Call me obsessed, but get this...
In the last 24 months, there have been more than 30 Russian TU-95 flights into or right up to Canadian Arctic airspace, and each time the Canadians are forced to scramble fighters to intercept these bomber runs. The latest came as far south as Newfoundland... which is far north, I admit, but its still a long way from the Arctic!
I'm telling you... the Russians want the power and prestige back that the USSR lost in 1990. They want to intimidate and muscle-up the "little guy" to get the access to resources and territory that they might have to share otherwise. They are routinely pushing the envelope to see how far they can go before someone pushes back... and while the Canadians might be pushing back, I don't think Obama will.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
That's nothing... you should see THIS...
Dude, you are actually surprised by something "anti-GOP" coming from the Dems, regardless of truth or rationale?
I actually heard today that the blame for the Sherrod termination stemmed from a "right-wing" effort to bring racism into the forefront of media attention... and I heard this on the Sirius Left channel of my satellite radio! They "claim" that the video was released in an all-out effort to take America's attention off of what Obama has accomplished and make them think he is a "race-baiter".
I haven't followed this story closely, but here's my understanding of it:
Sherrod gave a speech in which she detailed an experience that happened 24 years ago, wherein she allowed racially biased opinion to sway her actions as an FDA official. She regretted the actions and worked hard to repair the damage, thus offering some mitigation to the claim that she is a racist. The first release of the video that cost her the FDA job was three-minutes of heavily edited content from a 40 minute speech. Upon seeing the whole 40 minutes, I am no closer to thinking she ISN'T a racist than I was when I saw only the edited 3-minutes.
ANYWAY, the 3-minute tape is released, and the Obama Administration determines that she should resign her position immediately. Then, FOX News shows the whole tape (that's right, that machine of the Right Wing is the first to have played the whole tape), and everyone sees that there is some mitigation to the affair. Unfortunately, other speeches and statements that the woman and her husband made also came to light after the firing, and they did NOTHING at all to remove the specter of "racist" from her visage. Questions began to arise as to how and why she was given her high-position job at the FDA in the first place, since she sued the FDA for discrimination (and won) in a class-action suit worth hundreds of millions of dollars, which she was awarded the LARGEST SETTLEMENT ($13.9 million).
Obama then calls the woman and apologizes that she was in the middle of such a nasty "partisan" attack, and that he would work to fix the problem as soon as possible. What he DIDN'T say was "I'm sorry for firing you without cause" or "We over-reacted to a situation we knew nothing about", but instead worked tirelessly to make it seem like it was the "right wing" that was working to bring this woman down.
Did anyone know who the hell this woman was BEFORE she got fired? I had never heard of Sherrod, her husband, or her political/racial views prior to the hubbub... so who is to blame here? Do we blame the media for jumping to conclusions? We could, but then we'd have to blame Obama's Administration for the same thing, wouldn't we? Do we blame the "conservative media"? We could, but FOX was the first to "clear" the woman, and no other top-ten pundit touched the story more than to report it (at least on the conservative radio side of things). Others, like Obhermann, Malloy, Maddow, Wolfe and the rest of the Liberal Left crowd had her hung as a racist before the first 24 hours was up. That means FOX and the Right is clear, doesn't it?
Then, there is the whole "Journolist" fiasco... more than 200 major liberal authors, journalist, pundits, and celebrities, ALL plotting to label conservatives as "racist" only to turn attention away from the Rev. Wright story that was breaking all over the Obama Campaign. The Left can actually accuse the Right of doing what it has already been shown to have done itself? Seriously?
The hypocrasy knows no bounds, it seems.
I actually heard today that the blame for the Sherrod termination stemmed from a "right-wing" effort to bring racism into the forefront of media attention... and I heard this on the Sirius Left channel of my satellite radio! They "claim" that the video was released in an all-out effort to take America's attention off of what Obama has accomplished and make them think he is a "race-baiter".
I haven't followed this story closely, but here's my understanding of it:
Sherrod gave a speech in which she detailed an experience that happened 24 years ago, wherein she allowed racially biased opinion to sway her actions as an FDA official. She regretted the actions and worked hard to repair the damage, thus offering some mitigation to the claim that she is a racist. The first release of the video that cost her the FDA job was three-minutes of heavily edited content from a 40 minute speech. Upon seeing the whole 40 minutes, I am no closer to thinking she ISN'T a racist than I was when I saw only the edited 3-minutes.
ANYWAY, the 3-minute tape is released, and the Obama Administration determines that she should resign her position immediately. Then, FOX News shows the whole tape (that's right, that machine of the Right Wing is the first to have played the whole tape), and everyone sees that there is some mitigation to the affair. Unfortunately, other speeches and statements that the woman and her husband made also came to light after the firing, and they did NOTHING at all to remove the specter of "racist" from her visage. Questions began to arise as to how and why she was given her high-position job at the FDA in the first place, since she sued the FDA for discrimination (and won) in a class-action suit worth hundreds of millions of dollars, which she was awarded the LARGEST SETTLEMENT ($13.9 million).
Obama then calls the woman and apologizes that she was in the middle of such a nasty "partisan" attack, and that he would work to fix the problem as soon as possible. What he DIDN'T say was "I'm sorry for firing you without cause" or "We over-reacted to a situation we knew nothing about", but instead worked tirelessly to make it seem like it was the "right wing" that was working to bring this woman down.
Did anyone know who the hell this woman was BEFORE she got fired? I had never heard of Sherrod, her husband, or her political/racial views prior to the hubbub... so who is to blame here? Do we blame the media for jumping to conclusions? We could, but then we'd have to blame Obama's Administration for the same thing, wouldn't we? Do we blame the "conservative media"? We could, but FOX was the first to "clear" the woman, and no other top-ten pundit touched the story more than to report it (at least on the conservative radio side of things). Others, like Obhermann, Malloy, Maddow, Wolfe and the rest of the Liberal Left crowd had her hung as a racist before the first 24 hours was up. That means FOX and the Right is clear, doesn't it?
Then, there is the whole "Journolist" fiasco... more than 200 major liberal authors, journalist, pundits, and celebrities, ALL plotting to label conservatives as "racist" only to turn attention away from the Rev. Wright story that was breaking all over the Obama Campaign. The Left can actually accuse the Right of doing what it has already been shown to have done itself? Seriously?
The hypocrasy knows no bounds, it seems.
Does anyone buy this?
I am being one hundred percent serious.
The Dems claim that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are a Republican tax hike?
I'm not one for partisan this or obstructionist that, but what kind of a RETARD stands in front of a camera, smiles, and says this?
The Dems claim that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are a Republican tax hike?
I'm not one for partisan this or obstructionist that, but what kind of a RETARD stands in front of a camera, smiles, and says this?
Friday, July 30, 2010
A heads-up...
If you are starved for something to watch, Starz has a new series... The Pillars of the Earth, based on a book of the same name by Ken Follet. It is set in the years of civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Matilda, and centers around the building of a cathedral in the fictional earldom of Kingsbridge.
I don't mean to say this is a bad show, or only worth watching if you are board out of your mind. Far from. In fact, I think it is very good... but I don't want to give the impression it is another Spartacus, Blood and Sand. It isn't that good... yet.
Lots of big names (Donald Sutherland, Ian McShane, Rufus Sewel, and Matthew Macfadyen to name a few), really good design concept, and a surprising couple of twists for those that are familiar with the book (which Jambo and I are). Far less gore and sex than Spartacus, to be sure, but (so far) fairly accurate in its history and presentation (in as much as the story line allows). I like the way they are portraying Stephen, too. I'm not sure his claim to the throne wasn't the strongest (at least of the two in contention), but he wasn't a good king, and he was easily swayed by outside influences (unike his more powerful and much more famous grandfather, William of Normandy).
Worth checking out, if you have the time.
I don't mean to say this is a bad show, or only worth watching if you are board out of your mind. Far from. In fact, I think it is very good... but I don't want to give the impression it is another Spartacus, Blood and Sand. It isn't that good... yet.
Lots of big names (Donald Sutherland, Ian McShane, Rufus Sewel, and Matthew Macfadyen to name a few), really good design concept, and a surprising couple of twists for those that are familiar with the book (which Jambo and I are). Far less gore and sex than Spartacus, to be sure, but (so far) fairly accurate in its history and presentation (in as much as the story line allows). I like the way they are portraying Stephen, too. I'm not sure his claim to the throne wasn't the strongest (at least of the two in contention), but he wasn't a good king, and he was easily swayed by outside influences (unike his more powerful and much more famous grandfather, William of Normandy).
Worth checking out, if you have the time.
The latest from Iran...
Last week, Iranian President Ahmadgitajob (I like that one...) promised that in 90 days, Iran would be fighting a two-front war. This story did not get a lot of press, and I was only able to find a few articles on the topic, but it is certainly worth discussing, don't you think?
Many "experts" (I'm not sure what an "expert" in this area is... they'd have to be board-certified shrinks to understand this guy, I figure) seem to think that Ahmadinejad meant to put the population of Iran on more of a "war footing", paving the way for an inevitable showdown with either the US or Israel over the nuclear development issue. This is certainly something he needs to do, because it seems that in the nearly 25 years after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Iran still hasn't completely rebuilt the towns and villages most effected by the Iraqi invasion. In fact, much of the worst protests that arose after Ahmadinejad's re-election started in these very areas, because of the failure of the Iranian government assist the people in rebuilding.
I'm curious about the "two-front" aspect of his words, though. Iran already has a sizable investment in the fighting across the Afghani border (as seen by the thousands of documents leaked recently), and that investment may grow in the coming weeks. Could the "second front" be Lebanon again? Given Ahmadinejad's words, if Israel were to see a rain of rockets fired from Lebanon in the coming weeks, I'd take that to mean Iran is behind the effort... even if Hezbollah takes the credit. After all, Hezbollah is nothing more than an Iranian "foreign legion" for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists, right?
This is where Netanyahu is going to make a difference. He seems truly capable of the "diplomatic" outreach, and if he can garner any support or even sympathy from his Arab neighbors now, if and when the time comes for more shooting (especially in Lebanon), he won't be fighting the established governments as well as the terror brigades.
If Iran gets any closer to a real, functional nuclear device, and the US remains as ambivelant as it has in the last year about the danger (although I should give some credit to the much tougher stance that Obama and Co. have taken lately... any improvement is good, right?), then an Israeli strike at the nuclear development sites seems more likely, and I can't help but feel that a unilateral attack by Israel will be exactly what Ahmadinejad wants to swing Iranian public opinion in his favor. Nothing drums up patriotic fervor like an "unprovoked" attack, and the majority of Iranians support Iranian nuclear goals (as they understand them, anyway).
Every effort should be made by the US and Israel (and the EU and UK, too) to make sure that Iran's ability to project nuclear force is seen as an immediate threat by ALL Middle Eastern states, regardless of religious affiliations or ethnic ties. Perhaps this sort of "backdoor" policy is what the Obama White House is good at... I don't know... but if it won't confront Iran up-front, then it must do so in some other way.
Many "experts" (I'm not sure what an "expert" in this area is... they'd have to be board-certified shrinks to understand this guy, I figure) seem to think that Ahmadinejad meant to put the population of Iran on more of a "war footing", paving the way for an inevitable showdown with either the US or Israel over the nuclear development issue. This is certainly something he needs to do, because it seems that in the nearly 25 years after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Iran still hasn't completely rebuilt the towns and villages most effected by the Iraqi invasion. In fact, much of the worst protests that arose after Ahmadinejad's re-election started in these very areas, because of the failure of the Iranian government assist the people in rebuilding.
I'm curious about the "two-front" aspect of his words, though. Iran already has a sizable investment in the fighting across the Afghani border (as seen by the thousands of documents leaked recently), and that investment may grow in the coming weeks. Could the "second front" be Lebanon again? Given Ahmadinejad's words, if Israel were to see a rain of rockets fired from Lebanon in the coming weeks, I'd take that to mean Iran is behind the effort... even if Hezbollah takes the credit. After all, Hezbollah is nothing more than an Iranian "foreign legion" for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists, right?
This is where Netanyahu is going to make a difference. He seems truly capable of the "diplomatic" outreach, and if he can garner any support or even sympathy from his Arab neighbors now, if and when the time comes for more shooting (especially in Lebanon), he won't be fighting the established governments as well as the terror brigades.
If Iran gets any closer to a real, functional nuclear device, and the US remains as ambivelant as it has in the last year about the danger (although I should give some credit to the much tougher stance that Obama and Co. have taken lately... any improvement is good, right?), then an Israeli strike at the nuclear development sites seems more likely, and I can't help but feel that a unilateral attack by Israel will be exactly what Ahmadinejad wants to swing Iranian public opinion in his favor. Nothing drums up patriotic fervor like an "unprovoked" attack, and the majority of Iranians support Iranian nuclear goals (as they understand them, anyway).
Every effort should be made by the US and Israel (and the EU and UK, too) to make sure that Iran's ability to project nuclear force is seen as an immediate threat by ALL Middle Eastern states, regardless of religious affiliations or ethnic ties. Perhaps this sort of "backdoor" policy is what the Obama White House is good at... I don't know... but if it won't confront Iran up-front, then it must do so in some other way.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
This sort of thing needs a name...
What the Democrats are doing now (and really started doing in 2006, when they won their majority in Congress) needs a name... a label for the process by which they can do one thing, and call it another in the hope that the American people will fail to grasp the scope of what is being done, no matter what it is called.
Here's what I am talking about...
In 2001, President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, arguably his last truly "conservative" act as President of the United States, and almost the only Congressional spending and revenue bill that I feel Reagan would have supported (since Bush claimed to be a "Reagan Conservative"). This Act is set to expire on Dec 31, 2010, and... if that happens... America will see a 2.5% to 6.7% increase in our annual income tax bills, across the board... from the richest of us to the poorest (whom, under the EGTRRA, weren't paying any taxes at all... but now would again).
Current Democratic leadership (including the President) want a portion of the Act to remain in place, while allowing the tax cuts for the highest earners in the nation to expire. Mainstream GOP members want the whole Act to be renewed and remain in place. The ever-present dichotomy of Dem vs GOP.
If the GOP gets its way, then the deficit that the Dems have worked so hard to build up since 2006 will reach unsustainable proportions by the year 2014, at which point Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, and even the IRS, will all spend more than the Fed can bring in to support them. If the Dems get their way, these agencies (and others like them) can maintain operation for a decade or more, but the increase in taxes and the inability of Congress to stem the tide of spending will mean the deficit will continue to rise and the economy will continue to fall.
The Democrats are always giving things names and labels... even the EGTRRA (admittedly, a long title) is only ever referred to as the "Bush Tax Cuts" (even though, constitutionally speaking, no President can impose a tax of any kind... only Congress can do that). What do we call the rationale behind the process by which something done by Congress, supported at the time by the very Representative now acting as Speaker of the House, and which has stemmed off the worst of a global economic adjustment that began in 2000 (and is still raging today), is constantly associated with a non-existent link between a former President and the richest, most influential people and corporations in America and the country's fall into double-digit recession?
How about something like a political "disconnect from reality"?
Here's what I am talking about...
In 2001, President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, arguably his last truly "conservative" act as President of the United States, and almost the only Congressional spending and revenue bill that I feel Reagan would have supported (since Bush claimed to be a "Reagan Conservative"). This Act is set to expire on Dec 31, 2010, and... if that happens... America will see a 2.5% to 6.7% increase in our annual income tax bills, across the board... from the richest of us to the poorest (whom, under the EGTRRA, weren't paying any taxes at all... but now would again).
Current Democratic leadership (including the President) want a portion of the Act to remain in place, while allowing the tax cuts for the highest earners in the nation to expire. Mainstream GOP members want the whole Act to be renewed and remain in place. The ever-present dichotomy of Dem vs GOP.
If the GOP gets its way, then the deficit that the Dems have worked so hard to build up since 2006 will reach unsustainable proportions by the year 2014, at which point Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, and even the IRS, will all spend more than the Fed can bring in to support them. If the Dems get their way, these agencies (and others like them) can maintain operation for a decade or more, but the increase in taxes and the inability of Congress to stem the tide of spending will mean the deficit will continue to rise and the economy will continue to fall.
The Democrats are always giving things names and labels... even the EGTRRA (admittedly, a long title) is only ever referred to as the "Bush Tax Cuts" (even though, constitutionally speaking, no President can impose a tax of any kind... only Congress can do that). What do we call the rationale behind the process by which something done by Congress, supported at the time by the very Representative now acting as Speaker of the House, and which has stemmed off the worst of a global economic adjustment that began in 2000 (and is still raging today), is constantly associated with a non-existent link between a former President and the richest, most influential people and corporations in America and the country's fall into double-digit recession?
How about something like a political "disconnect from reality"?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
More on the PA...
Today, after my post about the Netanyahu visit to Jordan, I read a couple of headlines about the trade union leadership in Jordan complaining that Netanyahu is a "criminal" and shouldn't have been received by the King.
Nothing earth-shattering in the articles (I can't expect everyone to be as excited by the open-ness of King Abdullah as I am), but it brings up (again) the connection between militant Islamic fundamentalism (especially within the PA) and socialist organizations. There is a real connection there, from the manner in which the PA structures itself and its policies, to the people that support it from outside of Palestine.
Perhaps some of this is a carry-over from when the Soviet Union was the primary outside supporter of all things "Arab" in the Middle East... I'm not sure. While the US was backing Israel with everything we had, the Soviets were pumping arms and supplies (and money) into states like Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt (and into the PLO... we can't forget the Arafat-Moscow link, either)... and this might still be reflected in how the PA structures itself and its economic engines.
