauge Winchester M-59, with a very thin metal sleeve inside a fiberglass barrel. This was my grandfather's duck hunting gun as its unique barrel made the thing a very light and mobile gun for someone sitting in the bow of a duck boat. ( And Grandpa didn't row. Ever.) This was ALWAYS my gun, given to me by my Grandmother while she was still alive. Unfortunately, the only one that has used it hunting SO FAR is Titus, but that by no means gives him ownership. :-)

Next is my H&R .410 single shot shotgun, my Christmas present from my father when I was 14. It was at Titus' house during the storm and in the flood was submerged. The damage was not nearly as bad as it could have been. The gun looks fantastic, all things considered, but the spring and firing pin are damaged and the gun needs some internal TLC. Baddboy and I are on that.

Fifth is a Marlin tube fed .22 rifle. As Titus has in his possession my father's Ruger 10-.22 rifle, my de facto ownership of this is only fair but, I do have to admit, open to dispute.

Sixth is my great grandfather's Stevens double barrel 16 gauge shotgun. This was another bow gun for the duck boat, modified in the sense that my great grandfather shaved the stock of the gun so his cheek lined up on the bead better. It looks like either Grant or Lee could have carried the thing into Appomattox Courthouse, but two Marines and Baddboy reassure me the thing is in perfect condition and is safe to fire. I have yet to do so. This is another gun whose ownership could be disputed as no specific relative was told "This is yours."

Last in the cabinet, the far right slot, is "Ole Painless," the Marlin Model 1893 .38-55 lever action rifle. It has the octagon barrel, weighs considerably more than the Springfield 1903 Titus deer hunted with most recently, and is very clearly my rifle. This was also specifically given to me by my grandmother. The action is glass smooth and its effect on a deer close to medium range needs to be seen to be believed. I do mean DAMN. (Just a sidenote, it wasn't until after I'd bagged my 7 pointer that I realized the ammunition I was using was almost as old as I was.)

Outside the cabinet is my father's Mauser 98, .308 bolt action. He thinks (and I agree) it is from 1930's Germany that was shipped to Italy where it spent the next 50 years in a warehouse. It was given to dad as payment for some favor. Nothing wrong with it, Baddboy loves it, and works just fine.

The handgun is a High Standard .22 semi-auto pistol that is Titus' without dispute or question. Why I have this I do not know but I'll hold onto it as long as I need to.

So where are the 5 guns I have of yours? Two are mine for certain. The Model 12 was understood to be mine as you had your own Model 1200. While I'm waiting for your response I'll draft my brief on co ownership of the Ruger.

This should make Baddboy happy.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Jambo's a liar????

Jambo says those are his guns and you have some of his. What's up with that?

I'm with you, a 700 .308 with a good scope is a very nice firearm with some reach out and touch someone. The Marine Corps sniper rifle is built around a Remington 700 action in .308. My next rifle is a Stag arms 6L. It is an accurized 5.56 with a 24 inch floating barrel and match trigger built on the M-4 lower receiver with a true left handed upper receiver (I only need 10 round mags hehe).

I don't think anyone needs a full auto anything for personal protection or hunting (unless personal protection is in Iraq, Afghanistan or any number of other not so friendly countries). I love the sport of shooting and for me that is at the range. Hunting is a very fine sport and I support anyone who does it but for me it's more fun to watch than shoot in that forum.

I got a chance to read some of the SCOTUS opinion and so far I like what I have read. Good lord they do alot of research. You can get a pretty good reading list from just one of those opinions. For the history buffs in this group (which seems to be all of us) that is some good shit.

I was reading where San Francisco is the next city to get lambasted by the NRA. I'm not really sure why these cities have these freakish laws but hopefully they will get them all worked out.

by the way the Stag 6L shoots 1/2 moa at 300 meters. Not bad for a 5.56

Hehe... Here, Here!

I almost feel I need to explain that I was NEVER anti-gun... I've owned firearms since I was 12 years old, and I have hunted nearly every year since that time. I now own eight different firearms (although Jambo still has 5 of them).

The "conversion" I had about 6 months ago was to the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. I had always contended (especially with Ryan and Jambo) that the Second Amendment WAS a collective right guaranteed to serve the State first, and the individual second. I have now come to see the error of my ways, and it seems the Supreme Court of the United States of America agrees with me (barely!).

If, as Baddboy points out, a citizen has a FFL and wants to own a $75,000 .50 semi-auto sniper rifle... please, let him have it. I'm quite sure the manufacturer would be more than happy to sell one WITHOUT the bulk-discount that you know the military is getting... so add another $15k to that price tag.

However... would anyone argue that a fully-automatic AK-74 with a 30-round clip that can be emptied in less than 3 seconds is MORE than the average American needs for personal protection? I'm talking John Q. Public here... no FFL, just a clean record and a real fear of being robbed or raped. If he wanted the piece for a collection, let him get an FFL... but for home protection, I'm still inclined to believe that there is a degree of regulation involved that is GOOD, and adds to the over-all safety factor that the NRA and other pro-gun groups so promote.

Even Baddboy's "long rifle".... there are an awful lot of top-notch commercial rifles on the market that would give his .50 sniper rifle a run. The Brits still make a .475 Nitro Express (although I have NO idea where you'd get the ammo) that is accurate (within a 3 in. group) at 1000 yards. Price? £65,000 (that's $128,700 for us Yanks).

Me? I'll take my Remmington .308 all day long. Give me a good scope, a good rest and a clear day... and I'll "ring the bell" at 400 yards, every single time. Ammos cheap, the gun's a classic, and it's got the perfect punch-to-power ratio for a fast 80-yard shot through scrub oak, too.

That's just me, though...

Baadboys breakdown

Finally the decision we have been waiting for. I have not read the decision and at this point I'm not sure I really have time to read the whole thing but I will say when I found out what the decision was I was jumping around my office like a crazed madman (but in a good way). I lived in the metro DC area for 8 years and never did understand why the criminals could have all of the guns they wanted but the law abiding citizens of Washington DC couldn't. On top of that I'm an FFL and starting this new firearms business would have been dead in the water without that opinion I'm pretty sure.

I say if there is a collector out there that wants a .50 Browning I don't think there is much of a problem with that. Do I need a .50 Browning...not too much. But have you seen the M82A1 Barrett. Now that is a fine piece of work. It is a Semi-auto .50 that is accurate to over a mile. You wouldn't even have to put all of that deer smell good on you. Just sit at the top of the mountain, shoot your deer on the other mountain and the sport is to see if you are the coyote get to the deer first.

Good lord I love stirring it up

Baddboy

Thursday, June 26, 2008

This is almost fun!

So, not even 24 hours have passed since the decision came down from the SCOTUS on Heller, and there are 6,800 different articles about the story available to me on my search engine.

With a little careful sorting, one can find everything from Ted Nugent's rather rough-cut rant about bad people versus good people to a particularly sour bunch of grapes from a Chicago Tribune editor that is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Okay...

Ryan wants a "Bund Breakdown" of the decision and the opinions.