The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the "experiment" is a failure, and socialism/communism cannot work, especially in a society where religion is such a fundamental aspect of daily life, at every level. The PA is almost doomed to fail at nearly every level of economic planning it attempts to structure and regulate. From fixed pricing to unionism in politics, the "rule of the proletariat" is a failure from the start, each and every time it is attempted.
Nothing earth-shattering in the articles (I can't expect everyone to be as excited by the open-ness of King Abdullah as I am), but it brings up (again) the connection between militant Islamic fundamentalism (especially within the PA) and socialist organizations. There is a real connection there, from the manner in which the PA structures itself and its policies, to the people that support it from outside of Palestine.
Perhaps some of this is a carry-over from when the Soviet Union was the primary outside supporter of all things "Arab" in the Middle East... I'm not sure. While the US was backing Israel with everything we had, the Soviets were pumping arms and supplies (and money) into states like Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt (and into the PLO... we can't forget the Arafat-Moscow link, either)... and this might still be reflected in how the PA structures itself and its economic engines.
The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the "experiment" is a failure, and socialism/communism cannot work, especially in a society where religion is such a fundamental aspect of daily life, at every level. The PA is almost doomed to fail at nearly every level of economic planning it attempts to structure and regulate. From fixed pricing to unionism in politics, the "rule of the proletariat" is a failure from the start, each and every time it is attempted.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What does this say about our President?
I'm reading an article about Israel's PM Netanyahu's concerns about the PA's "leftist" leanings (something I mentioned as a concern not all that long ago, I recall)... and what do I find?
Netanyahu decided to make those comments while "visiting" the King Abdullah II, in Amman, Jordan.
That's right... he just decided to pop in and say HI to Abdullah II (no advance notice given by either side, mind you) and discuss the "Palestinian question" with the leader of a nation that at one time was a primary belligerent against Israel and assisting the PLO. Not that this isn't almost unprecedented all by itself... but he then feels free enough to make critical comments in public about the PA while he is visiting with the King!!!!!
How long ago was it that our President, the leader of the free world and the champion of Israeli friendship and cooperation (his words, not mine)... wouldn't even give Netanyahu the time of day, in front of the entire world's press and cameras???
Again, I ask... is there a better example of an Arab/Muslim nation that has embraced all that the West holds dear in regards to democratic process and the free exchange of ideas and goods than the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or its leader and icon, Abdullah II? It has the fastest growing economy in the Arab world (faster even than Israel's), boasts the best educated work force on the continent, has the closest military and diplomatic ties with the US and NATO of any state in the Near East, and the lowest percentage of sympathizers of terror or terror groups within its general population of any Muslim nation on the face of the earth, estimated at less than 2% of total population. More imporantly, it has the largest uranium reserves in the region... large enough to produce 800,000 tons of processed uranium per year, given the right industrial capacities and upgrades.
Can the US, which is always looking "long term" when it comes to the Middle East, afford to let the goodwill of the Jordanian people and government slip away, knowing the resources they control within the region?
Hats off to Netanyahu for making the trip and building the bridges between Tel Aviv and Amman even stronger than they were... but what a sad statement this makes of Obama's actions in denying Netanyahu time during a state visit to the US and cancelling his (or Hillary's) visit to Jordan in the same year. Where are this Administration's priorities?
Not looking toward the "long term" I guess...
Netanyahu decided to make those comments while "visiting" the King Abdullah II, in Amman, Jordan.
That's right... he just decided to pop in and say HI to Abdullah II (no advance notice given by either side, mind you) and discuss the "Palestinian question" with the leader of a nation that at one time was a primary belligerent against Israel and assisting the PLO. Not that this isn't almost unprecedented all by itself... but he then feels free enough to make critical comments in public about the PA while he is visiting with the King!!!!!
How long ago was it that our President, the leader of the free world and the champion of Israeli friendship and cooperation (his words, not mine)... wouldn't even give Netanyahu the time of day, in front of the entire world's press and cameras???
Again, I ask... is there a better example of an Arab/Muslim nation that has embraced all that the West holds dear in regards to democratic process and the free exchange of ideas and goods than the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or its leader and icon, Abdullah II? It has the fastest growing economy in the Arab world (faster even than Israel's), boasts the best educated work force on the continent, has the closest military and diplomatic ties with the US and NATO of any state in the Near East, and the lowest percentage of sympathizers of terror or terror groups within its general population of any Muslim nation on the face of the earth, estimated at less than 2% of total population. More imporantly, it has the largest uranium reserves in the region... large enough to produce 800,000 tons of processed uranium per year, given the right industrial capacities and upgrades.
Can the US, which is always looking "long term" when it comes to the Middle East, afford to let the goodwill of the Jordanian people and government slip away, knowing the resources they control within the region?
Hats off to Netanyahu for making the trip and building the bridges between Tel Aviv and Amman even stronger than they were... but what a sad statement this makes of Obama's actions in denying Netanyahu time during a state visit to the US and cancelling his (or Hillary's) visit to Jordan in the same year. Where are this Administration's priorities?
Not looking toward the "long term" I guess...
The dangers of "monopoly"...
So, Mic the Dog (not to be confused with Mick the Lib, my Irish drinking buddy) had to go to the vet today. My only day off in probably 21 days, and I spend 90 minutes of it at the vet's office because Mic has a cracked tooth that has absessed out into his face. Very gross, and undoubtedly very uncomfortable for the dog.
The point of the post is that, here in Wyoming County, PA, there is only ONE veternarian... Dr. Mac (another Irish-American in a "sea" of northeast Irish descent). His office is ALWAYS packed, the wait is almost unbearable (for me... its worse for the dog), and his prices for services are outrageous in the extreme. For the visit alone... $75. Examination, diagnosis, and perscription... another $88. After the Commonwealth tacks on its fees and taxes, the bill for that 90 minutes is more than $175... and the dog now needs a tooth extracted to clear up the problem once and for all.
I have told ALL three kids here that, because they love animals AND spending money... they should all go to Veterinary School (offered through the University of Scranton... a Jesuit school, no less) and open an office directly across the street from Dr. Mac and run the man right out of business by offering fair, competitive pricing and services and give the people of the county a much needed example of "free market" pricing. They'll be rich beyond their dreams in no time, and wildly successfull for decades to come... without gouging the consumer in the process.
I can't blame Obama for this... but it is a good graphic example of how the "free market" is supposed to work, and when that service or good is provided through only ONE outlet (i.e. the GOVERNMENT)... the consumer suffers.
That means I suffer.
The point of the post is that, here in Wyoming County, PA, there is only ONE veternarian... Dr. Mac (another Irish-American in a "sea" of northeast Irish descent). His office is ALWAYS packed, the wait is almost unbearable (for me... its worse for the dog), and his prices for services are outrageous in the extreme. For the visit alone... $75. Examination, diagnosis, and perscription... another $88. After the Commonwealth tacks on its fees and taxes, the bill for that 90 minutes is more than $175... and the dog now needs a tooth extracted to clear up the problem once and for all.
I have told ALL three kids here that, because they love animals AND spending money... they should all go to Veterinary School (offered through the University of Scranton... a Jesuit school, no less) and open an office directly across the street from Dr. Mac and run the man right out of business by offering fair, competitive pricing and services and give the people of the county a much needed example of "free market" pricing. They'll be rich beyond their dreams in no time, and wildly successfull for decades to come... without gouging the consumer in the process.
I can't blame Obama for this... but it is a good graphic example of how the "free market" is supposed to work, and when that service or good is provided through only ONE outlet (i.e. the GOVERNMENT)... the consumer suffers.
That means I suffer.
Watched it...
Too bad that wasn't a Netflix view... the nine-minute segments are distracting.
The show made me think though... is there another time in history when one man has had the ability to play the "thorn in the side" of our nation the way bin Laden has? I don't want to make unjust comparisons or give undue credit or glory to a pig like this, but his role in American history since 1993 seems almost unparalleled. Who would be a good comparison? John Brown in the 1850's? Or is he America's version of Guy Fawkes? Will his death eventually be celebrated in the US the way November 5th is in England?
This thought leads me to another...
Reports are becoming more and more common of gun fights and bombings in the border towns along the Mexican-side of the southern border. Reports of "mass graves" of dozens of torture victims have been found, threats against police and law enforcement personnel, and the ever-present cries against the number of "guns" the bandits have in their possession are heard almost daily on the radio. There is the very real possibility that as many as 32 Americans have been killed in the drug-trafficking violence these bandito-gangs are instigating, and these people have been killed on both sides of the fence.
Now, this sort of violence does have an historical parallel... the raids by Pancho Villa into New Mexico and Texas in 1916, which led to the punitive expedition of five thousand American troops led by Gen "Blackjack" Pershing into Mexico to stop the cross-border violence. In fact, Jambo and I, in our youth, counted among our friends and fellow ice-fishing "buddies" one classmate's grandfather, John Oshenbauer, who went with the Pershing expedition as a mechanic on the newly-deployed Army Air Corps' Curtiss "Jennys". Besides having fought in WWI (again, an airplane mechanic and someone who had met and shook hands with Eddie Rickenbacker), he also was a veteran of America's last "invasion" of Mexico... and I will always remember talking to him about his memories of that time.
The parallel isn't complete, of course... we didn't catch Villa (he was assassinated)... but we did stop the cross-border attacks and forced the Mexican Revolutionary Government to address the violence in the northern states. The analogy is even a bit better than that, though... Villa would never have attacked the US had Wilson not overturned GOP policy with Mexico and revoked support of the established Mexican government and instead decided to support the "revolution" in hopes of ending conflict, which made Villa a "revolutionary" overnight, rather than an ally of the US. Now, nearly 100 years later, Pancho Villa is a reverred name in both Mexico and the US, even thought he attacked civilians and burned at least two unarmed American towns to the ground and killed at least 24 American civilians. More examples of radical "Democratic" policy bringing death and destruction to Americans, I guess.
So, anyway... I'm OFF today (my first day off since we opened on the 11th), and I'm looking at a six-day schedule for the forseeable future... better than nothing, believe me.
The show made me think though... is there another time in history when one man has had the ability to play the "thorn in the side" of our nation the way bin Laden has? I don't want to make unjust comparisons or give undue credit or glory to a pig like this, but his role in American history since 1993 seems almost unparalleled. Who would be a good comparison? John Brown in the 1850's? Or is he America's version of Guy Fawkes? Will his death eventually be celebrated in the US the way November 5th is in England?
This thought leads me to another...
Reports are becoming more and more common of gun fights and bombings in the border towns along the Mexican-side of the southern border. Reports of "mass graves" of dozens of torture victims have been found, threats against police and law enforcement personnel, and the ever-present cries against the number of "guns" the bandits have in their possession are heard almost daily on the radio. There is the very real possibility that as many as 32 Americans have been killed in the drug-trafficking violence these bandito-gangs are instigating, and these people have been killed on both sides of the fence.
Now, this sort of violence does have an historical parallel... the raids by Pancho Villa into New Mexico and Texas in 1916, which led to the punitive expedition of five thousand American troops led by Gen "Blackjack" Pershing into Mexico to stop the cross-border violence. In fact, Jambo and I, in our youth, counted among our friends and fellow ice-fishing "buddies" one classmate's grandfather, John Oshenbauer, who went with the Pershing expedition as a mechanic on the newly-deployed Army Air Corps' Curtiss "Jennys". Besides having fought in WWI (again, an airplane mechanic and someone who had met and shook hands with Eddie Rickenbacker), he also was a veteran of America's last "invasion" of Mexico... and I will always remember talking to him about his memories of that time.
The parallel isn't complete, of course... we didn't catch Villa (he was assassinated)... but we did stop the cross-border attacks and forced the Mexican Revolutionary Government to address the violence in the northern states. The analogy is even a bit better than that, though... Villa would never have attacked the US had Wilson not overturned GOP policy with Mexico and revoked support of the established Mexican government and instead decided to support the "revolution" in hopes of ending conflict, which made Villa a "revolutionary" overnight, rather than an ally of the US. Now, nearly 100 years later, Pancho Villa is a reverred name in both Mexico and the US, even thought he attacked civilians and burned at least two unarmed American towns to the ground and killed at least 24 American civilians. More examples of radical "Democratic" policy bringing death and destruction to Americans, I guess.
So, anyway... I'm OFF today (my first day off since we opened on the 11th), and I'm looking at a six-day schedule for the forseeable future... better than nothing, believe me.
Dude!
Where's my country???
Set aside your feabile concerns of Obama's socialist agenda; care not for Pelosi's attempts to nationalize all, from health care to bird house making; and cast away worries of a Reid reelection - I have evidence the apocalypse is nigh! At approximately 2:58am West Coast Time, 27 July, in the Year of Our Lord 2010, I witnessed a travesty. As any red blooded American male I was dutifully watching ESPN's Top 10 Plays of the Week. Of course the no-hitter was number one, but coming in at #4, NUMBER FOUR I SAY, was a cricket play. CRICKET! Apparently some "outfielder" dressed like a wealthy widow at the Kentucky Derby, complete with wide brim hat, sunglasses and a scarf (I sh*t you not), was able to catch a ball from a remarkable 30 feet away. They all high-fived him and dumped chilled Earl Gray on his head.
I would rather watch womens' golf. At least then I'd be assured some testosterone fueled aggression.
Set aside your feabile concerns of Obama's socialist agenda; care not for Pelosi's attempts to nationalize all, from health care to bird house making; and cast away worries of a Reid reelection - I have evidence the apocalypse is nigh! At approximately 2:58am West Coast Time, 27 July, in the Year of Our Lord 2010, I witnessed a travesty. As any red blooded American male I was dutifully watching ESPN's Top 10 Plays of the Week. Of course the no-hitter was number one, but coming in at #4, NUMBER FOUR I SAY, was a cricket play. CRICKET! Apparently some "outfielder" dressed like a wealthy widow at the Kentucky Derby, complete with wide brim hat, sunglasses and a scarf (I sh*t you not), was able to catch a ball from a remarkable 30 feet away. They all high-fived him and dumped chilled Earl Gray on his head.
I would rather watch womens' golf. At least then I'd be assured some testosterone fueled aggression.
Monday, July 26, 2010
You Tube to the rescue!
No, no, fine. You can say you're not a fan. Just seemed odd to me - tons of compliments, then "I'm not a fan." Just seemed to me that you were not a fan of being a fan, is all. Then again this drive into work isn't that long in the running, and given you are seemingly force fed Beck given the satellite line up and your current schedule, perhaps with more exposure via the drive you'll eventually become a "fan"(or cop to it ... hehe). In retrospect were I smart about it I would of told you I hate the guy, which is sure to have brought you quickly to his defense as the golden child. And yes, he and his crew are genuinely laugh out loud funny. At any rate, unless I'm looking at a check I'm done running PR for him ... TO THE VIDEO TAPE!
I have located via the web "10 Ways To Kill Bin Laden." It's YouTube, so the program is broken into 10, nine minute (ish) parts (the last is just under 7 minutes). But it's pristine video & picks up perfectly where the last left off, with the sole exception of part 9. After clicking play on part 9, skip to 6:58 in and when you hear the special forces operator being interviewed say "these are some bad dudes", you're golden, right where you left off on part 8. That's the only adjustment throughout.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
I know Titus won't have the time to view for a day or two (or 18), but when you get the chance, watch. Then we'll have a common frame of reference for which to engage a thread, and it's a worth while documentary.
I have located via the web "10 Ways To Kill Bin Laden." It's YouTube, so the program is broken into 10, nine minute (ish) parts (the last is just under 7 minutes). But it's pristine video & picks up perfectly where the last left off, with the sole exception of part 9. After clicking play on part 9, skip to 6:58 in and when you hear the special forces operator being interviewed say "these are some bad dudes", you're golden, right where you left off on part 8. That's the only adjustment throughout.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
I know Titus won't have the time to view for a day or two (or 18), but when you get the chance, watch. Then we'll have a common frame of reference for which to engage a thread, and it's a worth while documentary.
Harshed again, huh?
Come on, man... I can't even say "I'm not a fan"? Another example of Titus being intellectually "dishonest"?
He's funny when he wants to be, I'll give him that... and his side-kicks are even funnier (I think one is called Stew (sp?)) but as I said, he fancies himself a prognosticator and self-taught analyst while routinely making some pretty basic mistakes in his historical facts. Don't his errors in historical understanding allow me to question his ability to predict future events?
I'll say this, he doesn't "pretend" to be a political expert on anything, and he never quits saying it. His is pure opinion based on information that is readily available to anyone who cares to read it. I like how he took the criticism of the "left" about his now well-diagnosed eye problem and mocked them mercilessly with it for nearly a week... and that was funny stuff. I certainly don't begrudge him his success... its well earned. I also get a real kick out of the references the guys make all the time... they are right from my own memories and experiences (Romper Room, Star Wars, Scooby Doo, etc).
I'm still convinced that, if I want insightful historical analysis of current events wrapped up in humor and hyperbole... I'll take Mike Church on my ride to work all day long. I don't agree with Mike on everything, either (he strikes me as a solid and unwavering Libertarian), but his understanding of history rivals our own and I really enjoyed his documentaries on the Constitution and Revolutionary period. Call it my "secret" pleasure... like Ryan's enjoyment of Savage Nation... harmless.
He's funny when he wants to be, I'll give him that... and his side-kicks are even funnier (I think one is called Stew (sp?)) but as I said, he fancies himself a prognosticator and self-taught analyst while routinely making some pretty basic mistakes in his historical facts. Don't his errors in historical understanding allow me to question his ability to predict future events?