I have finished Scalia's majority opinion, but I am not happy with my understanding of everything he wrote, so I'm going to re-read it before I hit the dissenting opinions (of which there are two).

In a nutshell, Scalia says that the "traditional" interpretation of the Second Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to keep and bear arms is correct. Each and every law-abiding citizen of the nation with the facilities to safely understand and use firearms has the right to keep said firearms privately for personal use and protection of both life and property, OUTSIDE of an association with a militia or police group.

The three provisions of the Heller case were: the Constitutionality of a blanket ban on handguns in DC; the Constitutionality of a ban on functional long guns within the residences of licensed gun owners; and the ban of licenses to carry firearms of any sort within your home for self-defense. The first two were found UN-Constitutional, but the Court didn't address the third... at least not that I'd seen.

Also, Scalia was very careful to point out that the Second Amendment does NOT mean that it is a protected Right to keep or bear "dangerous or unusual" weapons. I take this to mean that the Court upholds the ban on non-typical, non-traditional firearms like .50 cal "Ma Dueces" in every home that wants one, or Uzi's for personal protection at the Mall. I found no mention of a determination regarding the registration and licensing of said firearms, either... so I am assuming that DC will keep some pretty strict registration regulations in place for those that want to license handguns for personal use in the home.

To me, though... the biggest PLUS to this is the very detailed and careful explanation of the opinion that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and not a collective one. Scalia left little to NO grey area here.

WOW

I'm now 19 pages into the 157 pages of the entire decision and opinions, and while I am no Constitutional Law scholar, I'd say that this is one of the most definitive decisions to come out of the current Bench in a long time.

Chief Justice Roberts actually says in his majority opinion that Justice Stevens is "dead wrong" (pg 9, footnote 5). I can't help bu tfeel that this kind of open and specific criticism is rather rare in SCOTUS opinions...

Time for more reading...

There is a small amount of JUSTICE left in the world...

Thank God for reasonable and rational thought...

Read the Supreme Court's decision on the DC Gun Ban HERE.

Straight talk from Gay's Hardware ...

Forget the concession for now ... although I reserve the right to bring it up at our next "under the stars" encounter, whether that be Tunkhannock, Las Vegas or Biloxi ...

I just want to stipulate for the (or rather our) record that I found that last post Titus, as intellectually honest as I have ever read you write (not as a singular event of course); and so "from the gut" as to border on eloquent. I KNOW as a close, personal friend that it gives you no comfort (especially in terms of Catholicism) to admit those personal observations regarding a state's application of the death penalty, nor personal preferences regarding the fate of the afore mentioned offender. You could of simply wrote, "see, this is why the state shouldn't employ the death penalty at all", and hid (and I mean that literally as a matter of legitimate subscribed belief rather then as an argumental escape) behind your faith's stance, but you didn't. You were simply honest, and in an unassuming way ... perhaps despite, or because, of your well grounded faith-based education.

And for that I applaud you.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Okay, you're right...

Your "moon shot" post did mention a national prize. I was wrong.

District of Columbia vs Heller and its opinions will be released tomorrow after the 10 AM session begins, according to the latest news I have read. You are correct (again) in thinking I am anxiously awaiting the decision and the opinions. I read the transcripts of the arguments and some of the 50+ briefs filed from both sides, and I am confident that the ban will be over-turned. Hell, even the Brady Campaign has admitted defeat on this issue, and is calling for renewed efforts of gun regulation at a state, county and municipal level, rather than continued attempts at Federal regulation.

I am confident... but had you asked me, I'd have said that the "conservative" court we have today would have upheld the LA sentence of death for a confessed serial child rapist, too.

Anyone that knows me or has followed this blog for any length of time knows I am no fan of the death penalty, but as long as it remains the prerogative of the States to sentence convicted criminals to death, and those States follow the will of the people (which they do) in regard to its institution and application... I don't raise too much of a stink. I am also the FIRST to admit that in crimes involving violence against children, my position on the death penalty comes very close to out-right support. Any hesitation I feel in regards to the death penalty is based purely in my most deeply held religious beliefs, and as such, is very much outside of the bounds of any political debate or commentary I may wish to enter into... in other words, it is a "faith-based" position and not one I can rationally defend to someone that holds differing beliefs.

My position on the opinions given for the decision released today is this:

Both the Bible (Judeo-Christian) and the Qur'an (Islam) contain detailed descriptions of what sorts of punishments are to be applied for certain types of crimes. The most famous (and misunderstood) is from the Book of Exodus, Chapter 21 verse 23: "an eye for an eye". The Latin term for this kind of justice is lex talionis, and most modern scholars that I am aware of feel this was God's way of placing a "statute of limitations" on the prosecutors of crimes. No punishment should exceed the scope of the crime committed.

I, personally, disagree. I think God DID intend the punishment of crime (and serious sin, in general) to fit the scope of the crime. Some call this "tit for tat", and I guess it is. Most would argue that this kind of justice is too open to "cruel and unusual punishments", and perhaps they are... but I feel that many crimes deserve... no, DEMAND cruel and unusual punishment, as long is it doesn't exceed the scope of the crime. The premise that punishment for crimes should be painless is nearly asinine, in my eyes. Pain is something evolution has used to hone our survival skills with for hundreds of thousands of years... who are we to put it aside as an aide in shaping our society and its more difficult members? Don't we spank disobedient children so they learn what is good behavior and what is bad? Don't we learn at a very young age NOT to touch a hot iron by touching a hot iron? Isn't it possible that a young criminal would learn quicker that crime is BAD if he had to suffer (in the physical sense of the word) for his or her crime?

I'm not advocating torture, obviously... but hard, physical labor for those that repeatedly break society's laws is NOT cruel and is only unusual in that it is not employed enough in our society. 50 lashes with a bullwhip for an assault conviction would probably go a long way in assuring society that those convicted wouldn't repeat the crime. How many repeat drunk drivers do you think we'd have if we gave each FIRST conviction 60 days "breaking rocks" with a sledge hammer in the hot sun? If you don't break rocks fast enough, you get extra time put on your sentence... that should keep them out of the court system!

As far as raping children... in the worst sense of the term, too (as Ryan said)... I do find it difficult NOT to support a death sentence. To so brutalize a child of 8 years old (which the man in LA did) and later confess to it warrants no mercy, in my eyes... and I'm not the child's father. I can't imagine how I could hope to be merciful or forgiving if I were the child's father. Like Ryan said... I'd volunteer to pull the trigger myself, and do so with an absolutely clean conscience.

Just as there IS real evil in the world... there IS real justice, and while we may not be able to hand out God's own Justice... there is nothing to say that we can't be the instruments of God's own justice.

The Death Penalty

The Supreme Court has rendered a few rulings as all had anticipated, although the one I'm most interested in (and Titus as well if I recall) is the DC gun ban, and they haven't said squat yet regarding that (and I find the time its taking them a tad disconcerting I might add). However, there was one that caught my eye today. As you may or may not know there is a piece of human refuge on death row in Louisiana. He was convicted of a brutal child rape. LA, in their understandable reaction, gave him the death penalty for a non homicide crime. And that was the thrust of the appeal arguments - the death penalty is for the capital crime of murder, not rape, no matter how unbelievably horrendous.

First let me say I'm biased on this - I have tried but simply am unable to remove my prejudice, as a father, for wanting to put a round right through that irredeemable man's eyes and then bill his family for the cost of the bullet. Were I governor of LA I would tell the warden not to expect any last minute phone calls I assure you. That being said, the Supreme Court has decided against the state of LA and for the "plaintiff." Their position was that the death penalty while legal, should be reserved for murderers; BUT, reserved the feds right to implement it in cases of treason and espionage. That seemed a tad hypocritical to me. I have no doubt that there is a multitude of precedent which secures sure legal footing for holding these two positions simultaneously, however, (perhaps solely as an emotional reaction) it didn't sit well with me that we could hang until dead or employ a firing squad for a traitor, but a child rapist was untouchable. Child rape (and we are talking the savage rape of a five year old girl, not some 15 year old girl who told a 19 year old guy she was of age), it then follows, is less of a crime then spying. Again, this is probably an emotional reaction, but that just seems wrong.

I might add that Louisiana is one of six states authorizing a death sentence for child rape (until this ruling, clearly). The others are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Several other states were debating similar measures in their state legislatures. Assuming restrictions were in place (age, type of rape, etc, to avoid statutory rape cases i.e. - a 15 year old with an 18 year old boyfriend) I think such a law seems reasonable - rape a child and pay with your life.... I'm good with that.

Total Recall

Titus wrote in his most recent post, Lets Be Honest:
"I don't recall us discussing a national "prize" for innovations and new designs..."

You don't recall Titus? You don't recall our (read: MY) discussing such a prize? Thank God for the technology of Blogger, and my steel trap mind ....

I now direct your attention to Exhibit A:

On December 11th, 2007 in a post entitled There Are No Wookies On Endor (don't worry Jambo, I know that was an old email thread heading of yours and I properly credited you in that very post) I wrote the prophetic following:

How many times must I advocate this? There is a path in which we keep the economy, and its life blood, OIL, humming along and we also have a national initiative to find new energy (not to mention the private capital it will take to make it a reality). And that path is presidential LEADERSHIP. THAT is what's lacking. First you suspend the gas taxes for X amount of time, then you begin, by going on TV or in the inaugural address (it won't be this president), and announcing a "moon shot" style energy initiative involving the private sector - whoever wins gets the exclusive rights to fuel the US Government. What do you think that contract would be worth? Now you've got everyone from an eccentric scientist in his garage to BP execs searching in order to win that coveted prize - the genius of the human spirit is unleashed. THAT is how leaders motivate.

And I went on, this would be exhibit B, in the comment section of that post on December 12, in the Year of Our Lord, 2007:

... it will ensure a vibrant economy, one in which once the president announces prize X the available investment capital will be available for. I trust the ingenuity of our private sector to field the answer ...

As for Exhibit C, I can only note that my impatient phrase, "How many times must I advocate this? reveals this was not the first time I suggested the "prize", rather it demonstrates this was but another advocation, lost among many it seems (and in 2007 no less).

I will expect, given your tenured status as a resident gentlemen scholar Titus, a retraction post haste .... and honesty sir, I wreak from the stuff. I bid you, ado ...

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Let's be honest...

I don't recall us discussing a national "prize" for innovations and new designs as much as I recall us talking about large, publicly available grants to qualified applicants that could show measurable progress in design and innovation... but perhaps that is simply more of my manic obsession with clarity and semantics.

None the less, the national prize is an outstanding idea. It worked for the British to find a way to accurately measure longitude when John Harrison won the equivalent of £6.6 million in 1764. Charles Lindbergh won a whopping $25k for crossing non-stop from New York to Paris and winning the Orteig Prize. The very first civilian space flight, financed by Microsoft founder Paul Allen, won the Ansari X Prize of $10 million in 2004.

What will $300 million net the nation? A way to triple the mileage of a gallon of gas? A battery that will run a car for 200 miles between charges at highway speeds? Cost-effective hydroelectric plants powered by tidal flow or wave motion? What if a series of prizes were offered for various types of innovations? What if we offered $100 million for a means to cost-effectively extract usable oil from oil-shale? Or $250 million for a room-temperature superconductor?

For the cost of a company of M1 Abrams tanks (roughly $700 million)... or better yet, for what was spent on the Democratic primary race in only 4 months... we could have the brightest thinkers in the country working towards solutions to problems we have been arguing about for nearly a decade. How can THAT not be money well spent? How much is viable "cold fusion" worth to the Federal Government? $200 million? $500 million? This nations spends that much every month on the fuels to operate JUST our coal and oil power plants.

This kind of thinking and incentive should have been made public on September 12, 2001.

Just credit your sources Tommy boy ...

.... that's all I'm asking. Thomas Friedman that is, of the NY Times. You may recall this gentlemen from numerous passing talking head segments of various notoriety. He wrote the book, The Lexus and the Olive Branch. And is looked upon by left leaning newspapers and cable outlets (such as MSNBC) as the "guru" of all things political, social, and economic. He's their Dumbledorf ... and a "too clever by half" double speaker if you ask me. At any rate he's on MSNBC last night where myself and the half dozen or so other people watching that network heard him blatantly plagiarize the Bund. He wants the government, "to offer monetary incentives to the private sector for new innovations in energy so that a 100,000 mini Manhattan Projects spring up in 100,000 garages over night." Manhattan Project! He said those words, our words, our plan.

Shyster .....

Did you say triple?

Triple the mileage? How in the HELL is this not a front page story? That is fantastic, and before my all terrain tires that I have my eyes on (as a replacement for the factory wheels) are purchased, this will probably be my next truck upgrade.

I have no explanation as to why the GOP isn't trotting out innovations such as this as a common sense approach to fuel prices. They don't have to "validate" the green movement - at $4.21 a gallon, they can just say "hey, gas is higher then hell, here's triple the mileage." Without question the candidate seen as "getting" the gas crunch and offering common sense remedies will gain the decisive edge this election cycle. I KNOW why the "green" movement isn't going to give this a second look - they are opposed to fossil fuels, period. They want an entirely new energy source that smells like fresh cut yard grass and is made from Panda Bear excrement. This invention utilizes and makes more efficient fossil fuels, which are to be regarded as enemy number one. And I'm telling you, Obama (and by default the entire American left & Democrat Party) have only two plans regarding energy. They want the US to consume less, a literal impression of Carter's "wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat" days. And they want to tax American oil companies (as if taxing them will put one gallon of cheaper gas in my truck, if anything fuel prices will escalate), with the assumption that those "windfall profits" (which aren't windfall margins at all compared to Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Nike etc) will be then used by the government to "invest" in alternative fuels. In my opinion Obama is committing political harassy regarding energy. You do not win a national election telling Americans they have to do with less, it just doesn't sell (especially when coupled with a promise to raise taxes). What we need, and what will win, is a common sense roll out of a comprehensive plan saying we will build X number of refineries, put X umber of nuclear plants online, drill in X number of new spots and award X number of federal dollars to the likes of this gentlemen Titus described, AND we will do it by 2014 (or pick any number under 8 years). And then say "there Obama, top that." And drive home the point that if it takes 5 or 8 years for it to come into fruition that this is an acceptable time frame and certainly beats doing nothing at all, or continuing to go hat in hand to the likes of OPEC. Hell, JFK said lets put a man on the moon in ten years, not next month. People attend university for 4 to 8 years with the financial benefit gained only years after such time. Business, success, the American people "get" that it takes time to build such things, they just want a credible plan from a credible source to initiate it. I applaud the 300 mil for a battery, but Mac is thinking too small. This is a golden opportunity to take the initiative and show who the adult is in the room, but he has to think BIG, and grab this bull by the nuts. He'll leave Obama handcuffed by the fringe environmentalists he's placated thus far, stumbling and twisting in the political wind, if he will just roll out the Bund Energy Initiative. Then the phrase "I BACK MAC" (copyright F.Ryan & co) will gain some momentum ... he will have given the people something to "back."