I'll say this, he doesn't "pretend" to be a political expert on anything, and he never quits saying it. His is pure opinion based on information that is readily available to anyone who cares to read it. I like how he took the criticism of the "left" about his now well-diagnosed eye problem and mocked them mercilessly with it for nearly a week... and that was funny stuff. I certainly don't begrudge him his success... its well earned. I also get a real kick out of the references the guys make all the time... they are right from my own memories and experiences (Romper Room, Star Wars, Scooby Doo, etc).
I'm still convinced that, if I want insightful historical analysis of current events wrapped up in humor and hyperbole... I'll take Mike Church on my ride to work all day long. I don't agree with Mike on everything, either (he strikes me as a solid and unwavering Libertarian), but his understanding of history rivals our own and I really enjoyed his documentaries on the Constitution and Revolutionary period. Call it my "secret" pleasure... like Ryan's enjoyment of Savage Nation... harmless.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
It's the official Elvis impersonation weekend on Freemont Street here in town ...
... and I don't give a sh*t.
Look, there is an excellent History Channel documentary entitled "10 WAYS TO KILL BIN LADEN", that first aired just last month. I caught/recorded it last night. It's a fantastic program. I'd liken it to the "kill Osama" version of Bush's War. It documents the 10 organized attempts by the US government to capture/kill the most wanted man in the world, from 1998 through Tora Bora, up till more recent events. It's worth the inside look of the upgraded, classified AC-130 Gun Ship alone, but I think you'll find this a very good account and critique of the efforts to hunt him down. The near misses and unwillingness to pull the trigger on missions/men/material is bipartisan and utterly maddening to the viewer. Id call this one as a Bund "must see." Problem is I can't find a reliable source to view it online. The History Channel itself only offers it on dvd, too busy airing "Ice Road Truckers" I presume, oy.
At any rate, when you get a day off sometime in 2011 Titus, or Jambo, or even the occasional reader of this site, if any of you can find a reliable port of view a link to it here would be much appreciated.
Look, there is an excellent History Channel documentary entitled "10 WAYS TO KILL BIN LADEN", that first aired just last month. I caught/recorded it last night. It's a fantastic program. I'd liken it to the "kill Osama" version of Bush's War. It documents the 10 organized attempts by the US government to capture/kill the most wanted man in the world, from 1998 through Tora Bora, up till more recent events. It's worth the inside look of the upgraded, classified AC-130 Gun Ship alone, but I think you'll find this a very good account and critique of the efforts to hunt him down. The near misses and unwillingness to pull the trigger on missions/men/material is bipartisan and utterly maddening to the viewer. Id call this one as a Bund "must see." Problem is I can't find a reliable source to view it online. The History Channel itself only offers it on dvd, too busy airing "Ice Road Truckers" I presume, oy.
At any rate, when you get a day off sometime in 2011 Titus, or Jambo, or even the occasional reader of this site, if any of you can find a reliable port of view a link to it here would be much appreciated.
Ok?
Let me just see if I've got this ... you think Beck is funny, entertaining, you like the topics, and you agree with him on much of what he says, and you're not a fan.
Ummm ... ok.
Look, it's no secret he's my favorite talk radio host. But that's what he is (and he even reiterated this on his television program the other day) - "Ten years ago I was a friggin top 40 DJ, if I can educate myself, dammit, so can you." It is a reoccurring theme in both his radio and tv program - "I'm not an expert, I'm self educated, and I read profusely. I'm doing the best I can to tell you what I see coming." Sound like any other group? Rhymes with GrivewayGund? The religious aspects (he's Mormon) make me wince a little too (though that has more to do with me than him I suspect). That has been more and more in the making. And since it wasn't there a few years ago I assume he is simply reflecting his personal journey as religion becomes more central in his own life. Hell, if it was your job to immerse yourself 24 hours in the direction this nation is going via Obama and the historical left, how could you not turn to religion just to preserve your own sanity?
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure how you can "not be a fan" of a self educated (ing), self deprecating, funny radio host that actually talks about (in great detail in many shows) 18th and 19th Century history, rather then just responding to what Pelosi said last Thursday, or some other inane Hannitty-esque line of dialogue. I mean he talks more history, I mean actual historic discussions, then Limbaugh, Hannity & Church combined. And if you ask me that's why he's on track to overtake Hannity on radio (he has already on television). He offers more to the educated (self or otherwise) listener then what's hot that week. And even when he does get into what's hot that week his take often has its' roots in a historical perspective.
Put it this way (this is the day I stopped listening to Hannity altogether): when the Sonya Sotameyer (sp?) Supreme Court nomination was getting under way, Hannity opened with Sonja's "wise Latino woman" comments and went right in to her "liberal agenda" that was sure to follow any confirmation. Beck? On that same day he opened with those comments and went directly into black Revolutionary War heroes, followed up on his television program with an all black audience that was three kinds of pissed that all these numerous black American historical figures (which Beck had no less than 3 professors machine gun firing out the dates, names & acts of) had been literally expunged from their own public education growing up. All to demonstrate that "victimhood" became the business of the left, of progressives, in order to gain the allegiance of minorities; because after all you can't effectively beat up on America as racist and a "white man's history" if you pepper the youth's education with black/minority historical figures whom helped shape the nation. And that's how you end up with a Sonja Meyer thinking minorities are some how separate new comers to the American experiment.
Which approach do you find more appealing?
Look, I'm not trying to defend Beck because he's Mormon (he's a much better Mormon than I, I assure you). Or because of ideological agreeance (I'm sure Hannity & I are eye to eye on nearly everything ideologically). The reason I'm advocating his appeal here is THIS is exactly the type of programming/approach to issues that we take, that we have long lamented is missing from mainstream news/discussion programming. If he got some dates wrong (& believe me, he knows the Constitution was framed in 1787), fine, call him on it in your car to yourself, on the phone literally, or here. Disagree on his historical points or take? Fine. Do it often and loudly here or anywhere else. The point is he is ACTUALLY discussing the topics of the day in a historical context based on the self education of disciplined reading habits. Who else is doing that? Name him.
We've been friends a solid decade, so let me just make an observation here Titus - and before you jump all over it, mull it over a minute ... or two. I think you don't like the idea of you being a "fan" of a guy/program that is so commercially popular/successful. It's distasteful to your palette. That idea is a bit too "common" for you. You couldn't possibly be a fan of "that guy" - that's not how you see yourself. And I'm not making a dig, hubris is a trademark of this little group, and that's fine. I just want you to consider that "being a fan" doesn't fit neatly into your self view, and the fact that you are a fan is thus rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, you expend multiple superlatives complimenting him, all building up to a rejection. Curious to say the least. I'm not his PR rep, I just don't want you to dismiss the very type of program we've called for, for how many years now? That's all.
Ummm ... ok.
Look, it's no secret he's my favorite talk radio host. But that's what he is (and he even reiterated this on his television program the other day) - "Ten years ago I was a friggin top 40 DJ, if I can educate myself, dammit, so can you." It is a reoccurring theme in both his radio and tv program - "I'm not an expert, I'm self educated, and I read profusely. I'm doing the best I can to tell you what I see coming." Sound like any other group? Rhymes with GrivewayGund? The religious aspects (he's Mormon) make me wince a little too (though that has more to do with me than him I suspect). That has been more and more in the making. And since it wasn't there a few years ago I assume he is simply reflecting his personal journey as religion becomes more central in his own life. Hell, if it was your job to immerse yourself 24 hours in the direction this nation is going via Obama and the historical left, how could you not turn to religion just to preserve your own sanity?
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure how you can "not be a fan" of a self educated (ing), self deprecating, funny radio host that actually talks about (in great detail in many shows) 18th and 19th Century history, rather then just responding to what Pelosi said last Thursday, or some other inane Hannitty-esque line of dialogue. I mean he talks more history, I mean actual historic discussions, then Limbaugh, Hannity & Church combined. And if you ask me that's why he's on track to overtake Hannity on radio (he has already on television). He offers more to the educated (self or otherwise) listener then what's hot that week. And even when he does get into what's hot that week his take often has its' roots in a historical perspective.
Put it this way (this is the day I stopped listening to Hannity altogether): when the Sonya Sotameyer (sp?) Supreme Court nomination was getting under way, Hannity opened with Sonja's "wise Latino woman" comments and went right in to her "liberal agenda" that was sure to follow any confirmation. Beck? On that same day he opened with those comments and went directly into black Revolutionary War heroes, followed up on his television program with an all black audience that was three kinds of pissed that all these numerous black American historical figures (which Beck had no less than 3 professors machine gun firing out the dates, names & acts of) had been literally expunged from their own public education growing up. All to demonstrate that "victimhood" became the business of the left, of progressives, in order to gain the allegiance of minorities; because after all you can't effectively beat up on America as racist and a "white man's history" if you pepper the youth's education with black/minority historical figures whom helped shape the nation. And that's how you end up with a Sonja Meyer thinking minorities are some how separate new comers to the American experiment.
Which approach do you find more appealing?
Look, I'm not trying to defend Beck because he's Mormon (he's a much better Mormon than I, I assure you). Or because of ideological agreeance (I'm sure Hannity & I are eye to eye on nearly everything ideologically). The reason I'm advocating his appeal here is THIS is exactly the type of programming/approach to issues that we take, that we have long lamented is missing from mainstream news/discussion programming. If he got some dates wrong (& believe me, he knows the Constitution was framed in 1787), fine, call him on it in your car to yourself, on the phone literally, or here. Disagree on his historical points or take? Fine. Do it often and loudly here or anywhere else. The point is he is ACTUALLY discussing the topics of the day in a historical context based on the self education of disciplined reading habits. Who else is doing that? Name him.
We've been friends a solid decade, so let me just make an observation here Titus - and before you jump all over it, mull it over a minute ... or two. I think you don't like the idea of you being a "fan" of a guy/program that is so commercially popular/successful. It's distasteful to your palette. That idea is a bit too "common" for you. You couldn't possibly be a fan of "that guy" - that's not how you see yourself. And I'm not making a dig, hubris is a trademark of this little group, and that's fine. I just want you to consider that "being a fan" doesn't fit neatly into your self view, and the fact that you are a fan is thus rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, you expend multiple superlatives complimenting him, all building up to a rejection. Curious to say the least. I'm not his PR rep, I just don't want you to dismiss the very type of program we've called for, for how many years now? That's all.
Another plus to PA gaming...
Ryan's post reminded me... one of the issues we've had here in NEPA is that we can't open all the games we need because we don't have enough floors. We don't have enough floors because the Commonwealth determined that a single floor can't watch more than FOUR snapper/monkey games, TWO craps games, THREE roulette, or FIVE poker tables, by law. The days of my watching six, seven or eight games seems to be over, thanks to the ultra-regulation of Big Government (ala Ed Rendel, D-PA). Thanks, Ed.
With me working all the OT that I am, I have almost no time to cruise the Internet for news and hot-topic items... I get it all from the two hours of commute that I do to and from work with my satellite radio. They re-arranged the radio schedule for Glenn Beck, which means one of my favorite shows (The Mike Church Show) got moved up to the 6-9 spot, so I go into work with Beck and come home with either NRA News or the Rusty Humphries Show. Beck is funny and very entertaining, but he does pump a lot of "religion" into his program. That's fine, and is undoubtedly a big piece of why he is rapidly overtaking Hannity for the #2 spot on talk radio popularity... I'm just not a fan. I like the humor, I like the topics, but the "spirituality" part I could do without. What bugs me most are the historical inaccuracies that keep popping up in his analogies over and over again. Roosevelt's "Progressive Party" didn't divide the GOP vote in 1811, the Constitution wasn't signed into being in 1776, and there is no "chartered" separation of "church and state" written into the founding documents of this nation outside of the prohibition of Congress to "establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof". I agree with much of what he says, and I know that much of the "mistakes" he makes are just that... mistakes. But when the mistakes are that common, it makes it hard to take him as seriously as I think he'd like me to.
Well, that's it for today... I'm off to shit, shower and shave for another 12+ hour adventure in gaming excitement.
With me working all the OT that I am, I have almost no time to cruise the Internet for news and hot-topic items... I get it all from the two hours of commute that I do to and from work with my satellite radio. They re-arranged the radio schedule for Glenn Beck, which means one of my favorite shows (The Mike Church Show) got moved up to the 6-9 spot, so I go into work with Beck and come home with either NRA News or the Rusty Humphries Show. Beck is funny and very entertaining, but he does pump a lot of "religion" into his program. That's fine, and is undoubtedly a big piece of why he is rapidly overtaking Hannity for the #2 spot on talk radio popularity... I'm just not a fan. I like the humor, I like the topics, but the "spirituality" part I could do without. What bugs me most are the historical inaccuracies that keep popping up in his analogies over and over again. Roosevelt's "Progressive Party" didn't divide the GOP vote in 1811, the Constitution wasn't signed into being in 1776, and there is no "chartered" separation of "church and state" written into the founding documents of this nation outside of the prohibition of Congress to "establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof". I agree with much of what he says, and I know that much of the "mistakes" he makes are just that... mistakes. But when the mistakes are that common, it makes it hard to take him as seriously as I think he'd like me to.
Well, that's it for today... I'm off to shit, shower and shave for another 12+ hour adventure in gaming excitement.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Don't expect improvements and you wont be dissapointed ...
A thought about Shirley Sherrod (sorta), but first a couple of things -
I was going to ask, after all the opening house troubles you described, if your joint was owned by Harrah's, but as I read on I became convinced of it. And as such, let me say, that's s.o.p. for that group in this brave new gaming world - see post title here. My place has been around for 40+ years, owned by Harrah's for 4+, and we have floor on salary whom get paid zero OT, yet if they call-in they're prorated and docked a day's salary. "They can't do that", you might say. Oh ya? Who's going to stop them? They are Harrah's, this is Nevada. Case closed. Now I should add that the floor's "OT" is compulated and months down the road, at the joint's discretion, they give them days off to make up for the extra work. Problem is they measure it in "hours", so you may be 2 hours into your shift and they say, "take off, we're paying you back 6 hours", leaving no time to make plans, or utilize the time to the best of your ability as you would were it a scheduled extra day off. Sometimes in the door they tell em' to take off for the night. Why do I care? The floor are miserable. During football they work 14, 16 days in a row and their pay check is NONE the heavier for it. Not to mention they watch an average of 8 - 10 games now, even in the carney pit. Try getting a high end player rated within 90 minutes of sitting down - impossible. Last night I had a "7 Star" our highest card (save one card printed for one guy, once) sit down. The pit boss (or "back up ASM" as they're called) was standing in the middle of the pit, near me. And since it had been 20 minutes sitting there (the card) I said, "hey [enter name], you mind swiping this, she (the floor) is pretty busy." In front of the players and everyone the answer was, "No, she'll get to it." The ASM's are on the same salary fiasco as the floor - this guy had all the work beaten out of him. Along with the pencil being the only one with the authority to pull a lid in this mammoth place; the unnecessary OT; restricted comp offerings; you're just a number (& I mean the players) mentatlity, this is the sad state of affairs we're now in. Again, see post title.
***
Do you know that if facebook were a country it would be the third most populous nation on earth? It surpassed the 500,000,000 member mark. Seriously? All that for "Mikey is getting geared up for Friday!" - who cares? Perhaps it's just me, but I find these social networking sites about as irritating as people whom choose a "tag line" for their text messages which is then included at the end of each text. I mean, is part of the text? Is it code? What the hell are you trying to say? Then you realize - it's a f***ing tag line. Dear Lord in Heaven, really? Is that how you saw yourself as a young boy? Growing up and having a tag line? These are all countless individuals for whom a few years in the service would have done them a world of good. Granted, between this site and a few weekly familial phone calls I talk to everyone in my life I enjoy talking to. But for the love of, I actually had a girl at work, with obvious interest in me, request I "look her up" on facebook. She actually wanted me to proceed to the next step via facebook. I thought it was a joke, a quasi-brush off, but she wrote down her last name to give me the proper spelling. Does it occur to anyone else here that she could have simply written down her cell number? It didn't occur to her. That's what "fb" is to me - a filter. If you (as an available female) suggest I contact you via a web social network then to quote Seinfeld's Soup Nazi: "NEXT!" I'm inclined to agree with one of my favorite broads on this, Betty White - "I had no idea what a facebook was. Now that I do I know it's a waste of time."
****
On Sherrod, just a slight follow up.
Anderson Cooper, of CNN, gave a rather well put together monologue on the vagaries of "fractionalized journalism." He condemned the left repeatedly as he also took apart the Brietbarts of the web (the conservative blogger extraordinaire who originally posted the Sherrod comments somewhat out of context); and lamented how journalism, real journalism (a term I loathe, as do we all), is more and more a rare commodity. I heard all this and was all ready to say hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and in his zeal to rebuff the NAACP Tea Party resolution Breitbart (a Tea Party advocate) should have vetted the video piece a bit more. And then (enter ominous music) I hear on NPR, of all places, that (in all seriousness) Anderson Cooper is putting out a new fragrance, a perfume' - "Coop."
Oh how quickly the high horse turns into a Shetland.
Yes (Irish accent please), I remember sitting fondly at mee' grandfather's knee as he went on about "Cronkite Cologne", and as the powerful musk permeated my ol factory senses I sat thinking to myself, "one day I'll smell like that and be a real man, and if I'm lucky, a real journalist."
What was it Andy? "Essence of Jennings" was such a cash cow that you couldn't resist? Next time there Coopster, check the el fragrance de coopi'er at the door when you set out to climb up reporter mountain and hand out journalism commandments from on high.
And I'll only add that if you buy this cologne you should be summarily sterilized, for you have clearly proven unfit for procreation.