Monday, June 23, 2008

"Mother of Invention" my fanny!

Damn right, someone is reading our blog! We already know that the Capitol building and the FBI have visited, and no doubt we are all over the DHS computers, too. I certainly hope SOMEONE is listening to us!

The examples given today about past administration that have offered prizes for advancements are outstanding, but what is great about Mac's plan is that the money can be used to off-set the cost of implementation of the innovation or design. This isn't a "money" prize... it is a chance to take a HUGE leap into the markets of the future before they are even fully developed.

For example:

For several weeks now, I have been reading about a process that was invented by a welder to create cheap but serviceable fuels for torches (to replace expensive oxy-acetylene gases) used in cutting metals and sheet welding. The inventor came up with a way to use a small amount of electricity to take plain tap water and turn it into HHO (hydroxy gas). This gas burns safely and with ZERO emissions (the only result of the burning is heat and H2O), but can reduce a one pound ball of brass into a glowing mass of molten metal in less than 30 seconds, and can cut plate steel like it was wax.

He then tried mixing this hydroxy gas with the gas going into the carburetor in his truck, and guess what? He tripled the amount of mileage he was getting from a gallon of gas, and nearly eliminated the crud that builds up inside the cylinders of his engine (the steam from the combustion keeps the stuff from sticking to the cylinder walls).

One can now buy kits for around $275 that can be installed under the hood of 99% of all cars manufactured (at least the ones that run on gas or diesel... no hybrids) at an average cost of between $75 and $150 for the labor. These kits take 1 quart of tap water and turn it into 100 cubic liters of hydroxy gas (or about 600 miles of driving) that is then mixed with the gasoline BEFORE it goes into the fuel injectors or the carburetor. NO work is actually done on the engine... only on the mounting of the conversion cylinder and connecting it to the fuel line and the battery (which provides the electricity to convert the water to gas).

One Allan Mulally (CEO and Pres. of Ford Motor Co.) was quoted as saying that this invention would be a standard feature on all US gas-powered vehicles by 2012, and on all gas-powered combustion engines by 2020.

My point? It is two-fold...

#1 WHY hasn't this story been all over the mainstream media? I think it is because the liberals don't want to take the focus off the Bush White House and its inability to address the oil crisis other than to say "more drilling"... and the conservatives don't want to bring it up because it might vindicate the "green" side of the table.

#2 WHY wasn't this kind of innovative thinking being promoted by the Feds since the US first realized it was at war with radical Islam AND was completely dependant on 65% of all its crude oil needs from questionable Islamic states?

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your email..."

One of our most agreed upon observations within the Bund is the administration's inability to communicate its successes - especially our war efforts. In 1941, days into our declaration of War with Japan and then Germany, it occurred to Roosevelt's administration that a PR, then described as "propaganda", department was necessary. This when less then 25% of households had televisions; and daily newspapers, along with the pre-main attraction news reels, were the main source of information. Even prior to that in WWI Wilson had an army of 200,000 men sent about the country to "talk up" the war in local communities and with local newspaper editors. Again, this was deemed important even when up to the minute information was nonexistent and citizens marveled at the wonders of "talkies"- movies with sound. Fast forward to Vietnam, and the images broadcast back home of our servicemen in theater were used as propaganda for the anti-war left, another lesson in war time PR. Now, with that historical table set, knowing even when information was scarce and hard to come buy in the early years of the 20th century, wartime CIC's fundamentally understood the need to get "good news" out (WWI & II), combined with the clear example that your detractors can and will use television images to attack you (Vietnam), how can you, as a war time president in 2001 through 2008, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ignore that aspect of war waging???

USA Today has in today's edition a story explaining that roadside bombs in Iraq have decreased 90% since the full implementation of the surge. 90%. If you're the president and you get news like that, you don't wait for people to pick up the paper. You alert all the major television networks that you want 15 minutes of prime time space and tell the nation yourself. And do that with EVERY major piece of good news. You use email blasts, you award medals of honor on television, the Internet and podcastsed during prime time. You make an Iraqi with the ink stained thumb a postage stamp, have a prime time 9/11 memorial each year, (and show the images) and use that bully pulpit like the mallet it is! How can Wilson, when people still employed the Pony Express in some areas of the nation for goodness sake, understand that aspect of war making, and this president, with communication marvels that would dazzle even the Yankee in King Arthur's Court, not use what is at his fingertips - LITERALLY! Hell, even on the streets of Rome public "announcers" would in dramatic fashion describe the exploits and many success of the Caesar's and commanders in the battle field. Drumming up domestic support has been the hallmark of every successful campaign since time and memorial. But of course, this is an old complaint of ours, and Bush has clearly chosen an "act and let history judge" course. Unfortunately I don't think he understands that "news" is the first draft of history, and you only get one "first."

****

A curious aside ... why such disdain for Ridge Titus? I'm not defending him, I just don't recall his name raising any one's ire within our group. A rather bland politician I remember with the single distinction of being the first Homeland Security Secretary. And I've changed my prediction from Crist to Romney with Jindal as a dark horse long shot. Obama? Well, Fidel's retired and has time on his hands now, then they can have an all Marxist ticket ...he,he.

****

A prize you say? .... For a new form of energy? .... Perhaps the Bund is read within the halls of power after all? This from The Washington Post today:
The Arizona senator proposed a $300 million prize for whoever can develop a better automobile battery, and $5,000 tax credits for consumers who buy new zero-emission vehicles. The latest proposal is in addition to his support for overturning the federal ban on offshore oil drilling.

"In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success," McCain said in a speech at Fresno State University.


Put me in charge of your campaign John, errr sir (he earned that title). From war time success, to energy, to social issues, to fiscal policy, I will tap my renewable resource, we call it The Driveway Bund, and you'll be 20 points ahead of Obama before he can even slap a borrowed flag pin on his lapel.... and that's a promise.

Tom Ridge?