I was going to ask, after all the opening house troubles you described, if your joint was owned by Harrah's, but as I read on I became convinced of it. And as such, let me say, that's s.o.p. for that group in this brave new gaming world - see post title here. My place has been around for 40+ years, owned by Harrah's for 4+, and we have floor on salary whom get paid zero OT, yet if they call-in they're prorated and docked a day's salary. "They can't do that", you might say. Oh ya? Who's going to stop them? They are Harrah's, this is Nevada. Case closed. Now I should add that the floor's "OT" is compulated and months down the road, at the joint's discretion, they give them days off to make up for the extra work. Problem is they measure it in "hours", so you may be 2 hours into your shift and they say, "take off, we're paying you back 6 hours", leaving no time to make plans, or utilize the time to the best of your ability as you would were it a scheduled extra day off. Sometimes in the door they tell em' to take off for the night. Why do I care? The floor are miserable. During football they work 14, 16 days in a row and their pay check is NONE the heavier for it. Not to mention they watch an average of 8 - 10 games now, even in the carney pit. Try getting a high end player rated within 90 minutes of sitting down - impossible. Last night I had a "7 Star" our highest card (save one card printed for one guy, once) sit down. The pit boss (or "back up ASM" as they're called) was standing in the middle of the pit, near me. And since it had been 20 minutes sitting there (the card) I said, "hey [enter name], you mind swiping this, she (the floor) is pretty busy." In front of the players and everyone the answer was, "No, she'll get to it." The ASM's are on the same salary fiasco as the floor - this guy had all the work beaten out of him. Along with the pencil being the only one with the authority to pull a lid in this mammoth place; the unnecessary OT; restricted comp offerings; you're just a number (& I mean the players) mentatlity, this is the sad state of affairs we're now in. Again, see post title.
***
Do you know that if facebook were a country it would be the third most populous nation on earth? It surpassed the 500,000,000 member mark. Seriously? All that for "Mikey is getting geared up for Friday!" - who cares? Perhaps it's just me, but I find these social networking sites about as irritating as people whom choose a "tag line" for their text messages which is then included at the end of each text. I mean, is part of the text? Is it code? What the hell are you trying to say? Then you realize - it's a f***ing tag line. Dear Lord in Heaven, really? Is that how you saw yourself as a young boy? Growing up and having a tag line? These are all countless individuals for whom a few years in the service would have done them a world of good. Granted, between this site and a few weekly familial phone calls I talk to everyone in my life I enjoy talking to. But for the love of, I actually had a girl at work, with obvious interest in me, request I "look her up" on facebook. She actually wanted me to proceed to the next step via facebook. I thought it was a joke, a quasi-brush off, but she wrote down her last name to give me the proper spelling. Does it occur to anyone else here that she could have simply written down her cell number? It didn't occur to her. That's what "fb" is to me - a filter. If you (as an available female) suggest I contact you via a web social network then to quote Seinfeld's Soup Nazi: "NEXT!" I'm inclined to agree with one of my favorite broads on this, Betty White - "I had no idea what a facebook was. Now that I do I know it's a waste of time."
****
On Sherrod, just a slight follow up.
Anderson Cooper, of CNN, gave a rather well put together monologue on the vagaries of "fractionalized journalism." He condemned the left repeatedly as he also took apart the Brietbarts of the web (the conservative blogger extraordinaire who originally posted the Sherrod comments somewhat out of context); and lamented how journalism, real journalism (a term I loathe, as do we all), is more and more a rare commodity. I heard all this and was all ready to say hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and in his zeal to rebuff the NAACP Tea Party resolution Breitbart (a Tea Party advocate) should have vetted the video piece a bit more. And then (enter ominous music) I hear on NPR, of all places, that (in all seriousness) Anderson Cooper is putting out a new fragrance, a perfume' - "Coop."
Oh how quickly the high horse turns into a Shetland.
Yes (Irish accent please), I remember sitting fondly at mee' grandfather's knee as he went on about "Cronkite Cologne", and as the powerful musk permeated my ol factory senses I sat thinking to myself, "one day I'll smell like that and be a real man, and if I'm lucky, a real journalist."
What was it Andy? "Essence of Jennings" was such a cash cow that you couldn't resist? Next time there Coopster, check the el fragrance de coopi'er at the door when you set out to climb up reporter mountain and hand out journalism commandments from on high.
And I'll only add that if you buy this cologne you should be summarily sterilized, for you have clearly proven unfit for procreation.
Jambo's right...
Casino openings are for the young, and I'm not young anymore.
Up sides? I'm getting lots of expereince in poker, and working the poker room is way more fun than I would have thought. The poker manager is a competent (if somewhat young) person with tons of common sense and a great personality for managing the nasty sort of people that typically fill a poker room. I'm surrounded by peers that either have NO experience (newly promoted dealers who've never floored before) or experienced people who aren't any good at their jobs... either way, I look like a super-star because the others look like idiots or break-ins.
We are starting to work out the kinks that never should have been there in the first place, too. For example (and this is for those that know the business... the rest will have to pardon my "shop talk"), the manner by which a table was closed was so convoluted and complicated that it could take upwards of 50 minutes to secure a lid on a game... and if you are waiting on that lid to go home, you know how important that is. Now, they seem to have realized their mistakes and are streamlining the process by which the job is done, so that far fewer names need go on the closer and the right people are doing the paperwork.
Down sides are that there is a real disconnect between the front-line and the shift bosses. The guys calling the shots seem to want to leave all the minute-to-minute decision making calls to the pit bosses, but they are looking for guidance from the shifts, and things are left undone or undecided because of it. I'm no fan of "micromanaging" by any means, but someone has to make a call once in a while, and no one at this house (right now, anyway) is making them. Not every pit in the place is good at his or her job, and those that aren't good are not being told the right way to do it (and they haven't been fired yet), so I am left to assume that the shifts are also not doing their jobs in over-seeing the operation from on high.
Another example: We do all ratings on computer, and all table inventories are processed on computer (Bally's Table View system). This means the only drop tracked is rated drop... and we are rating perhaps 20-30% of the play. What does that mean? It means about 60% of our drop is missing from the call, and none (I mean NONE) of the pits are adding grind to the pad. We under-called our first week's cash by 52% (over $2 million on one day alone)... and I know it is always better to undercall than it is to overcall... but that has to piss the bean counters off something fierce. Imagine what the GM thought when he saw the daily call for tables when we undercalled the drop by $2 million... I'd have had heads on my desk, if it had been me.
So, I'm off to the showers for another 12-hour day. Don't wait on me to post... keep things going here and I'll do my best to keep up.
Up sides? I'm getting lots of expereince in poker, and working the poker room is way more fun than I would have thought. The poker manager is a competent (if somewhat young) person with tons of common sense and a great personality for managing the nasty sort of people that typically fill a poker room. I'm surrounded by peers that either have NO experience (newly promoted dealers who've never floored before) or experienced people who aren't any good at their jobs... either way, I look like a super-star because the others look like idiots or break-ins.
We are starting to work out the kinks that never should have been there in the first place, too. For example (and this is for those that know the business... the rest will have to pardon my "shop talk"), the manner by which a table was closed was so convoluted and complicated that it could take upwards of 50 minutes to secure a lid on a game... and if you are waiting on that lid to go home, you know how important that is. Now, they seem to have realized their mistakes and are streamlining the process by which the job is done, so that far fewer names need go on the closer and the right people are doing the paperwork.
Down sides are that there is a real disconnect between the front-line and the shift bosses. The guys calling the shots seem to want to leave all the minute-to-minute decision making calls to the pit bosses, but they are looking for guidance from the shifts, and things are left undone or undecided because of it. I'm no fan of "micromanaging" by any means, but someone has to make a call once in a while, and no one at this house (right now, anyway) is making them. Not every pit in the place is good at his or her job, and those that aren't good are not being told the right way to do it (and they haven't been fired yet), so I am left to assume that the shifts are also not doing their jobs in over-seeing the operation from on high.
Another example: We do all ratings on computer, and all table inventories are processed on computer (Bally's Table View system). This means the only drop tracked is rated drop... and we are rating perhaps 20-30% of the play. What does that mean? It means about 60% of our drop is missing from the call, and none (I mean NONE) of the pits are adding grind to the pad. We under-called our first week's cash by 52% (over $2 million on one day alone)... and I know it is always better to undercall than it is to overcall... but that has to piss the bean counters off something fierce. Imagine what the GM thought when he saw the daily call for tables when we undercalled the drop by $2 million... I'd have had heads on my desk, if it had been me.
So, I'm off to the showers for another 12-hour day. Don't wait on me to post... keep things going here and I'll do my best to keep up.
Court dates and storms...
We worked with Pilot in 2005, dude.
Funny you should bring that up, with Bonnie spinning in the Gulf, but she's only a tropical depression. What storm surge she'll push will more than likely stir up more oil concerns than flood concerns. And the more rain she drops the cooler the Gulf gets, making future storm development this season difficult. And anything that makes future storm development this season difficult, I'm supporting.
The court date for my child support adjustment was supposed to be yesterday, but my ex decided to settle. This drama has been brewing since Labor Day 2008, when the economy crapped out. The good news is I have financial breathing room. Whether or not it was worth what I had to do to get it will be decided later.
I remember my time in Coushatta, a small slice of central Louisiana heaven that cost me 1.5 years of my life but aged me a decade. What little I remember after we opened the doors, (massive labor issues due to licencing, operational obstacles due to inexperienced personnel, and a lot of 20 hour days) was stopping in a hole in the wall town named Jennings because one of my roommates had to have a beer, and waking up four hours later in my car. None of us got our beer and we had to turn around and go back to work. That crap is for the young, single and motivated. I SO no longer fit that description.
Hope you get a break soon. Nice to see you post. Call if you want, I'm off mon thurs sun next week. You too Ryan.
Funny you should bring that up, with Bonnie spinning in the Gulf, but she's only a tropical depression. What storm surge she'll push will more than likely stir up more oil concerns than flood concerns. And the more rain she drops the cooler the Gulf gets, making future storm development this season difficult. And anything that makes future storm development this season difficult, I'm supporting.
The court date for my child support adjustment was supposed to be yesterday, but my ex decided to settle. This drama has been brewing since Labor Day 2008, when the economy crapped out. The good news is I have financial breathing room. Whether or not it was worth what I had to do to get it will be decided later.
I remember my time in Coushatta, a small slice of central Louisiana heaven that cost me 1.5 years of my life but aged me a decade. What little I remember after we opened the doors, (massive labor issues due to licencing, operational obstacles due to inexperienced personnel, and a lot of 20 hour days) was stopping in a hole in the wall town named Jennings because one of my roommates had to have a beer, and waking up four hours later in my car. None of us got our beer and we had to turn around and go back to work. That crap is for the young, single and motivated. I SO no longer fit that description.
Hope you get a break soon. Nice to see you post. Call if you want, I'm off mon thurs sun next week. You too Ryan.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Eleven down, and...
Four more twelve-hour days to go before I can even think about asking for a day off. I haven't been this tired since we started with Pilot after the storm, back in '06.
Wanted to bouce one thing out there before I start the day again, though...
I am not a fan of the Sherrod stories... I think it is all a bunch of hype drummed up to take the heat off the President and the Liberal agenda, and I'm upset that it is working as well as it is, but I did hear this last night on the drive home:
Seems that right before she got her USDA position in 2009, she won a $13.9 million settlement as part of the Pigford v Glickman case, with an additional $300,000 for "pain and suffering" that none of the other $16,000 plaintiffs were awarded. So, the woman gets nearly $14 million on a Monday and by Wednesday she's sitting in a high-position office with the USDA... the very agency she sued for the money in the first place? If YOU were sued for nearly a billion dollars and the woman winning the largest share came to you looking for a job... would you give it to her?
This story stinks... bad. She gets fired for saying she allowed race "issues" to enter into her administrative duties with the USDA (perfectly legitimate, if you ask me... even if she did regret it), then gets her job offered back to her when she says it wasn't fair... then says she wants the President to call her (which he DOES!) so they can "talk". How does THAT work? Why is this woman being treated this way? She gets whatever she wants... why? So she won't say something? So she won't spill some kind of mess that will come back to haunt the Administration further?
I don't get it...
Wanted to bouce one thing out there before I start the day again, though...
I am not a fan of the Sherrod stories... I think it is all a bunch of hype drummed up to take the heat off the President and the Liberal agenda, and I'm upset that it is working as well as it is, but I did hear this last night on the drive home:
Seems that right before she got her USDA position in 2009, she won a $13.9 million settlement as part of the Pigford v Glickman case, with an additional $300,000 for "pain and suffering" that none of the other $16,000 plaintiffs were awarded. So, the woman gets nearly $14 million on a Monday and by Wednesday she's sitting in a high-position office with the USDA... the very agency she sued for the money in the first place? If YOU were sued for nearly a billion dollars and the woman winning the largest share came to you looking for a job... would you give it to her?
This story stinks... bad. She gets fired for saying she allowed race "issues" to enter into her administrative duties with the USDA (perfectly legitimate, if you ask me... even if she did regret it), then gets her job offered back to her when she says it wasn't fair... then says she wants the President to call her (which he DOES!) so they can "talk". How does THAT work? Why is this woman being treated this way? She gets whatever she wants... why? So she won't say something? So she won't spill some kind of mess that will come back to haunt the Administration further?
I don't get it...
Monday, July 19, 2010
Looking for an assist...
Here's where I'm at:
Fourteen days of 12 hours-on-12 hours-off schedules, no days off and a break every 3.5 hours... this is making for a tough couple of weeks (but lots and lots of OT money... which is nice). I haven't seen my wife or children in 3 days (they are in NJ at the shore) and I haven't had 8 hours of sleep in ten days. I've got about 20 minutes to make this post, and then I'm in the shower to get it all started again.
On the hour-long trip home and the hour long trip to work, I'm listening to satellite radio, and I've heard a lot of Glenn Beck. The last couple of days, I know Ryan has heard this too... he texted me about the same program, in which, Beck discusses (at length) the theological failings and errors of "liberation theology" as understood and practiced by Obama and many of the leading figures in "Progressive America".
I simply have no time to spend researching what I have heard Beck say... so I'm asking my Bund buddies to help. I need to know (from Jambo) what the "official" position of the Magesterium is on the Doctrine of Social Justice (I know I might have some of the texts you'll want, but there is the Internet, okay?), and a summary of what Benedict XVI has said about "liberation theology" both before and since his elevation to the papacy.
It would seem that Benedict has, at some point in the past, referred to liberation theology as "demonic" in nature, and many are trying to apply that label to Obama, which I'm not sure the Pope actually intended, but I'd like to know what he said in fact. If Obama's definition of "social justice" isn't the same as the Pope's, then there is the possibility of an actual conflict in the manner that Catholics could be viewing Obama's policies in the future... and that is no small thing, even in today's secular world. I've heard clips where Obama has said that his personal salvation hinges on his participation in a collective salvation, and if that is, indeed, what he believes to be true, then he is NOT a practicing Christian at all... Christ's sacrifice MUST BE and always WILL BE all that is needed to gain the eternal grace of God's Presence for all of us as INDIVIDUALS... there is nothing we, as individuals, can do to add to or detract from that ultimate act of charity, and there is nothing we can do as individuals to alter (one way or another) someone else's "salvation" in the eyes of God. It is a purely personal choice, and while we can influence, instruct, or offer witness to our own experiences... we cannot add to or subtract from what God has already done.
In short, there is NO "collective salvation" available to any of us, and God didn't hang on a cross for a people or a society... he did it for each and every one of us as INDIVIDUALS. NOT as a group or a collective. Furthermore, there is a grace to be found in suffering, and while it shouldn't be sought after for its own sake, it should be accepted and understood to be a tool for personal spiritual development. It should not be seen as something to be "avoided" at all costs, especially when those costs NEVER center on the individual, but rather on society.
So, there's your homework... I can't call or text from work, but I'm off just about every night at midnight, so if I can (on your days off), I can try and call you during my ride home (which is an hour, easy). Text me when your available for the call, and I'll dial you up as soon as I can.
Fourteen days of 12 hours-on-12 hours-off schedules, no days off and a break every 3.5 hours... this is making for a tough couple of weeks (but lots and lots of OT money... which is nice). I haven't seen my wife or children in 3 days (they are in NJ at the shore) and I haven't had 8 hours of sleep in ten days. I've got about 20 minutes to make this post, and then I'm in the shower to get it all started again.
On the hour-long trip home and the hour long trip to work, I'm listening to satellite radio, and I've heard a lot of Glenn Beck. The last couple of days, I know Ryan has heard this too... he texted me about the same program, in which, Beck discusses (at length) the theological failings and errors of "liberation theology" as understood and practiced by Obama and many of the leading figures in "Progressive America".
I simply have no time to spend researching what I have heard Beck say... so I'm asking my Bund buddies to help. I need to know (from Jambo) what the "official" position of the Magesterium is on the Doctrine of Social Justice (I know I might have some of the texts you'll want, but there is the Internet, okay?), and a summary of what Benedict XVI has said about "liberation theology" both before and since his elevation to the papacy.
It would seem that Benedict has, at some point in the past, referred to liberation theology as "demonic" in nature, and many are trying to apply that label to Obama, which I'm not sure the Pope actually intended, but I'd like to know what he said in fact. If Obama's definition of "social justice" isn't the same as the Pope's, then there is the possibility of an actual conflict in the manner that Catholics could be viewing Obama's policies in the future... and that is no small thing, even in today's secular world. I've heard clips where Obama has said that his personal salvation hinges on his participation in a collective salvation, and if that is, indeed, what he believes to be true, then he is NOT a practicing Christian at all... Christ's sacrifice MUST BE and always WILL BE all that is needed to gain the eternal grace of God's Presence for all of us as INDIVIDUALS... there is nothing we, as individuals, can do to add to or detract from that ultimate act of charity, and there is nothing we can do as individuals to alter (one way or another) someone else's "salvation" in the eyes of God. It is a purely personal choice, and while we can influence, instruct, or offer witness to our own experiences... we cannot add to or subtract from what God has already done.
In short, there is NO "collective salvation" available to any of us, and God didn't hang on a cross for a people or a society... he did it for each and every one of us as INDIVIDUALS. NOT as a group or a collective. Furthermore, there is a grace to be found in suffering, and while it shouldn't be sought after for its own sake, it should be accepted and understood to be a tool for personal spiritual development. It should not be seen as something to be "avoided" at all costs, especially when those costs NEVER center on the individual, but rather on society.
So, there's your homework... I can't call or text from work, but I'm off just about every night at midnight, so if I can (on your days off), I can try and call you during my ride home (which is an hour, easy). Text me when your available for the call, and I'll dial you up as soon as I can.
American Intel Inc.
"Even if they should be good [character] they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects."
-Machiavelli, on the idea of a Prince hiring mercenaries.
I'd typically just link to the site and comment, but given this report says a lot in a fairly short space, here it is ... from the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON -- Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no one really knows what it cost and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday.
A two-year investigation by the newspaper uncovered what it termed a "Top Secret America" that's mostly hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight.
In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S.
Some 854,000 people -- or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington -- have top-secret security clearance, the paper said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Post that he doesn't believe the massive bureaucracy of government and private intelligence has grown too large to manage, but it is sometimes hard to get precise information.
"Nine years after 9/11, it makes sense to sort of take a look at this and say, 'OK, we've built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?" he said.
The head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, said he knows that with the growing budget deficits the level of spending on intelligence will likely be reduced and he's at work on a five-year plan for the agency.
The White House had been anticipating the Post report and said before it was published that the Obama administration came into office aware of the problems and is trying to fix them.
The administration also released a memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence listing what it called eight "myths" and intended as a point-by-point answer to the charges the Post series was expected to raise.
Among them was that contractors represent the bulk of the intelligence workforce. The memo put the number at 28 percent, or less than a third.
The memo said that 70 percent of the intelligence budget is spent on "contracts, not contractors."
"Those contracts cover major acquisitions such as satellites and computer systems, as well as commercial activities such as rent, food service, and facilities maintenance and security," the memo said.
The Post said its investigation also found that:
--In the area around Washington, 33 building complexes -- totaling some 17 million square feet of space -- for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since 9/11.
--Many intelligence agencies are doing the same work, wasting money and resources on redundancy.
--So many intelligence reports are published each year that many are routinely ignored.
"There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that -- not just for the DNI, but for any individual, for the director of the CIA, for the secretary of defense -- is a challenge," Gates told the Post.
Just a couple points. I'm not alarmed by "redundancy" or how large the anti-terror Intel effort became after 9/11. I can't imagine the level of redundancy in each of our war efforts, WWII etc. It's a bi product of government, period. In fact a little more redundancy prior to September 2001 might have been useful.
But what did raise my eyebrow was the following sore: 1,200 versus 1,900. Really? We have over 50% more private Intel agencies in our employ than government? Isn't this tantamount to hiring private armies? I wasn't that overly concerned with the private security corps operating in Iraq et al because their number (& subsequent responsibilities) was infinitely small compared to the United States military presence. But even if it's the lower number suggested in the "counter-memo" above we're talking a full one-third of our Intel capabilities being contracted out, and the more salient point is that number is on its way up, not down. Does anyone else find that somewhat "odd", to say the very least? You may be a bit surprised that I'm concerned by this - isn't private always preferable to public means? Yes, almost. There are a few things the Founders specifically delineated to the government. There's a world of difference between private citizens volunteering to serve their nation versus private groups being contracted. And this is where my concern here is completely consistent with being a conservative/originalist - this is a product of ill-fated fiscal priorities. We have a budget so bloated with entitlements that are not provided for by our Constitution that the few things the feds are bound by our founding document to execute are facing spending dictates that include farming out national security responsibilities.
Is there any example in history in which a superpower was on an upwards trajectory once they began hiring private armies for their national defense? From the Carthaginians, to the last throws of Rome, to Revolutionary era Brits employing Hessians, this story doesn't typically end with, "and after employing a private army to defend their home land, the empire reigned for another thousand years."
-Machiavelli, on the idea of a Prince hiring mercenaries.
I'd typically just link to the site and comment, but given this report says a lot in a fairly short space, here it is ... from the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON -- Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no one really knows what it cost and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday.
A two-year investigation by the newspaper uncovered what it termed a "Top Secret America" that's mostly hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight.
In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S.
Some 854,000 people -- or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington -- have top-secret security clearance, the paper said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Post that he doesn't believe the massive bureaucracy of government and private intelligence has grown too large to manage, but it is sometimes hard to get precise information.
"Nine years after 9/11, it makes sense to sort of take a look at this and say, 'OK, we've built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?" he said.
The head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, said he knows that with the growing budget deficits the level of spending on intelligence will likely be reduced and he's at work on a five-year plan for the agency.
The White House had been anticipating the Post report and said before it was published that the Obama administration came into office aware of the problems and is trying to fix them.
The administration also released a memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence listing what it called eight "myths" and intended as a point-by-point answer to the charges the Post series was expected to raise.
Among them was that contractors represent the bulk of the intelligence workforce. The memo put the number at 28 percent, or less than a third.
The memo said that 70 percent of the intelligence budget is spent on "contracts, not contractors."
"Those contracts cover major acquisitions such as satellites and computer systems, as well as commercial activities such as rent, food service, and facilities maintenance and security," the memo said.
The Post said its investigation also found that:
--In the area around Washington, 33 building complexes -- totaling some 17 million square feet of space -- for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since 9/11.
--Many intelligence agencies are doing the same work, wasting money and resources on redundancy.
--So many intelligence reports are published each year that many are routinely ignored.
"There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that -- not just for the DNI, but for any individual, for the director of the CIA, for the secretary of defense -- is a challenge," Gates told the Post.
Just a couple points. I'm not alarmed by "redundancy" or how large the anti-terror Intel effort became after 9/11. I can't imagine the level of redundancy in each of our war efforts, WWII etc. It's a bi product of government, period. In fact a little more redundancy prior to September 2001 might have been useful.
But what did raise my eyebrow was the following sore: 1,200 versus 1,900. Really? We have over 50% more private Intel agencies in our employ than government? Isn't this tantamount to hiring private armies? I wasn't that overly concerned with the private security corps operating in Iraq et al because their number (& subsequent responsibilities) was infinitely small compared to the United States military presence. But even if it's the lower number suggested in the "counter-memo" above we're talking a full one-third of our Intel capabilities being contracted out, and the more salient point is that number is on its way up, not down. Does anyone else find that somewhat "odd", to say the very least? You may be a bit surprised that I'm concerned by this - isn't private always preferable to public means? Yes, almost. There are a few things the Founders specifically delineated to the government. There's a world of difference between private citizens volunteering to serve their nation versus private groups being contracted. And this is where my concern here is completely consistent with being a conservative/originalist - this is a product of ill-fated fiscal priorities. We have a budget so bloated with entitlements that are not provided for by our Constitution that the few things the feds are bound by our founding document to execute are facing spending dictates that include farming out national security responsibilities.
Is there any example in history in which a superpower was on an upwards trajectory once they began hiring private armies for their national defense? From the Carthaginians, to the last throws of Rome, to Revolutionary era Brits employing Hessians, this story doesn't typically end with, "and after employing a private army to defend their home land, the empire reigned for another thousand years."
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Titus ...
Great post.
Of course you could of just said "Renaissance Man", but then I wouldn't of spent several minutes reading all I could about "polymaths" and discovering they're not exactly the same.
Jambo's response (while also containing a gem of a line), raised my eyebrow, in how he chose to frame (no pun intended) his take on the question. Hmmm ... a well placed phone call must be made prior to blurting things out on what is still a public forum, no matter how comfortable we are at its' keyboard.
Funny - I wouldn't have used polymath or even Renaissance Man to describe the period man I thought worthy emulation, but after my education on your selection I see our choices are nearly identical in their essence, in what they represent as "valuable" (in my observation anyway) ... Again Titus, very good response, well composed sir.
Of course you could of just said "Renaissance Man", but then I wouldn't of spent several minutes reading all I could about "polymaths" and discovering they're not exactly the same.
Jambo's response (while also containing a gem of a line), raised my eyebrow, in how he chose to frame (no pun intended) his take on the question. Hmmm ... a well placed phone call must be made prior to blurting things out on what is still a public forum, no matter how comfortable we are at its' keyboard.
Funny - I wouldn't have used polymath or even Renaissance Man to describe the period man I thought worthy emulation, but after my education on your selection I see our choices are nearly identical in their essence, in what they represent as "valuable" (in my observation anyway) ... Again Titus, very good response, well composed sir.
Founding Fathers
Over the course of my life I've developed a growing list of things that piss me off. The very top of that list, however, remained unchanged since the beginning of my intellectual awakening.
"Those who know better and choose less."
As I get older I see that it's more and more rare to get the opportunity to REALLY live and choose better, in a qualitative way that changes everything. We solve some of the largest problems our country faces here at the Bund, offering advice, historically proving ourselves and making calls years in advance and patiently waiting for the moment when we can say, "Dude! We SO called that!"
But during the 1770s a group of men acted on intellectual principles and made it happen, at tremendous personal risk. Franklin, Adams (both), Hancock, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, you get the picture.
And what they provided wasn't just a couple of documents and a new government hierarchy. In political and real world form they fashioned the IDEA of freedom, the CONCEPT of liberty so long debated and discussed in lounges, bars and living rooms into a working model, a functioning example.
They knew there were mistakes, parameters they could and could not foresee and they factored these into the design of their system. Where this system has survived and thrived where others failed was this elasticity.
Taking the hubris free pass and leaping with it, in many many respects the Bund isn't all that different from the social groups our Founding Fathers come from. We, unfortunately, only get to exercize our ideas in our vote. They molded the foundation of a nation.
"Those who know better and choose less."
As I get older I see that it's more and more rare to get the opportunity to REALLY live and choose better, in a qualitative way that changes everything. We solve some of the largest problems our country faces here at the Bund, offering advice, historically proving ourselves and making calls years in advance and patiently waiting for the moment when we can say, "Dude! We SO called that!"
But during the 1770s a group of men acted on intellectual principles and made it happen, at tremendous personal risk. Franklin, Adams (both), Hancock, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, you get the picture.
And what they provided wasn't just a couple of documents and a new government hierarchy. In political and real world form they fashioned the IDEA of freedom, the CONCEPT of liberty so long debated and discussed in lounges, bars and living rooms into a working model, a functioning example.
They knew there were mistakes, parameters they could and could not foresee and they factored these into the design of their system. Where this system has survived and thrived where others failed was this elasticity.
Taking the hubris free pass and leaping with it, in many many respects the Bund isn't all that different from the social groups our Founding Fathers come from. We, unfortunately, only get to exercize our ideas in our vote. They molded the foundation of a nation.
It's a tough call, but...
I'd have to say that I always held the polymaths in the highest esteem, growing up and even as an adult.
I think it is something I have gotten from my family, too. My mother's father worked his entire life on the railroad for the Great Northern Line in all its incarnations (currently, the BNSF), yet at his funeral, while the parish priest was giving the eulogy, he voiced his amazement that the man could debate theology, politics or history with the best... and that his understanding of such intellectual giants as Moore, Locke and Gibbon (all of whom he had read several times) was far above the norm for even teachers and professors of the priest's acquaintance. My father and mother are both huge readers, and growing up we had a vast and varied library in the house and were routinely encouraged to read anything we wanted.
My grandfather worked hard, and enjoyed his life and family... yet still worked daily to improve himself, too. George Linus Keeney (his real name) was also an alcoholic who was incapable of controlling his drinking, and because of this he did make mistakes in his life... but he is remembered fondly and lovingly by all his surviving family and friends as someone who knew a thing or two besides just how to earn a paycheck. My father worked his whole life to provide for his family as best he could, but gave us the example of a man who could discuss the value of the works of Mozart, Bach or Handel while demonstrating the best way to rewire a kitchen or re plumb a bathroom. My dad has a real appreciation for music, art and literature, and taught me how to do everything that might need to be done around a house or job site. With no actual training or experience, I built a rather large and (if I do say so myself) very nice deck on nothing but the experience he gave as I was growing up.
Today's world seems to lack the "Renaissance man" that we had even two hundred years ago in the persons of Franklin and Jefferson. Leon Battista Alberti, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Lomonosov, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Robert Hooke... real "Renaissance men" who contributed to society (and the world) in multiple fields of expertise over the course of their lives... are all examples of the kind of personal growth and ability that I think I most admired and most tried to emulate as a youth. It didn't always make men rich or famous (but it certainly helped those that did become rich and famous), but it made the lives of all who sought it richer and more meaningful, and I think that is reward in itself, isn't it?
One more point... my grandmother (my Dad's mom), hated to hear us kids bitch about being bored. She ALWAYS had the same comeback: "Only ignorant people are bored." I really don't think any single phrase I have ever heard used has had a more impacting effect on my life than that one. No matter what I am doing (or not doing), I can always challenge myself to do it better or faster or more efficiently, or I can always challenge myself to do something else. I hope I am able to pass that on to my kids as well as she did to me.
I think it is something I have gotten from my family, too. My mother's father worked his entire life on the railroad for the Great Northern Line in all its incarnations (currently, the BNSF), yet at his funeral, while the parish priest was giving the eulogy, he voiced his amazement that the man could debate theology, politics or history with the best... and that his understanding of such intellectual giants as Moore, Locke and Gibbon (all of whom he had read several times) was far above the norm for even teachers and professors of the priest's acquaintance. My father and mother are both huge readers, and growing up we had a vast and varied library in the house and were routinely encouraged to read anything we wanted.
My grandfather worked hard, and enjoyed his life and family... yet still worked daily to improve himself, too. George Linus Keeney (his real name) was also an alcoholic who was incapable of controlling his drinking, and because of this he did make mistakes in his life... but he is remembered fondly and lovingly by all his surviving family and friends as someone who knew a thing or two besides just how to earn a paycheck. My father worked his whole life to provide for his family as best he could, but gave us the example of a man who could discuss the value of the works of Mozart, Bach or Handel while demonstrating the best way to rewire a kitchen or re plumb a bathroom. My dad has a real appreciation for music, art and literature, and taught me how to do everything that might need to be done around a house or job site. With no actual training or experience, I built a rather large and (if I do say so myself) very nice deck on nothing but the experience he gave as I was growing up.
Today's world seems to lack the "Renaissance man" that we had even two hundred years ago in the persons of Franklin and Jefferson. Leon Battista Alberti, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Lomonosov, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Robert Hooke... real "Renaissance men" who contributed to society (and the world) in multiple fields of expertise over the course of their lives... are all examples of the kind of personal growth and ability that I think I most admired and most tried to emulate as a youth. It didn't always make men rich or famous (but it certainly helped those that did become rich and famous), but it made the lives of all who sought it richer and more meaningful, and I think that is reward in itself, isn't it?
One more point... my grandmother (my Dad's mom), hated to hear us kids bitch about being bored. She ALWAYS had the same comeback: "Only ignorant people are bored." I really don't think any single phrase I have ever heard used has had a more impacting effect on my life than that one. No matter what I am doing (or not doing), I can always challenge myself to do it better or faster or more efficiently, or I can always challenge myself to do something else. I hope I am able to pass that on to my kids as well as she did to me.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Question III
As a third installment in my "intra-Bund" historicaly oriented line of discussion topics I had a thought.
We'll pause briefly to note here that prior was "who is our Pliny the Elder" or contemporary keeper of time and history; and before that, if you could have your hand at any profession, hold any degree, at the "wave of a wand", what would you have the desire to do?
And that thought was as follows ...
What is your favorite, period specific, model of a man in history?
Examples as to the parameters: Gladiator? Explorer? Settler? Fryer (or any time period specific man of faith)? Statesmen (such as the Roman senate, 16th Century European parliament, colonial America, etc). Soldier? Physician? Monarch?
In other words, what historical period male role/profession/trait, as an identifiable "group", do you aspire to/admire as a man in your every day operations, when conscience of it? Or perhaps it's better put - what historical male role do you most admire in terms of how you fancy yourself /conjers privatel impersonation (or inspiration, whichever you choose)?
In order to answer this we must accept some level of hubris, without attack on the other, for surely we will not "admire", or seek in some small way to imitate, some slothful existence, and as each will be some grand (at least to our self) example of how we would ideally fancy ourselves (and that's the essence of what I'm asking), then emberaasment over arrogance, on any real level, need not factor in. Also, dispensing with the obvious PC melodrama is a must - if you fancy yourself / admire a Roman (pick your specificity in time period/role), then pointing out slavery was rampant and that they assisted in killing Christ is neither helpful nor warranted. Get the picture?
Let me demonstrate by going first.
Growing up I had 2 very different aspects to my childhood. Time with my father (my parents were divorced when I was 8 years old), and time at my mother's. My father was a "city dweller." My mother, and the man she remarried (who set this tempo in her house) was quite the opposite. Camping, hunting, fishing, shooting for sport - while these were common place in my mother's household via her husband, my father saw these as plots to a Bruce Willis film. Within his concrete world as a physician he preferred hotels and Wrigley field to, well, ... a field.