If Mac picks Ridge as a running-mate... I'll hang it up and quit right there.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

The new "flip-flop"

In 2004, there wasn't a practicing Democrat on the face of the planet that didn't hate and resent the term "flip-flop". Not because it was slanderous, or inflammatory, or inaccurate... but because it WAS accurate. It summed up in one hyphenated word exactly what Kerry was doing on key points of issue and debate. One minute he was for something, the next he was against it.

Today, many of those same Dems are using the term to describe McCain. According to them, it is evident from his change of attitude regarding such topics as amnesty for illegal immigrants and off-shore oil drilling in restricted areas.

Shockingly enough, I find this accusation juvenile in the extreme, and completely inaccurate.

All the fluff and glitter aside, if one reads the proposals that McCain has offered, he isn't changing his mind on whether or not we should drill (he may think we should, but his opinion isn't included in the proposal)... he is changing his mind on WHO should determine if and when we drill. He hasn't changed his mind on whether or not amnesty is the right path to take when dealing with the tens of millions of illegals in this nation... he has changed his mind on WHO will determine how we deal with these illegals.

In both cases, he has advocated that it is the STATES that should determine IF, WHEN, HOW and WHERE these issues will be addressed. If there is to be drilling in ANWAR, then Alaska will determine when and how. If there is to be drilling of the Florida coast, the Florida will say how and when. If California determines that it wants to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants, than California can do that... as long as California can pay the cost. If California can't, then the Feds will determine how best to prosecute those within the State because the Feds won't foot the bill for illegals gaining access to health and welfare services anymore. Only California will.

I picked California specifically because they seem to enjoy the spotlight so much. They flaunt themselves as the "trend-setting" state in the Union. The toughest emission laws, the toughest environmental laws, the loosest immigration laws, the first with state-wide bans on smoking tobacco, the first to "legalize" marijuana, the highest taxes, and the lowest income-to-jobs ratio in the country... even with an artificially high minimum wage in place for more than 22 years.

Cut California off from the Federal welfare system. Stop all Federal dollars going to state highway funds. End subsidies to California power companies that cannot build new plants due to stringent State regulations (resulting in the now infamous "rolling blackouts" of the late '90s). Then let California marry all the gays they want. Let them sell pot on the street corners. See how long California makes it as the 7th largest economy on the face of the earth WITOUT the SUPPORT of the rest of this country, let alone the Feds.

Then let them watch Alaska. Here is a State the KNOWS the value of "environmentalism" in a free-market system. Here is a state that generates so much revenue from the SAFE and CLEAN extraction of oil and coal that each and every citizen of the State receives a REFUND check for as much as $2000 per person! And guess what the second largest source of State revenue is in Alaska? Mining. Everything from gold to lead are mined in Alaska, successfully and safely, which generates more income for Alaska than California gains from it's own mineral exploitation revenues. This is IMPORTANT: where do you suppose it is more EXPENSIVE, technically speaking, to mine... California or Alaska? Me, I'd guess Alaska. WRONG. It is more expensive to mine in California (a state famous for its gold mines!) because of state fees, fines and expenses than it is in Alaska.

Here's a bit of trivia for you: Alaska is pretty sparsely populated when compared to California. In fact, Cali has 54 times the population that Alaska has. It has 75% more law enforcement per capita than Alaska does... yet California has 32% more murders per year than Alaska does. Alaska has a per capita violent crime rate of .002% of the population, while California has a .005% rate. WHY? Because more than 81% of the population of Alaska own firearms and leep them in their homes and vehicles.

So, compared to California, Alaska is a richer, more productive, more successful and SAFER state than California. Take that Nancy Pelosi!

Saturday, June 21, 2008

You know what?

I like that term… “9/10 mindset.”

It is a term that can be used to describe much of the Democratic Party right now, isn’t it? While the Dems still have a few hold-outs like Joe Lieberman, Zel Miller and Ed Koch, the other 70% seem to have forgotten that the US was attacked on September 11th by forces that have only one goal in mind: the utter destruction of everything American in the world.

The mindset isn’t one held ONLY by Dems, though, is it? Much of “independent” America must feel some sympathy with these lines of thought, or “Oba-mania” wouldn’t be the phenomenon it is today.

Why is it that so many of America’s youth (call them the “under-thirty” crowd) have forgotten the images of 9/11? Why have so many forgotten the “stained fingers” raised in triumph across the Iraqi nation? Why have they forgotten that prior to the US over-throw of Afghanistan and Iraq, no woman in all of recorded human history had ever cast a political vote in either of those countries? Why have they forgotten the tens of thousands of Afghanis and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died horrible, unjust deaths at the hands of tyrannical despots calling themselves “leaders”?

Why?

Because the current Presidential Administration has ALLOWED them to forget, that’s why! This administration has allowed the media, the Democrats, and YES, the pacifists among us to paint such an “anti-Bush” image of the entire affair that the legitimate gains and victories of the men and women risking their lives to secure the freedoms and liberties of not only the Iraqi and Afghani citizens in question but each and every American citizen that is threatened daily by the efforts of terrorists and jihadists from every corner of the Muslim world.

For every press release or front-page story of a soldier, sailor, airmen or marine killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan, or every 30-second sound-bite news flash that gives the latest casualty figure on TV or the radio… the Administration should hold a Pentagon briefing detailing the latest success stories from Kabul or Baghdad, including pictures, video and eyewitness accounts.

I realize that it is NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to broadcast this news to the world… but to suggest that the Administration can’t do SOMETHING to further the effort of education this nation in what is actually happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple in the extreme. Put the news out there, and when it isn’t reported or picked up by the mainstream media, then ask for an explanation in the next SotU Address. Better yet, ask it at the next Presidential debate, and see how Senator Obama responds to that one.

HOLY LONG WINDED BATMAN!!!!!!!!!!

Ryan you can no longer take any breaks from the Bund. The longer the break the more I have to sit here with my ADD and agonize over your 30 page posts.

Of everything you said I only want to comment on this "As has been noted Obama clearly has a 9/10 mindset, and what baffels me is he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the next CIC as it stands now - I ask you, what is wrong with this nation? ".

HHHHMMMMMM, it's called liberal pacifism. This guy is a complete fool. I am still trying to figure out what I am going to do if he becomes CINC. I don't think I have the patience to go through another Clinton type administration while I am in the military. Problem is he is going to be 1000 times worse. Bill Clinton broke the back of the military and we somewhat recovered but under Obama I'm not sure there is enough intensive care to recover during or after this assholes administration. I'm pretty sure he is what is going to get us all killed in the long run, not just the military but all of us. I think I dislike him more that Hillary and I wasn't even sure that was possible. The only thing I can say is "God help us All"

just a short rant
Baddboy

Friday, June 20, 2008

Sometimes, Ryan...

you're damn-near eloquent. So, rather than stealing your "thunder", I'll make my comments short and to-the-point.

Tim Russert. Sorry to see him pass so young, and he may indeed have been the last "objective" face in the mainstream media's anchor position, but if you want to discuss "old school" front-man positions, let's talk about Kronkite and Reasoner and the like, not Russert.