Now, I say all this because a noticeable dialogue started (and I honestly don't blame my father, it's a natural coping mechanism when the ex remarries), in which cities, restaurants, grand hotels, airliners, these were not only preferable, but "above" simple country bumpkins who still liked to kill their own food or gut fish. The opposite was true in my mother's household. "You're not scared are you?" was a clear reference to what I was accustomed to with my father when my mother's husband "Mr.L", as we'll call him, would invite me to skin a catfish (a dreadful creature to peel I might add - skin like glued leather to the muscle). And as such I always assumed that either one or the other was "right." One was the preferred state of man, the other was in error, no matter how well intentioned. For years I sided with my father. But, as I spent the school year with my mother, nearly all my peers and friends, whom hunted and fished regularly, professedly (in their actions, not that we discussed this, ever) disagreed. So, things went on as follwed - with my father I presumed ordering $8 beer was how a man relaxed, at my mothers, $3 bait.
Now, I have to give Sean Connery credit for my answer to the original question above. I'll call it, the "Quartermain Effect", also to some extent known as the "Indiana Jones Effect." I saw his (Connery's) portrayal of Allen Quartermiane when I was a teenager (I think it was those years, young nonetheless) in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Not a particularly standout film, fun enough to watch, but I digress ... Near the beginning he is summoned by the Realm to return to England and fight some horrible new evil threatening the crown and its' subjects. Summoned to "return" because the envoy had to travel to Africa, where he was living at the time, in some early 20th Century vestige of the British Empire. There he was, in a gentleman's lounge, with Cognac, reading material, looking poised to either discuss geopolitical strategy, or shoot down a boar at a 1000 paces. Quickly this dichotomy merges into the reality (of the movie) as he sets down his cognac and gentleman's reading material, ceases to lecture the young envoy on the politics of Empire, and literally leaps into action dispensing his enemies with one firearm after another as they bust through the door, the whole thing turning into an explosion climaxing, bullet flying melee.
Now, what does this have to do with me? It set the template for how I fancied myself, in however minuscule a way, from that point forward. I have since been enamoured, and (in my own way) saw myself trying to mimic that "perfect" male role model - the early 20th Century adventurous English gentlemen. Schooled in academics and safari (albeit, a MS outdoor style safari). Don't you see? No more choosing! That period man was able to either take on conversations about state (or take on being head of state for that matter), as quick as we was to draw a side arm and venture off into camping, shooting, and gutting his own food. As well as having good manners when fighting a beast or foe - I found the entire concept utterly attractive. And what's more, this type of man was admired by the peers of his day.
So, for me, lifting weights while listening to political commentary in the head phones, or gutting a fish with my mother while discussing the plight of the American dollar under Obama, or insisting that my sons recite the first 12 presidents (at a minimum) as toll for going shooting with their uncles, is forever inseparable aspects of the male personality which I prize.
In short, it is the early 20th Century educated, English gentlemen outdoorsman which is my favorite historical male model.
We'll pause briefly to note here that prior was "who is our Pliny the Elder" or contemporary keeper of time and history; and before that, if you could have your hand at any profession, hold any degree, at the "wave of a wand", what would you have the desire to do?
And that thought was as follows ...
What is your favorite, period specific, model of a man in history?
Examples as to the parameters: Gladiator? Explorer? Settler? Fryer (or any time period specific man of faith)? Statesmen (such as the Roman senate, 16th Century European parliament, colonial America, etc). Soldier? Physician? Monarch?
In other words, what historical period male role/profession/trait, as an identifiable "group", do you aspire to/admire as a man in your every day operations, when conscience of it? Or perhaps it's better put - what historical male role do you most admire in terms of how you fancy yourself /conjers privatel impersonation (or inspiration, whichever you choose)?
In order to answer this we must accept some level of hubris, without attack on the other, for surely we will not "admire", or seek in some small way to imitate, some slothful existence, and as each will be some grand (at least to our self) example of how we would ideally fancy ourselves (and that's the essence of what I'm asking), then emberaasment over arrogance, on any real level, need not factor in. Also, dispensing with the obvious PC melodrama is a must - if you fancy yourself / admire a Roman (pick your specificity in time period/role), then pointing out slavery was rampant and that they assisted in killing Christ is neither helpful nor warranted. Get the picture?
Let me demonstrate by going first.
Growing up I had 2 very different aspects to my childhood. Time with my father (my parents were divorced when I was 8 years old), and time at my mother's. My father was a "city dweller." My mother, and the man she remarried (who set this tempo in her house) was quite the opposite. Camping, hunting, fishing, shooting for sport - while these were common place in my mother's household via her husband, my father saw these as plots to a Bruce Willis film. Within his concrete world as a physician he preferred hotels and Wrigley field to, well, ... a field.
Now, I say all this because a noticeable dialogue started (and I honestly don't blame my father, it's a natural coping mechanism when the ex remarries), in which cities, restaurants, grand hotels, airliners, these were not only preferable, but "above" simple country bumpkins who still liked to kill their own food or gut fish. The opposite was true in my mother's household. "You're not scared are you?" was a clear reference to what I was accustomed to with my father when my mother's husband "Mr.L", as we'll call him, would invite me to skin a catfish (a dreadful creature to peel I might add - skin like glued leather to the muscle). And as such I always assumed that either one or the other was "right." One was the preferred state of man, the other was in error, no matter how well intentioned. For years I sided with my father. But, as I spent the school year with my mother, nearly all my peers and friends, whom hunted and fished regularly, professedly (in their actions, not that we discussed this, ever) disagreed. So, things went on as follwed - with my father I presumed ordering $8 beer was how a man relaxed, at my mothers, $3 bait.
Now, I have to give Sean Connery credit for my answer to the original question above. I'll call it, the "Quartermain Effect", also to some extent known as the "Indiana Jones Effect." I saw his (Connery's) portrayal of Allen Quartermiane when I was a teenager (I think it was those years, young nonetheless) in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Not a particularly standout film, fun enough to watch, but I digress ... Near the beginning he is summoned by the Realm to return to England and fight some horrible new evil threatening the crown and its' subjects. Summoned to "return" because the envoy had to travel to Africa, where he was living at the time, in some early 20th Century vestige of the British Empire. There he was, in a gentleman's lounge, with Cognac, reading material, looking poised to either discuss geopolitical strategy, or shoot down a boar at a 1000 paces. Quickly this dichotomy merges into the reality (of the movie) as he sets down his cognac and gentleman's reading material, ceases to lecture the young envoy on the politics of Empire, and literally leaps into action dispensing his enemies with one firearm after another as they bust through the door, the whole thing turning into an explosion climaxing, bullet flying melee.
Now, what does this have to do with me? It set the template for how I fancied myself, in however minuscule a way, from that point forward. I have since been enamoured, and (in my own way) saw myself trying to mimic that "perfect" male role model - the early 20th Century adventurous English gentlemen. Schooled in academics and safari (albeit, a MS outdoor style safari). Don't you see? No more choosing! That period man was able to either take on conversations about state (or take on being head of state for that matter), as quick as we was to draw a side arm and venture off into camping, shooting, and gutting his own food. As well as having good manners when fighting a beast or foe - I found the entire concept utterly attractive. And what's more, this type of man was admired by the peers of his day.
So, for me, lifting weights while listening to political commentary in the head phones, or gutting a fish with my mother while discussing the plight of the American dollar under Obama, or insisting that my sons recite the first 12 presidents (at a minimum) as toll for going shooting with their uncles, is forever inseparable aspects of the male personality which I prize.
In short, it is the early 20th Century educated, English gentlemen outdoorsman which is my favorite historical male model.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The "biggest mistake"...
Mind you, I don't disagree with Ryan... the Bush Administration allowed too much ground to be lost to the left by not making a clear, rational defense of its foreign policy actions from day ONE, right through to the end. I just don't think that was the BIGGEST mistake made.
I think that clearly, the biggest failure of the Administration was to fail to plan for an adequate means to secure the "peace" once Saddam was out of power in Iraq. This is a direct result of the "smaller, smarter, faster" military that Rumsfeld had planned for America's future, and is a direct reflection on the error of that planning. I am convinced that Rummy saw the success that was the '91 "Desert Storm" campaign, coupled with the disaster that was the last four years of the Vietnam War (remember, he was Ford's Secretary of Defense, too), and wanted to redraw the organizational charts of the US Military in ways that simply didn't work.
When we beat Saddam's Iraqi Army (call it May of '03), evidence shows that Rummy and the DoD pushed harder and harder for an "end" to the conflict from the State Department. They wanted a civilian government in place, ready to take over within 100 days of the end of major military operations... and this simply was not possible in the real world. There is no better example of this than the manner in which Rummy and the DoD handled General J Garner, whom they had placed at the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). When he wanted to hold elections early on, they said no... they would only support an appointed Iraqi civilian governing council, and not a general election. DoD then wanted the process of "de-Ba'athification" to begin, and Garner refused to comply. They fired him immediately, and replaced him with Paul Bremer... who really screwed things up.
I am convinced that there was no greater incentive to join the insurgency in Iraq than the de-Ba'athification of Iraq and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. What little infrastructure there was in Iraq ceased to function completely, and you had (literally) hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without means or livelihood because of the Americans in charge in Iraq. Army conscripts were paid off with a $50 severance, which (even in Iraq) lasted no more than a month for a family of three. No jobs, no income, no means of support or care... but all the guns and ammo you could hope to use to try and make the bad "Americans" go home. Great planning, huh?
If Bush's legacy is going to be haunted by the specters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then much of that blame goes to Rumsfeld... end of story.
I think that clearly, the biggest failure of the Administration was to fail to plan for an adequate means to secure the "peace" once Saddam was out of power in Iraq. This is a direct result of the "smaller, smarter, faster" military that Rumsfeld had planned for America's future, and is a direct reflection on the error of that planning. I am convinced that Rummy saw the success that was the '91 "Desert Storm" campaign, coupled with the disaster that was the last four years of the Vietnam War (remember, he was Ford's Secretary of Defense, too), and wanted to redraw the organizational charts of the US Military in ways that simply didn't work.
When we beat Saddam's Iraqi Army (call it May of '03), evidence shows that Rummy and the DoD pushed harder and harder for an "end" to the conflict from the State Department. They wanted a civilian government in place, ready to take over within 100 days of the end of major military operations... and this simply was not possible in the real world. There is no better example of this than the manner in which Rummy and the DoD handled General J Garner, whom they had placed at the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). When he wanted to hold elections early on, they said no... they would only support an appointed Iraqi civilian governing council, and not a general election. DoD then wanted the process of "de-Ba'athification" to begin, and Garner refused to comply. They fired him immediately, and replaced him with Paul Bremer... who really screwed things up.
I am convinced that there was no greater incentive to join the insurgency in Iraq than the de-Ba'athification of Iraq and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. What little infrastructure there was in Iraq ceased to function completely, and you had (literally) hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without means or livelihood because of the Americans in charge in Iraq. Army conscripts were paid off with a $50 severance, which (even in Iraq) lasted no more than a month for a family of three. No jobs, no income, no means of support or care... but all the guns and ammo you could hope to use to try and make the bad "Americans" go home. Great planning, huh?
If Bush's legacy is going to be haunted by the specters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then much of that blame goes to Rumsfeld... end of story.
Karl Rove...
I never really understood the beef the left had with this guy. White House Deputy Chief of Staff and an advisor to the President... I'm not even sure I'd call the guy "senior Cabinet", other than he'd known GW since '71.
I'd say his biggest mistake was in promising Bob Siegel (sp?) from NPR a GOP House and Senate a week prior to the '06 mid-terms. He got pretty high-and-mighty on Bob, and told him anyone saying the Dems were gonna take over both branches didn't know what they were talking about. Seems the polls Rove had been reading weren't as good as the ones Bob had been reading, after all.
I have nothing against Karl... I'm just not a huge fan. If he could point to something and say "There is what I helped achieve... there is my hand at work in the Bush Administration" then perhaps it would be a different story, but his name is associated with "strategy and planning" within the Bush White House, and I just don't see a lot of success stories coming from that area of Bush's legacy.
Prior to '03, Bush could do damn-near no wrong when it came to PR... but after that, it was ALL a disaster (as we have repeatedly said here at the Bund... Ryan is right). I don't even blame Rove for the PR disaster that eventually became the Bush White House, really. Bush had a great TV personality and presence that should have been exploited far more than it was, but I can't blame Rove for all of that. I can't blame Rove for Bush's inability to give "off-the-cuff" talks that didn't get him in a jackpot, either.
He was exonerated in the Plame scandal at every level, and even the Washington Post called for his detractors to apologize to him for the trouble caused by the lies and false allegations (the POST, mind you!).
Like I said... he has a long list of things that he DIDN'T do, or SHOULDN'T get in trouble for, but not much success, other than his insight into the Bush White House since '08.
I'm just not a fan.
I'd say his biggest mistake was in promising Bob Siegel (sp?) from NPR a GOP House and Senate a week prior to the '06 mid-terms. He got pretty high-and-mighty on Bob, and told him anyone saying the Dems were gonna take over both branches didn't know what they were talking about. Seems the polls Rove had been reading weren't as good as the ones Bob had been reading, after all.
I have nothing against Karl... I'm just not a huge fan. If he could point to something and say "There is what I helped achieve... there is my hand at work in the Bush Administration" then perhaps it would be a different story, but his name is associated with "strategy and planning" within the Bush White House, and I just don't see a lot of success stories coming from that area of Bush's legacy.
Prior to '03, Bush could do damn-near no wrong when it came to PR... but after that, it was ALL a disaster (as we have repeatedly said here at the Bund... Ryan is right). I don't even blame Rove for the PR disaster that eventually became the Bush White House, really. Bush had a great TV personality and presence that should have been exploited far more than it was, but I can't blame Rove for all of that. I can't blame Rove for Bush's inability to give "off-the-cuff" talks that didn't get him in a jackpot, either.
He was exonerated in the Plame scandal at every level, and even the Washington Post called for his detractors to apologize to him for the trouble caused by the lies and false allegations (the POST, mind you!).
Like I said... he has a long list of things that he DIDN'T do, or SHOULDN'T get in trouble for, but not much success, other than his insight into the Bush White House since '08.
I'm just not a fan.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
How many times did we make that point, here?
Karl Rove, in his new book released just last week, named what he viewed as his "biggest mistake" during his years in the West Wing ... not combating the "Bush lied" mantra & allowing the left to define & own the argument on Iraq - from world wide belief in the existence of WMD's, to Democrat Party support of regime change during the Clinton years, to etc, etc, etc.
To this day I can't fathom how they missed the need for such a PR offensive during those years.
I guess we can say this - at least Rove isn't dodging responsibility for that screw up, no revisionism there, as we too have described it as their biggest mistake.
To this day I can't fathom how they missed the need for such a PR offensive during those years.
I guess we can say this - at least Rove isn't dodging responsibility for that screw up, no revisionism there, as we too have described it as their biggest mistake.
Robert Gibbs?
Isn't he the star of Family Guy?
Yes, I saw this Meet the Press clip you were referring to ... he makes Forrest Gump look like a Lincoln-Douglas debate. Maybe it's the Dan Quayle strategy - after listening to this guy the president can't help but look good.
Now - here's a fine demonstration in how wonderful socialized medicine is ... the North Koreans are operating on such a high level of innovation in medicine and money saving medical procedures that they have actually developed a way to administer amputations without the need of anesthesia. Genius! From what I understand the patient only experiences pain in the first few minutes ...
I'm not saying it would ever come to this in the US, I'm just saying it might be wise to stock up on whiskey and small bits of wood that can fit in your mouth.
Viva la Obama-care!
Yes, I saw this Meet the Press clip you were referring to ... he makes Forrest Gump look like a Lincoln-Douglas debate. Maybe it's the Dan Quayle strategy - after listening to this guy the president can't help but look good.
Now - here's a fine demonstration in how wonderful socialized medicine is ... the North Koreans are operating on such a high level of innovation in medicine and money saving medical procedures that they have actually developed a way to administer amputations without the need of anesthesia. Genius! From what I understand the patient only experiences pain in the first few minutes ...
I'm not saying it would ever come to this in the US, I'm just saying it might be wise to stock up on whiskey and small bits of wood that can fit in your mouth.
Viva la Obama-care!
What is the appeal with this guy?
What the hell do they pay Robert Gibbs for, anyway?
In the pantheon of past White House Press Secretaries, there are some serious boners... but this guy is amazing. Dead-pan, no sense of humor, incapable of putting together a coherent sentence in response to a straight-forward question... where is the appeal?
Now he is reported to have said that the GOP "might" win the House in 2010? As one of the primary voices of the Administration today, does anyone else think that is a stupid thing to say? When Americans think of Democratic leadership and policy implementation, don't they think of the current White House staff? Isn't Gibbs supposed to be the voice of Obama and the Oval Office? Does that mean that Obama is ready to concede the House to the GOP, four months before the general election?
I never thought I'd miss Ari Fleischer... but I do.
In the pantheon of past White House Press Secretaries, there are some serious boners... but this guy is amazing. Dead-pan, no sense of humor, incapable of putting together a coherent sentence in response to a straight-forward question... where is the appeal?
Now he is reported to have said that the GOP "might" win the House in 2010? As one of the primary voices of the Administration today, does anyone else think that is a stupid thing to say? When Americans think of Democratic leadership and policy implementation, don't they think of the current White House staff? Isn't Gibbs supposed to be the voice of Obama and the Oval Office? Does that mean that Obama is ready to concede the House to the GOP, four months before the general election?
I never thought I'd miss Ari Fleischer... but I do.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
NAACP, and other thoughts...