The American judicial system. The issues here are many and varied, but the blame can't be put solely on the Supreme Courts. Because Roe v Wade is now considered a de facto law in this country is the fault of the individual States and the legislative branch of the Federal Government every bit as much as it is the fault of the court itself. As I, myself, have pointed out in the past, previous Courts have made bad decisions, and those decisions were over-turned by the States and Congress enacting Laws that challenged the decisions, and forcing the issue back into court. In the Roe v Wade case, and Doe v Bolton, it would seem that America itself has resigned to accept the results as LAW, rather than challenge them through new, comprehensive legislation.

In fact, the most telling example of such failure is where Courts like the 9th District have routinely ruled against any and all forms of Judeo-Christian public practice of faith, but constantly support the same efforts from Muslim, pagan, or any other non-Judeo-Christian practice. One cannot legally place a nativity scene within 50 feet of public access (which is why most municipalities in Michigan won't allow front-yard scenes because of sidewalks), but entire towns are forced to hear the Muslim adhan, or "call to prayer", publicly broadcast on municipal loudspeakers. Where is the determined legislative effort to right this wrong? Where is the determined executive campaign to make the public aware of this bias?

Oil.

*sigh*

My resistance in the past to ANWAR drilling was based solely on the propensity of the American government to look for short-term solutions to really big issues, and while I cannot argue that increasing domestic production of oil by as much as 15% would be a good thing for issues like national security and immediate global supply, I still stand firm that any and all increase in production and exploration of domestic supplies be matched by Federal grants and programs with the intention of developing and producing alternative forms of energy... i.e. non-petroleum based energy productions methods. Simply ending all moratoriums on coastal or NWA drilling and exploration does nothing to end the President's call for an end to our national "addiction" to oil.

What I find so amazing is that pundits like the kind we here on the radio are constantly equating ANWAR access as the answer to our troubles at the pump. The cost involved in setting up, drilling out, moving and shipping the crude oil under the ANWAR would pay for 2.7 nuclear power plants capable of replacing as many as 9 traditional coal-fired plants that consume more than 1.5 times the "fossil fuel" than we'd be bringing out of the ground. Nuclear plants do not put gas in our tanks, I know... and the economy right now is far more effected by the cost of gas than it is the cost of electricity. My point is that the issue of ANWAR is now a focus of the far-right as much as it is the far-left... and no rational discussion of the pros and cons is going to result.

The one point that no one ever mentions, however, is the lack of voice that individual States have in the matter. The ANWAR oil is completely located in Alaska, and the Alaskan people are very strongly in favor of drilling it. As are the citizens of FL for the drilling of oil off the Gulf Coast. Where is their voice heard? Who is impacted more than they are by the drilling of these sources? If the vast majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling, why on earth should some tree-hugging hippies in southern CA or liberal legislators in D.C. have a greater voice than they do?

To watch the price of a barrel of light, sweet crude double in less than 4 years is not the sole effect of President Bush's decision to deregulate the commodity price of crude oil, but it certaily is a large factor. Since the deregulation, the price has never gone below what it was at the deregulation, and the trend has never been anything but UP. This is great for investors and speculators, but bad for producers and consumers. I think the question that "true capitalists" like the ones we hear on the radio so often need to ask themselves is "Which aspect of the system benifits the over-all economy more: speculative investors or oil and gas consumers?"

Your points about the transportation risks versus drilling risks is a very strong one. More on that later.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

"I was taught to avoid cliches like the plauge..."

F. Ryan here ... my brief absence post trip isn't due to any technical difficulties as with Jambo, just some quiet contemplation, had to square away a few things in my head regarding the personal, but enough of all that ...to recent events ...

First, the trip was a smashing success, period. Its great to be in a room (or under the stars as the case was) where everyone "gets" every little jab, quip, and even the occasional friendly insult which comes only after years of building a friendship.

****

I was a fan of Tim Russert, sorry to see him pass at 58. I watched the tribute to him, including his son Luke's (22 yr old Boston College grad whom I'm quoting in the subject line) farewell to his father, it was quite moving and was as Catholic Irish as the day is long. In my estimation not just NBC, but the "old", or "mainstream" (if one can still call it that) media just lost its' last legitimate face. In fact I found it quite telling that many of his colleagues mentioned in their eulogizing that his ability to "play it up the middle", or to "be an equal opportunity prosecutor" (of the issues), always struck them. Isn't that what reproters are supposed to do?No less then 2 presidents, 6 senators, 3 Kennedy's, 2 governors and countless others turned out for the event. But the real reason I liked Tim was because you could just tell, he absolutely loved this thing we call politics, he was a genuine fan of the process. And how many of the elite media even watch football, let alone end their broadcast saying, "Go Bills." I just flat out liked the guy, and he would have fit right in to the Bund.

****

The Supreme Court of California has decided to put us on a path to social suicide, and the US Supreme Court has chosen a similar path, but with literal suicide at its end. There is no other way to put it in my estimation - too many in America have no concept what it means to be at war, none. And the absolutely hypocritical and historically void Philistines they are, those whom applaud this decision, are surely among those whom in the same breath would laud praise on Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not "the") greatest presidents in the history of our Union - the man whom suspended "bring me the body" for "certain" US citizens. And it gets even worse, Barak Obama subsequent to this ruling was asked in a telephone conference with journalists, if Bin Laden, should he be captured, be afforded his day in US civilian criminal court, and he answered, "yes." It is precisely, as the McCain camp aptly pointed out, this type of mindset (of treating terror like a crime rather then an act of war) that contributed to the conditions which would later allow 9/11. In fact the overall conclusion of the 9/11 commission's report, which every Democrat operative worth his salt uses to bang over the head of one GW Bush, concluded that (& I'm paraphrasing) "they were at war with us, yet we were not at war with them." As has been noted Obama clearly has a 9/10 mindset, and what baffels me is he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the next CIC as it stands now - I ask you, what is wrong with this nation? This also provides a very valuable lesson for all future executives, when contemplating war, go NOT for a piece of legislative authorization - get an actual DECLARATION OF WAR. Had Bush done this then many of these national security issues and challenges, including the status of these detainees, would be muted.


And lets for a moment go to the former court of which I spoke. There is but no question that the branch most out of sorts with the American people, and the one most impervious to redress or rebuke by those same people, is the judiciary. Counterfeit marriage - and that's what it is, not "gay marriage", that's as oxymoronic as "illegal immigrant" - was rejected by over 2 million Californians in a ballot initiative not 3 years ago. Yet by judicial fiat that will has been overturned. What is the recourse? There are only two in my estimation: one is a constitutional amendment. As I recall civics it is the only action by the legislature which could resist judicial impositions. It can't be judged "unconstitutional" if it is an "amendment" to that very document. But what is the practicality of this occuring? Regardless of the people's will there is enough political maneuvering in Sacramento to keep such a measure within the realm of a pipe dream. A federal amendment? The sheer organizational effort that would be necessary to mount a majority state ratification simply boggles the mind. The second and last option would be an impeachment of a sitting judge. Explain to me just whom has the political clanking round ones to introduce those articles into the United States Senate? The days of an executive as bold and respected as FDR exist no longer. And even though either of these options are reasonable responses to both the CA Supreme Court regarding counterfeit marriage, and the US Supreme Court regarding detainees, jurists know full well this will simply not happen, thus they have no fear.

And while we're at it I am astonished that the advocates of the CA ruling invoke "States Rights" in defending the Golden State's decision. Can anyone on the American ideological left explain to me why the chant of "States Rights" is a valid one regarding California allowing homosexuals to "marry" and is used as an argument against a federal constitutional amendment to ban it, yet those same leftists invalidate state's rights concerning the issue of abortion? The states are capable enough in their wisdom to dictate whom should be married, even if it rebukes over 5,000 years of civilization's definition of that institution, yet the 30 year old Roe V Wade ruling is much to aloof and nuanced to allow Mississippi to decide? Please Pelosi, enough.

****

Now, to that viscous grease which lubricates our wheels of freedom .... OIL!

The United States of America ... we don't take energy seriously, period. It has been so available and so cheap for so long I suppose the lethargic reaction to its sudden spike in price is to be expected. To say that I am disappointed in the President's "speech" today is, well, beyond an understatement. He simply placed it in the hands of Congress, and left it at that. The colossal Clydesdale of history galloped into the Rose Garden, winked at him, and instead of mounting her and putting a stamp on the end of his presidency, namely putting America on the road to energy independence, he simply waived at that mare and watched her trot away.

The comprehensive (in the truest sense of the word) plan Jambo and I put forth as a remedy to America's energy needs is well known in this forum. In brief it is to open up drilling in scores of places; eliminate red tape to building refineries (the US hasn't brought a new one on line in over 30 years due to it); go nuclear in an impressive way; and from the executive office spearhead legislation and offer inspiring public sentiments for a moon shot prize for that company which can introduce a reliable renewable source. But consider this - the entire argument, taking up the time of our two parties and both presidential candidates - is this silly debate over ANWR. I've done some research. ANWR is in North Eastern Alaska. Alaska is about the size of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Whales. The portion which would be affected by drilling is about the size of Dulles Airport. I'll go one better: Take your morning newspaper and spread the front page out so that both it and the back page are face up. Then pick one letter, any letter in the normal type - the paper would represent the whole of the area and that one 10 font letter represents the space which would be affected by drilling. Now, this is certainly not to say that ANWR is the single key to energy independence, my (& Jambo's) plan is clearly much broader then that as can be seen above. My point is that if we can't agree over this small aspect of the over all necessary actions, then how in the name of all that is holy will anyone ever be able to introduce a plan as far reaching as ours?

And for these arguments that the oil tapped by drilling wouldn't come into use for 5 to 10 years - does anyone hazard to guess when last that argument was made? 5 to 10 years ago. Not to mention, anywhere from 15 to 35% of the price per barrel of oil comes from speculators. These are commodity traders that "speculate" what the price per barrel will be in the future. Volatility, in the form of an unstable or erratic Iran and Hugo Chavez; not knowing from one second to the next whether Russia will side up economically with the West or give the likes of Kim Jong Ill a soothing Siberian massage; the probability of terror attacks on supply lines or another Katrina (or what's happening in the mid-west regarding corn and Ethanol shortages); ALL of this figures into that speculation, and drives the price up. What brings it down is "stability." And plain ol' supply, especially at the rate China and India are growing and consuming. Were we to open up our lands it would provide at least some of both - supply and stability in the world's remaining superpower taking an initiative. Right now China, India, & Vietnam (yes, Vietnam) are all hustling to bid on drilling contracts 60 miles of the coast of Florida in conjunction with Cuba. Are we going to let VIETNAM take more initiative towards securing their energy needs than us? Do we really need to add that insult to the injury of our war there? And both parties are responsible for what should be intolerable - our dependency. In 1998 President Clinton said you can't lease anything "here" for oil until 2012. Want to know where "here" is? Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. And all of the following are indefinite: the Olympic Coast; Cordell Bank, California; Monterrey Bay, California; the Gulf of the Farallones, California; the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico; Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys; Gray's Reef South and Atlantic; Monitor Mid Atlantic; Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. Congress? They started their moratoriums back in the 80's, stopping the leasing in 1982 of Central and Northern California. Then in 1984 it was Southern California. Then in 1990 (thank you George H. Bush) the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Then in 1991 Washington, Oregon and the Florida Panhandle.

Anyone still think drilling is not at least "part" of the solution? Consider this - even with all the bans on the outer continental shelf we at present extract 30% of our oil needs in the "non-banned" areas. That's more then we import from any one nation. And get this gang, the government estimates that those banned areas in the outer continental shelf, the ones they said no to in Congress just this week, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into. Like I said, we don't take energy independence seriously.

And for the RFK's and Al Gore's of the world: there have been no spills over 1,000 barrels in 15 years of the outer continental shelf drilling. The National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil. Remember these words. Imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. Again, imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. Natural seeps! Is the earth itself to be taxed under Algorian theory? And whom do you suppose, given these numbers, would be more "responsible" to the environment off the coast of Florida, American oil companies or VIETNAM??

And to further demonstrate how out of touch with the American people 100% of the Democrat Party is, and at least 50% of the GOP I might add, a recent Rasmussen poll, released this week surveyed self identified "liberals" regarding the issue of domestic drilling. "Given the surge in fuel prices would you be open to more domestic oil drilling?, was the question. And these are liberals now: 17% had no opinion, 37% were opposed, and 46% were in favor.

Like I said, we don't take our energy needs seriously .... end of rant.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Happy Father's Day!

To all the Dad's here in the Bund, which happens to be all of us. I actually got today off. How kick ass is that? Kids will be over sometime in the next ninety minutes. Sweet.

Happy Father's Day!

From the "Mick"

Mick wanted me to share this with you guys, to show that he understands the importance of getting the "truth" of the situation in Iraq from first-hand sources.

His "first-hand" source is none other than the Colonel commanding the 1st BCT, 504th PIR, of the 82nd Airborne Division out of Fort Bragg, NC... currently stationed at COB Adder, near Tallil, Iraq.

The good Colonel writes:

"Thanks! All is going well - a few flare ups now and again but unquestionably a historic run at these guys. I'm not saying we've achieved a knock out by they're definitely on the ropes.

Well, we have miles to march before we rest. We have just a short stint more to go but we're going to take every step with our heads up and on a swivel. We want to ensure that we provide all the support we can to the Iraqis and rid this place of malign groups and actors that have such a casual attitude towards extremism and violence. Every Paratrooper will be tired at the end of this race, I will assure you of that!

Lastly, thanks for all of your unwavering support this past year. The price of freedom is very high and with that cost comes major responsibilities, ones we all can't discard or take lightly. The world today is radically different and the United States of America, regardless of what some talking heads might say, remains the beacon of light for all the world to see!

Be safe and have a great summer!

ATW / Strike Hold!!!"

Thanks, Mick... inspiring words from a man that is leading the men in the field... not some political lacky talking from a podium to the White House press corps. I'd love to meet this guy!

Dropping the ball... again

McCain is really pissing me off.