I, too, heard some of what the NAACP has said in regards to the Tea Party. What I found most telling was that, while they condemned the Tea Party for not doing enough to keep the "white supremacists" out of the movement, nothing has come from them concerning the call to outright violence made by the New Black Panther Party. Where are the outraged cries from the NAACP when New Black Panther chairman, Malik Shabaz, praised the efforts of Osama bin Laden and called for American blacks to kill white children?
Where is the outrage that someone like Robert Byrd, a 50+ year Senator in our government and a lifelong Democratic Party member, was once a recruiter and "Exalted Cyclops" of the Ku Klux Klan?
I admit, the hypocrisy is almost staggering in its scope...
Where is the outrage that someone like Robert Byrd, a 50+ year Senator in our government and a lifelong Democratic Party member, was once a recruiter and "Exalted Cyclops" of the Ku Klux Klan?
I admit, the hypocrisy is almost staggering in its scope...
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Politics of Bigotry
In the times which we live there is perhaps no more toxic label, short of pedophile, to hurl at an individual then that of racist.
Without any evidence, absent any video, void of any audio, with no witness to offer testimony, the national board of the NAACP has adopted a resolution "condemning racism" within the movement known as the Tea Party (Associated Press). Which has the political effect of condemning the Party itself as racist.
Their national president, Ben Jealous (whose name congers up a whole host of apt puns), "Calls on the tea party and all people of good will to repudiate the racist element and activities within ..." He said something could evolve "and become more dangerous ... We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations ..."
As an observer of history I understand fully that accusing your opponent of the most vile of acts has been a weapon in the arsenal of tyranny since man first stepped from Eden in order to form his own kingdom. But as an open warning to "all people of good will" I contend that if we accept as doctrine the idea that in 2010 any man has arrived at his current station in life by means other than the totality of his own decisions, then we have not only betrayed American exceptionalism but abandoned the precepts of liberty herself. The moral hammer once wielded by Civil Rights activists, embodied in such organizations as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has turned its smashing power on their own principles. Defying Darwin they have devolved into nothing more than partisan bandits bent on a campaign of political thuggery which should serve as an effort in inspiration for third rate despots the world over. The evil inherent in racism is surpassed only by those whom would falsely accuse their brother; and as false is the moral rightness for which that verdict of conviction without trial is proffered.
If employing those tools and devices of Martin Luther King and Gandhi is to be judged racist, nay dangerous by the van guards of moral righteousness, then it is the accusers themselves whom have released all claims on the truth from this day forward.
Dear Mr. Jealous, your premise is rejected. Your words hollow. Your defeat ... assured. For I shall not lay my voice down upon the alter of intimidation.
Without any evidence, absent any video, void of any audio, with no witness to offer testimony, the national board of the NAACP has adopted a resolution "condemning racism" within the movement known as the Tea Party (Associated Press). Which has the political effect of condemning the Party itself as racist.
Their national president, Ben Jealous (whose name congers up a whole host of apt puns), "Calls on the tea party and all people of good will to repudiate the racist element and activities within ..." He said something could evolve "and become more dangerous ... We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations ..."
As an observer of history I understand fully that accusing your opponent of the most vile of acts has been a weapon in the arsenal of tyranny since man first stepped from Eden in order to form his own kingdom. But as an open warning to "all people of good will" I contend that if we accept as doctrine the idea that in 2010 any man has arrived at his current station in life by means other than the totality of his own decisions, then we have not only betrayed American exceptionalism but abandoned the precepts of liberty herself. The moral hammer once wielded by Civil Rights activists, embodied in such organizations as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has turned its smashing power on their own principles. Defying Darwin they have devolved into nothing more than partisan bandits bent on a campaign of political thuggery which should serve as an effort in inspiration for third rate despots the world over. The evil inherent in racism is surpassed only by those whom would falsely accuse their brother; and as false is the moral rightness for which that verdict of conviction without trial is proffered.
If employing those tools and devices of Martin Luther King and Gandhi is to be judged racist, nay dangerous by the van guards of moral righteousness, then it is the accusers themselves whom have released all claims on the truth from this day forward.
Dear Mr. Jealous, your premise is rejected. Your words hollow. Your defeat ... assured. For I shall not lay my voice down upon the alter of intimidation.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Soft opening...
Not that anyone outside of our little group probably cares, but last night was my first night back in the "pits" after more than a four-year absence.
Pennsylvania required all our casinos to operate their tables for 8 hours of operation at a $5 min/max level, then to close all those games and show all our paperwork and operational documentation to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for our final certification. It seems that we "passed" our inspection only five hours into our test run, which (I was told by a PGCB inspector last night) is unprecedented for the Commonwealth of PA.
More importantly to me, I found that flooring a dice section is a lot like falling off of a log... its always a bit painful, but you never forget how to do it.
My game (I was only watching one table... but it had three brand-new dealers on it, and a first-time box) managed to drop nearly $10k in cash, and that was on a $5 min/max table with single odds. It was a busy, hectic 8 hours, with a lot of people jammed onto a rather small 12' table. As with any casino opening, there was an awful lot of confusion and fix-it-as-you-go activity in the pits last night, and I can't say I'm overjoyed at some of the procedures we have adopted at this house, but I am forced by my "sinful pride" to share that, while we were closing our game last night, the computer system we used to track checks and ratings last night (a Bally's product that I have never used before but found quite acceptable) told me that my cheque count for the game (with an opener of just over $104K) was "off" at the end of the night by only $264 dollars, and that INCLUDES the whites and reds. Since it is the PIT BOSS that actually closes all the tables (one of the procedures I told you I didn't like), he is the one that discovered this, and seemed quite impressed by it... especially since the game behind me that was floored by a dual-rate pit was off on its BLACK count alone by $2800. (Not sure how you lose a whole stack of black cheques and keep your job... but hey, its a new joint)
When my pit came through last night and asked for a mid-shift "call", he didn't specify how he wanted it, so I tried to give him as much info in a small package as I could... so I wrote out my figures on a piece of paper, with the table number, time, and a win/loss over the drop. Seems I was the ONLY one that did this, and the pit was slow in getting my numbers because he was doing this himself for the rest of the pit.
Now, all bragging aside, I think I did a good job last night... but that might have sunk me. Seems I made enough of an impression with the "lead" shift boss (the most senior of the four) that he specifically asked that I be scheduled to work day shift (12-8) rather than my requested swing shift (8-4)... because that was HIS shift. Liz and I were really counting on swing for me... but we're gonna try and make this work before I approach them and ask for a swap. I have no juice at this house, so if I can generate some now, perhaps things will work out, right?
Well, at least I will get to see the kids in the evenings (eventually, when the mandatory OT runs out) and mornings... but I'm not kidding when I say that once school starts, something will have to change... we have a seven-year-old that can't be alone for the 90 minutes between his getting off the bus and the older kids returning from school.
Pennsylvania required all our casinos to operate their tables for 8 hours of operation at a $5 min/max level, then to close all those games and show all our paperwork and operational documentation to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for our final certification. It seems that we "passed" our inspection only five hours into our test run, which (I was told by a PGCB inspector last night) is unprecedented for the Commonwealth of PA.
More importantly to me, I found that flooring a dice section is a lot like falling off of a log... its always a bit painful, but you never forget how to do it.
My game (I was only watching one table... but it had three brand-new dealers on it, and a first-time box) managed to drop nearly $10k in cash, and that was on a $5 min/max table with single odds. It was a busy, hectic 8 hours, with a lot of people jammed onto a rather small 12' table. As with any casino opening, there was an awful lot of confusion and fix-it-as-you-go activity in the pits last night, and I can't say I'm overjoyed at some of the procedures we have adopted at this house, but I am forced by my "sinful pride" to share that, while we were closing our game last night, the computer system we used to track checks and ratings last night (a Bally's product that I have never used before but found quite acceptable) told me that my cheque count for the game (with an opener of just over $104K) was "off" at the end of the night by only $264 dollars, and that INCLUDES the whites and reds. Since it is the PIT BOSS that actually closes all the tables (one of the procedures I told you I didn't like), he is the one that discovered this, and seemed quite impressed by it... especially since the game behind me that was floored by a dual-rate pit was off on its BLACK count alone by $2800. (Not sure how you lose a whole stack of black cheques and keep your job... but hey, its a new joint)
When my pit came through last night and asked for a mid-shift "call", he didn't specify how he wanted it, so I tried to give him as much info in a small package as I could... so I wrote out my figures on a piece of paper, with the table number, time, and a win/loss over the drop. Seems I was the ONLY one that did this, and the pit was slow in getting my numbers because he was doing this himself for the rest of the pit.
Now, all bragging aside, I think I did a good job last night... but that might have sunk me. Seems I made enough of an impression with the "lead" shift boss (the most senior of the four) that he specifically asked that I be scheduled to work day shift (12-8) rather than my requested swing shift (8-4)... because that was HIS shift. Liz and I were really counting on swing for me... but we're gonna try and make this work before I approach them and ask for a swap. I have no juice at this house, so if I can generate some now, perhaps things will work out, right?
Well, at least I will get to see the kids in the evenings (eventually, when the mandatory OT runs out) and mornings... but I'm not kidding when I say that once school starts, something will have to change... we have a seven-year-old that can't be alone for the 90 minutes between his getting off the bus and the older kids returning from school.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Also on Jully 11th ...
In 1804 VP Aaron Burr shoots down political foe & Federalist Alexander Hamilton; & in 1533 Pope Clement VII excommuicates Henry VIII . . . I'll let you decide who got the worse of it ...
50 years ago today...
An unassuming clerk at an airline counter in New York, originally from central Alabama, wrote one of the most enduring classics of American literature... To Kill a Mockingbird.
The book was released to store shelves fifty years ago today, and was an instant best-seller. What is REALLY amazing is that it has remained on the best-seller list ever since... fifty years on the best seller list, and it has never gone out of print, with more than 30 million copies sold.
A damn good book...
The book was released to store shelves fifty years ago today, and was an instant best-seller. What is REALLY amazing is that it has remained on the best-seller list ever since... fifty years on the best seller list, and it has never gone out of print, with more than 30 million copies sold.
A damn good book...
Friday, July 9, 2010
Sinful pride...
I have it, no question. If I am going to burn once I am dead, it will be for that sin.
But I wanted to be clear... I wasn't saying Jambo's comments on "hubris" were what I thought asinine, it was the fact that I still need to explain any portion of my position to Ryan, after all I have posted (angry or otherwise).
As far as Jambo's observations on "hubris" themselves, I have only this to say...
"First-born" children are not the ONLY people to have it. There is at least ONE middle-child that has it in abundance, believe me... This I say after 40 years of knowing him!
But I wanted to be clear... I wasn't saying Jambo's comments on "hubris" were what I thought asinine, it was the fact that I still need to explain any portion of my position to Ryan, after all I have posted (angry or otherwise).
As far as Jambo's observations on "hubris" themselves, I have only this to say...
"First-born" children are not the ONLY people to have it. There is at least ONE middle-child that has it in abundance, believe me... This I say after 40 years of knowing him!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Hahahaha!
That was priceless ... nothing shows your opinions aren't full of hubris like a 400 word dissertation to refute!
Ha!
I'm sure Jambo appreciates your demonstrating his point in such a, well ... demonstrable fashion.
That reminded me of once, as a lad, walking with a girl I was dating, in a mall somewhere, 19 or maybe 20 was I. As we passed a mirror and I took the opportunity to adjust my shirt she fired, "you know vanity is a turn-off." Without even doing her the decency of looking away from the mirror I responded, "I'm not vain!." I guess it was seeing myself say that in the mirror is what led me to a short conversation with myself - I says to myself, self - either stop being vain or accept that you are, either way you'll look much less foolish.
I will only add, to the various points within your last, that I posted on the Saudi's acquiescence some weeks ago. But let's not kid ourselves, they are doing that for self serving reasons and not due to some enlightened view of the state of Israel. If it served their purpose to allow Israel to be wiped off the map via the Iranians, I have no doubt they'd be on board.
Lastly, in your "I'm not arrogant" multi page refutation you did not address the idea that perhaps, maybe, it might be that using incendiary phrases like "grinding dirt" in the common Palestinians face may not be the best way to instigate a legitimate discussion on the options for Israeli policy. Nor did you broach the idea that Holocaust satire was perhaps beyond the pale, and in need of retraction.
Ha!
I'm sure Jambo appreciates your demonstrating his point in such a, well ... demonstrable fashion.
That reminded me of once, as a lad, walking with a girl I was dating, in a mall somewhere, 19 or maybe 20 was I. As we passed a mirror and I took the opportunity to adjust my shirt she fired, "you know vanity is a turn-off." Without even doing her the decency of looking away from the mirror I responded, "I'm not vain!." I guess it was seeing myself say that in the mirror is what led me to a short conversation with myself - I says to myself, self - either stop being vain or accept that you are, either way you'll look much less foolish.
I will only add, to the various points within your last, that I posted on the Saudi's acquiescence some weeks ago. But let's not kid ourselves, they are doing that for self serving reasons and not due to some enlightened view of the state of Israel. If it served their purpose to allow Israel to be wiped off the map via the Iranians, I have no doubt they'd be on board.
Lastly, in your "I'm not arrogant" multi page refutation you did not address the idea that perhaps, maybe, it might be that using incendiary phrases like "grinding dirt" in the common Palestinians face may not be the best way to instigate a legitimate discussion on the options for Israeli policy. Nor did you broach the idea that Holocaust satire was perhaps beyond the pale, and in need of retraction.
It's not hubris...
Its asinine. That's what this is.
In my original post, I simply asked a question. "When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv? "
To answer my own question, I'd say that Israel is forcing Hamas, by the economic and fiscal constraints the "blockade" places on the "elected" government of Gaza, to choose between fighting the Israelis and providing for the people they depend on for support and who depend on them for basic governmental services, which they promised to provide prior to the election, if they want to remain in political power in Gaza.
If I gave the impression that I felt that Israel was intentionally using the "blockade" as a punitive measure against the Palestinians, then I assure you I was not. I was simply asking what Israel could hope to gain from taking on the role of "bad guy" in the medium of Palestinian (and, frankly, international) public opinion. The safest, least-costly means by which Hamas can be removed from actual political power in Palestine is to graphically demonstrate to the people of Palestine just how wrong Hamas is, at every possible level.
My opinion on the matter is that Hamas is so fundamentally flawed in its purpose, makeup and execution of purpose, that it not only CAN'T provide the basics... it actually makes life WORSE for those that live under its governance. If I was placing an underlying "opinion" within my question, it was this and this alone: Why place yourself (meaning Israel) in a position where you can face the risk of any action or policy contributing to the Hamas cause? Like the attack on the USS Liberty, I'm sure that the deadly raid that happened on the ship bringing aid to Gaza last month was 100% unintentional on the part of Israeli leadership (I understand that war is a risky and messy business... all the time)... but it underscores my further point that Israel is NOT infallible in her pursuit of peace and security, and that she needs to do all in her power to maintain the ground she has gained in the last 60 years in building relationships with foreign states and nations.
I'll give another example, one Jambo pointed out to me last week. Israel has the permission (yes, you read that right) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to use Arabian air space in the event of Iran's completion of a nuclear device that could (more likely would) threaten Israel. That is a HUGE diplomatic achievement by the Israelis... to have gained that kind of cooperation (and cooperation it is) from the Saudis... and mistakes made during the execution of the "blockade" could, conceivably, jeopardize these gains, right? Furthermore, I find it almost comical that it is the Saudis that are funneling tens of millions of dollars into Hamas coffers every year... yet the Saudis will give such a huge concession to the Israelis, in light of the "threat" that the region perceives as coming from a nuclear Iran. Does this mean that the Israelis should target Saudi businesses or organizations that are assisting Hamas? Doesn't Saudi support of Hamas constitute a threat to Israel? Isn't it Israel's "right" to defend herself against ALL aggression, fiscal or otherwise, that threatens her peace and security? If the answer is yes, then Saudi Arabia is "partners" with Hamas and should be afforded the same level of response, right?
The obvious answer is that Israel can't afford to wage war on every nation, people, society or organization that works or contributes to the defeat of Israel... there are simply too many anti-Israelis out there right now. What she CAN do is work to provide a level of peace and security both within her borders and in the region by maintaining a strong and ready defense against attack AND a strong domestic environment that can be seen by all to be rich, diverse, prosperous and SAFE for those that choose to live under its protection. Tens of thousands of Palestinians already understand this (more and more of them are coming to that realization in the West Bank and Golan regions, too), and live peaceful, happy lives side-by-side with Israelis.
Look at the position Israel has taken since it recognized the PA as a representative governing body, even though it stems directly from Arafat's PLO... when the PA works with Israel, life under the PA (for Palestinians, in other words) gets better and better, as in Golan and the West Bank. When the PA fights against Israel, life sucks for the Palestinians... not because of Israel, but because of Hamas (as in Gaza or East Jerusalem). Do you see my point? There is no onus on Israel anymore... either the PA makes things happen in Palestine, or it doesn't. While life in Gaza is rife with anxiety and violence for the "common man", he can look at their brothers and sisters in Hebron or Bethlehem living in relative peace and security, with steady jobs, electricity and water on demand, and a level of free travel not available in Gaza at all (by order of Hamas more than Israel, by the way).
I NEVER suggested that the threats posed by Hamas and its continued rocket attacks and terror bombings should be ignored by Israel, nor that working effectively to reducing Hamas' capacity to launch these attacks isn't good policy, either. In fact, in the same original post, I made this point: "I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen. " Israel has every RIGHT to determine its own best course of action to maintain the safety and security of her citizens and property... in fact, it is her sovereign DUTY to do so. I have never debated or argued this. To suggest that I did is simply not true.