Here I have been waiting and waiting for the Democratic primary to end so that the real campaign could begin, and what do I get? McCain playing "opposition politics" with Obama. He may as well be standing there saying "If Obama is for it, I'm against it." Nothing original, no leadership or charisma demonstrated, no definition of plans or goals... just what he DOESN'T agree with about Obama.

Now, I'm the first to admit that I do NOT feel Mac is getting fair time from the media. You can't read an article and not get 2.5 quotes from the speeches of Obama... but all you get from the McCain camp is paraphrasing and summations. That tells me Mac has to get his face and voice on TV. Fox News interviews, stumping in arenas that can't be ignored (say flood-ravaged Iowa)... he can't wait for the media to decide whether what he is saying has any worth, he just needs to SAY IT.

Friday, June 13, 2008

You're right...

Ryan must be foaming at the mouth by now.

You understand WHY he's foaming, right? Yes, the decision from the SCOTUS... but worse than that. He'll have to justify the decision based on a 7-2 GOP appointment record. Only Breyer and Ginsberg are Democratic Presidential appointees (thanks to Big Bill).

This should have been a 7-2 slam dunk, but instead, 3 GOP-appointees made a bad call based on very liberal agendas. The one I am most disappointed with is Kennedy, but I should be used to it, I guess, coming from him.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Some technical assistance, please?

Ok. If I log in through the blog dashboard thingie, I can post, but I can't log in or post directly from the Bund. What is up with that? I didn't have these problems before, in my former house with my former computer which I miss very much. Damn it.

I have a couple of kick ass posts to put up because I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth over the Supreme Court's decision concerning the prisoners at Gitmo. But I don't want to risk these jewels of debate being lost in the ether of cyberspace because my freaking computer now is a contemporary of FDR.

Talk to me, KeyMaster. What am I doing wrong?

I haven't fallen off the face of the Earth...

... but for some reason I cannot post here from the new computer at the apartment.

This is why it pays to keep a house key.

So while I'm loading up apartment supplies for the children, I'll just post here and let you guys know I can read, I can shout at the screen, but I can't post or comment yet. Damn it.

Baddboy should be coming over this afternoon to see if it's my computer's problem or if the issue is deeper, more sinister, Dick Winter's revenge for camping out on his sidewalk.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

I saw that show

The funniest thing about the Irish taking second was the fact that they had never shot a Barrett .50 cal and they won that part of the competition. I was really surprised to see the Air Force in it since they have only had a sniper school for a couple of years and it's designed for defensive sniping only, or at least it was. I've been a little out of touch as of late.

Baddboy

Gotta love those Irish!

Here’s one for you…

Very soon, the Irish people will be voting on a general referendum to decide if they want to support an “over-haul” of the European Union’s executive structure and institute an office of “President”. The trend in Ireland right now seems to show that the vote is very, very close… only last week, the “nays” had the edge, but as many as 35% of voters are undecided.

I find it ironic that this decision is now left in the hands of a people that are rapidly taking the lead in the EU’s “conservative” set… Ireland, Norway, Denmark, and the Baltic States all tend to trend away from the “liberal” left-leaning EU “power-houses” like France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. I’m not using “liberal” in the American-sense of the word, either… I’m talking about European nations that fight the trend of relinquishing sovereignty through the surrender of military, diplomatic and economic control on a national level to the EU’s broader, general control.

What do I see that these smaller, less prominent European states share in common? They all share a “living” memory of individual armed resistance to outside oppression from neighboring nations… and ALL of these smaller states are experiencing record economic growth and prosperity while the larger, traditional European power-brokers are watching their economies tank.

Don’t get me wrong… an American conservative like Ryan would still see the word “liberal” as the best adjective to use in describing much of these state’s domestic policies… but they are still on the “right side” of the European spectrum, believe me.

The EU has spent far too much time trying to re-write it’s charter, in my opinion. Now, the Irish have the chance to say “enough” and start the Union on the road to actually getting something useful done for the participant nations.

Oh, and one more thing…

The Military Channel had a show on recently about a competition between the US service branches and 11 foreign services in the field of “sniper teams”. A GREAT show (I wish I could remember the name of it), by the way. The winner of the competition was a two-man sniper team from the US Rangers… but can you guess who had the #2 spot?

The Irish Defense Force. Second best sniper-team in a field of 17 teams from some of the world’s BEST trained forces… beating out even the US Navy, Air Force, Royal Marines, US Marine “Recon”, et al.

I thought that was rather impressive.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

How do you buy a VP seat??

Thats how I heard it, not sure how that works exactly but it sounds like she is going to buy her VP seat that way.

Ya know I'm really not a huge fan of modern politics

Did anyone hear?

Did anyone hear Hillary say she was "ending" her campaign? Or "closing it's doors"?

All I heard or read was that she was "suspending" her campaign. That means she still controls more than 1950 delegates at least until the second ballot at the convention. That equals clout, in my book... and she'll use it. Just watch.

Friday, June 6, 2008

I am Jealous

KK so I'm the lightweight hehe.

Wish I was with you in Gettysburg, I went there when I was stationed in Washington DC and it was the same feeling I had at Normandy. When you can personally walk through history it puts a new perspective on it.

Congratulations from the whole Baddboy family.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

We're back...

...and I'm NOT happy about it. Man, does it suck to be back at work.

Still, I have to pay for this little soiree somehow. Just so no one thinks ANY of us are lightweights (ahem, that's you, Baddboy) our little gathering managed to consume 21 cases of beer, two full cases of wine, and rack up a $200 bar tab in just 4 days. I spent nearly $1500 on the beer and wine, and Jambo,Ryan and Co. paid the bar bill (19 pints of Guinness, 20 pints of Smithwicks, and two snack trays between 5 people... and only ONE spilled pint!).

If THAT doesn't make us look like a bunch of degenerates... I have no idea what will. My math says we averaged (between the four of us) right about 18 beers a night. Now, of course... we weren't the only ones drinking here. I did have a 53 person guest list, after all (I AM rather popular), so the balance can be spread between the remaining 48 lightweights that attended the party.

We might be old... but we still know how to throw down at a party.

On our last day together, we drove to Gettysburg... despite the hang-overs and lack of sleep we all suffered from. Below are some of the images.




Here is one of the actual cannons that fired into the faces of oncoming Southern troops during the third day of fighting. Sobering, indeed, to imagine 40 minutes of repeated firing of triple-shot canister flying out of one of these pieces as the boys from MS, AL, NC, TN and GA walked across the fields with Pickett.




Here's the view from the ridge towards the Southern positions. Jambo had a very good point when we stood on the summit of Little Round Top and walked towards the breastworks of the 20th Maine... it takes your breath away to think you are standing on ground that witnessed a defining moment in a nation's history, especially when that nation is YOUR nation. The men from BOTH sides fought with uncommon courage in the face of overwhelming odds, and the fight was never one-sided. The entire conflict here among the sunny fields of PA could have gone either way, right to the end... and these men fought with and gave their very lives to defend that which they held dearest: their personal freedoms and beliefs.

Obama should come here... he might learn something he obviously hasn't learned yet.