My questioning whether or not Israel has other roads they can follow to that end, however, is NOT an invalid or morally-questionable act on my part... which you suggested it was. In point of fact, I would show the most recent developments in Gaza as proof of MY position. Israel has changed the manner and means by which the embargo is enforced and enacted, and even Turkey (the most vocal of international "complainers" to be heard) has now reduced their bitching to only asking for an official "apology" for the accidental deaths during the boat raid. Israel has suspended (again) settlement construction in lieu of further "talks" with the PA (but not with Hamas alone). Willing to "give peace a chance" but ALWAYS ready to defend against (or respond to) attacks is as sound a policy as I think we are likely to find on this topic... and is very similar to the position I thought the Israelis should have promoted from the start, as I said over and over again.
There is a difference between recognizing the calls of Palestinians for "change" (in one form more than another) in the status quo of the last 40 years, and compromise with avowed terrorists like Hamas-bombers or rocket brigades. Were this not the case, then the man that shot Rabin in '95 was 100% correct in killing a real and measurable threat to Israeli national security. I feel that my opinion (and Rabin's actions) are reflected in the former, and your hard-line, all-or-nothing position is reflected in the latter.
Am I wrong?
In my original post, I simply asked a question. "When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv? "
To answer my own question, I'd say that Israel is forcing Hamas, by the economic and fiscal constraints the "blockade" places on the "elected" government of Gaza, to choose between fighting the Israelis and providing for the people they depend on for support and who depend on them for basic governmental services, which they promised to provide prior to the election, if they want to remain in political power in Gaza.
If I gave the impression that I felt that Israel was intentionally using the "blockade" as a punitive measure against the Palestinians, then I assure you I was not. I was simply asking what Israel could hope to gain from taking on the role of "bad guy" in the medium of Palestinian (and, frankly, international) public opinion. The safest, least-costly means by which Hamas can be removed from actual political power in Palestine is to graphically demonstrate to the people of Palestine just how wrong Hamas is, at every possible level.
My opinion on the matter is that Hamas is so fundamentally flawed in its purpose, makeup and execution of purpose, that it not only CAN'T provide the basics... it actually makes life WORSE for those that live under its governance. If I was placing an underlying "opinion" within my question, it was this and this alone: Why place yourself (meaning Israel) in a position where you can face the risk of any action or policy contributing to the Hamas cause? Like the attack on the USS Liberty, I'm sure that the deadly raid that happened on the ship bringing aid to Gaza last month was 100% unintentional on the part of Israeli leadership (I understand that war is a risky and messy business... all the time)... but it underscores my further point that Israel is NOT infallible in her pursuit of peace and security, and that she needs to do all in her power to maintain the ground she has gained in the last 60 years in building relationships with foreign states and nations.
I'll give another example, one Jambo pointed out to me last week. Israel has the permission (yes, you read that right) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to use Arabian air space in the event of Iran's completion of a nuclear device that could (more likely would) threaten Israel. That is a HUGE diplomatic achievement by the Israelis... to have gained that kind of cooperation (and cooperation it is) from the Saudis... and mistakes made during the execution of the "blockade" could, conceivably, jeopardize these gains, right? Furthermore, I find it almost comical that it is the Saudis that are funneling tens of millions of dollars into Hamas coffers every year... yet the Saudis will give such a huge concession to the Israelis, in light of the "threat" that the region perceives as coming from a nuclear Iran. Does this mean that the Israelis should target Saudi businesses or organizations that are assisting Hamas? Doesn't Saudi support of Hamas constitute a threat to Israel? Isn't it Israel's "right" to defend herself against ALL aggression, fiscal or otherwise, that threatens her peace and security? If the answer is yes, then Saudi Arabia is "partners" with Hamas and should be afforded the same level of response, right?
The obvious answer is that Israel can't afford to wage war on every nation, people, society or organization that works or contributes to the defeat of Israel... there are simply too many anti-Israelis out there right now. What she CAN do is work to provide a level of peace and security both within her borders and in the region by maintaining a strong and ready defense against attack AND a strong domestic environment that can be seen by all to be rich, diverse, prosperous and SAFE for those that choose to live under its protection. Tens of thousands of Palestinians already understand this (more and more of them are coming to that realization in the West Bank and Golan regions, too), and live peaceful, happy lives side-by-side with Israelis.
Look at the position Israel has taken since it recognized the PA as a representative governing body, even though it stems directly from Arafat's PLO... when the PA works with Israel, life under the PA (for Palestinians, in other words) gets better and better, as in Golan and the West Bank. When the PA fights against Israel, life sucks for the Palestinians... not because of Israel, but because of Hamas (as in Gaza or East Jerusalem). Do you see my point? There is no onus on Israel anymore... either the PA makes things happen in Palestine, or it doesn't. While life in Gaza is rife with anxiety and violence for the "common man", he can look at their brothers and sisters in Hebron or Bethlehem living in relative peace and security, with steady jobs, electricity and water on demand, and a level of free travel not available in Gaza at all (by order of Hamas more than Israel, by the way).
I NEVER suggested that the threats posed by Hamas and its continued rocket attacks and terror bombings should be ignored by Israel, nor that working effectively to reducing Hamas' capacity to launch these attacks isn't good policy, either. In fact, in the same original post, I made this point: "I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen. " Israel has every RIGHT to determine its own best course of action to maintain the safety and security of her citizens and property... in fact, it is her sovereign DUTY to do so. I have never debated or argued this. To suggest that I did is simply not true.
My questioning whether or not Israel has other roads they can follow to that end, however, is NOT an invalid or morally-questionable act on my part... which you suggested it was. In point of fact, I would show the most recent developments in Gaza as proof of MY position. Israel has changed the manner and means by which the embargo is enforced and enacted, and even Turkey (the most vocal of international "complainers" to be heard) has now reduced their bitching to only asking for an official "apology" for the accidental deaths during the boat raid. Israel has suspended (again) settlement construction in lieu of further "talks" with the PA (but not with Hamas alone). Willing to "give peace a chance" but ALWAYS ready to defend against (or respond to) attacks is as sound a policy as I think we are likely to find on this topic... and is very similar to the position I thought the Israelis should have promoted from the start, as I said over and over again.
There is a difference between recognizing the calls of Palestinians for "change" (in one form more than another) in the status quo of the last 40 years, and compromise with avowed terrorists like Hamas-bombers or rocket brigades. Were this not the case, then the man that shot Rabin in '95 was 100% correct in killing a real and measurable threat to Israeli national security. I feel that my opinion (and Rabin's actions) are reflected in the former, and your hard-line, all-or-nothing position is reflected in the latter.
Am I wrong?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
So many sources, so little time...
Catholic, Church of Latter Day Saints, numerous Protestant, an unlimited list of historical from any culture you care to identify, so I'll pick....
Ancient Greek.
HUBRIS: (As identified in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary) Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
There are two ways we accumulate knowledge. We read books or articles, we listen to fact or opinion through various media, we watch movies, shows or documentaries concerning an infinite number of subjects. And then we live, we collect knowledge through life experience.
What have I learned through life experience?
Dealing with the oldest children in any brood can be as frustrating an experience as life can offer.
Why, you ask?
HUBRIS.
Always right. Never wrong. No yield. Unwilling to compromise. And people wonder why siblings fight? Why do younger children learn to antagonize and push buttons? Where does that behavior come from?
If our descendants learn anything from these posts, if preserved, they'll see HUBRIS and laugh.
Ancient Greek.
HUBRIS: (As identified in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary) Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
There are two ways we accumulate knowledge. We read books or articles, we listen to fact or opinion through various media, we watch movies, shows or documentaries concerning an infinite number of subjects. And then we live, we collect knowledge through life experience.
What have I learned through life experience?
Dealing with the oldest children in any brood can be as frustrating an experience as life can offer.
Why, you ask?
HUBRIS.
Always right. Never wrong. No yield. Unwilling to compromise. And people wonder why siblings fight? Why do younger children learn to antagonize and push buttons? Where does that behavior come from?
If our descendants learn anything from these posts, if preserved, they'll see HUBRIS and laugh.
For shame sir!
"Is this another example of "too much opinion" to constitute a valid, honest question? Am I leading the reader by the nose with my views, since the views are so thinly disguised as a real question?
Yes, this is a barb, and yes, it is directed at Ryan's previous comments on my "biased and ignorant" phrasing of questions... the accusation still rankles damn hard."
It "rankles" you aye?
"Damn hard", say you?
GOOD.
It should. In fact it should cause you uncomfortable sleep, inform your night terrors, and require the application of cold cloths and warm milk just to arrive at a state of unease.
And why?
To describe the response - the inherent right to self preservation of a dear ally to the US - to murderous attacks as that of "rubbing" innocents "face in the dirt" was not, as you claim, a simple opinion driven interrogative; but rather words meant to incite. You advocate your case here as the instigation of a discussion, but the truth behind such venomous language was in fact the instigation of a verbal riot. In short, plain English, you went looking for a fight ... and found one.
And as if this rouse was not enough, you followed up your insults with gross, ghastly satire not fit for man nor beast! Even in jest to suggest the lone nation of Jews "fire up the ovens and gas chambers" as they seek to remedy national security concerns, in order to thrust after your lackadaisical perry, is beneath that of even the shallowest of authors.
To say I found it in bad taste is to describe Anne Boleyn as a mere home wrecker.
And I am both dismayed and distraught that you, my friend, a man of good conscience and moral character have, to date, not retracted such a vile line of dialogue. And I have no doubt that as such your inaction will inform my posts here forward as flippant, cross, and down right disagreeable, and will remain so until such time as you return from this leave of your senses, offering the required regret upon the alter of civilized discourse.
I never thought us Marques of Queensbury, but for the love of God I thought us above Holocaust jokes in an attempt to make one's point.
I am confident that years on in our lineage some affable fellow with above average intelligence will have cause to take up our little blog. To explore what "great grandfather" thought about the times in which he lived, those marvelous, historic years of ought-seven and on. And will you, sitting next to St. Peter, not bristle at the idea of your descendant eyeing such character robbing prose absent retraction by your hand? For doubt not, these words, for better or worse, will be with us always ... and I assign yours described here, to the latter.
Yes, this is a barb, and yes, it is directed at Ryan's previous comments on my "biased and ignorant" phrasing of questions... the accusation still rankles damn hard."
It "rankles" you aye?
"Damn hard", say you?
GOOD.
It should. In fact it should cause you uncomfortable sleep, inform your night terrors, and require the application of cold cloths and warm milk just to arrive at a state of unease.
And why?
To describe the response - the inherent right to self preservation of a dear ally to the US - to murderous attacks as that of "rubbing" innocents "face in the dirt" was not, as you claim, a simple opinion driven interrogative; but rather words meant to incite. You advocate your case here as the instigation of a discussion, but the truth behind such venomous language was in fact the instigation of a verbal riot. In short, plain English, you went looking for a fight ... and found one.
And as if this rouse was not enough, you followed up your insults with gross, ghastly satire not fit for man nor beast! Even in jest to suggest the lone nation of Jews "fire up the ovens and gas chambers" as they seek to remedy national security concerns, in order to thrust after your lackadaisical perry, is beneath that of even the shallowest of authors.
To say I found it in bad taste is to describe Anne Boleyn as a mere home wrecker.
And I am both dismayed and distraught that you, my friend, a man of good conscience and moral character have, to date, not retracted such a vile line of dialogue. And I have no doubt that as such your inaction will inform my posts here forward as flippant, cross, and down right disagreeable, and will remain so until such time as you return from this leave of your senses, offering the required regret upon the alter of civilized discourse.
I never thought us Marques of Queensbury, but for the love of God I thought us above Holocaust jokes in an attempt to make one's point.
I am confident that years on in our lineage some affable fellow with above average intelligence will have cause to take up our little blog. To explore what "great grandfather" thought about the times in which he lived, those marvelous, historic years of ought-seven and on. And will you, sitting next to St. Peter, not bristle at the idea of your descendant eyeing such character robbing prose absent retraction by your hand? For doubt not, these words, for better or worse, will be with us always ... and I assign yours described here, to the latter.
Here's a good "question" for the Bund...
All of us here agree that the scope and power of the Federal Government in the US has expanded far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they wrote the document. Not all of us agree on what are "legitimate" areas of Federal responsibility and what are not, but the vast and ever-growing size and authority of the Fed is something we all know to be more than it was ever intended.
Secession is never an option for a State, now or in the past, so what ARE the options available to States like Louisiana or Arizona that feel their "sovereignty" is being challenged or infringed upon by the Federal Government? I think the case can be made that, once the Fed has taken on a particular responsibility that used to reside with a State, it is never going to give that responsibility back to the States.
Example: Since the New Deal Era (I shudder to mention this... honestly), the Federal Government has used a much broader and far more general interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate (or in some case, outright control of) many aspects of the national infrastructure. Some of these (in my opinion) are legitimate Federal points of responsibility (interstate railroad regulation for uniformity and safety, for example, or the FAA). Others, such as the means by which the Federal Government has forced States to enact laws they otherwise would not have by threatening to withhold Federal funding for things like Interstate Highways, or the Feds ability to regulate and control railroad operations that exist solely within the borders of a State (the New York Metro lines, for example) because the people or goods ON the trains effect interstate commerce... those I have a serious issue with.
So, there are no reasonable examples of the Fed relinquishing control of any aspect of economic or regulatory control (of ANYTHING) once they have assumed it... not even Reagan did this, and he ran on the promise of "smaller Government".
We know that there are more than 400 petitions (some sites say there are more than 700) by the required number of States calling for an Article 10 Constitutional Convention, the first of which was submitted (and subsequently ignored by Congress) in 1803, and the most recent was submitted in 2002. None of these Convention petitions have been recognized, let alone acted on... so this seems a dead-end road for our purposes, doesn't it?
The closest I can come to finding a "success" story in the effort to reduce the size and scope of Federal government was in Reagan's "New Federalism" initiative. He didn't get very far in reducing the SIZE of government... but no one can say he didn't reduce the means by which funds were spent by the Feds on the States. His "block grants" gave the individual States the money they needed, without the added baggage of requiring the States to spend the money according to Federal guidelines. As far as I can find, this is the ONLY example of a "deregulation" effort that had any lasting effect or result, and it pretty much ended with the inauguration of George W Bush in 2001. (NOTE: I found it interesting that, next to Reagan himself, the President that most measurably supported the "New Federalism" efforts wasn't Bush Sr... but Clinton, who continued the "block grant" efforts despite rabid Congressional opposition prior to 1994, and again after 1997) I think that a case can be made that THIS policy of Reagan's goes just about as far in contributing to the Boom of the 90s as the Reagan Tax Cuts did, because it encouraged States to spend as THEY saw fit... rather than as the Fed saw fit.
So, again, what do the States do now? Obama will never advocate block grants... and neither will the current Congress (or any Congress, in my opinion). Obama has sworn that he will make the Federal Government the "fix-it-all" solution to every crisis or problem that comes along, which means to me (a registered Democrat, mind you) that he wants an even BIGGER and MORE INTRUSIVE Federal government than we enjoy now.
The Federal Government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona in regards to its immigration law. They have also filed ANOTHER suit (three total now) against the State of Louisiana in an attempt to get the drilling moratorium reinstated there (and all along the Coast). I think that the various States that feel they have had their 10th Amendment rights infringed upon by the Federal Government should file suit. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that, since the SCotUS has decided in 1971 (Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents) that the Federal Government can be held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (which also protects the STATES rights, via the 10th Amendment), Arizona and Louisiana sould file suits for damages resulting from Federal interference in State affairs that are costing the States and their tax payers money.
What better way to get the Feds to STOP interferring in State issues and policies outside of Federal scope than to show that doing so will cost the Feds more money than they gain?
Secession is never an option for a State, now or in the past, so what ARE the options available to States like Louisiana or Arizona that feel their "sovereignty" is being challenged or infringed upon by the Federal Government? I think the case can be made that, once the Fed has taken on a particular responsibility that used to reside with a State, it is never going to give that responsibility back to the States.
Example: Since the New Deal Era (I shudder to mention this... honestly), the Federal Government has used a much broader and far more general interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate (or in some case, outright control of) many aspects of the national infrastructure. Some of these (in my opinion) are legitimate Federal points of responsibility (interstate railroad regulation for uniformity and safety, for example, or the FAA). Others, such as the means by which the Federal Government has forced States to enact laws they otherwise would not have by threatening to withhold Federal funding for things like Interstate Highways, or the Feds ability to regulate and control railroad operations that exist solely within the borders of a State (the New York Metro lines, for example) because the people or goods ON the trains effect interstate commerce... those I have a serious issue with.
So, there are no reasonable examples of the Fed relinquishing control of any aspect of economic or regulatory control (of ANYTHING) once they have assumed it... not even Reagan did this, and he ran on the promise of "smaller Government".
We know that there are more than 400 petitions (some sites say there are more than 700) by the required number of States calling for an Article 10 Constitutional Convention, the first of which was submitted (and subsequently ignored by Congress) in 1803, and the most recent was submitted in 2002. None of these Convention petitions have been recognized, let alone acted on... so this seems a dead-end road for our purposes, doesn't it?
The closest I can come to finding a "success" story in the effort to reduce the size and scope of Federal government was in Reagan's "New Federalism" initiative. He didn't get very far in reducing the SIZE of government... but no one can say he didn't reduce the means by which funds were spent by the Feds on the States. His "block grants" gave the individual States the money they needed, without the added baggage of requiring the States to spend the money according to Federal guidelines. As far as I can find, this is the ONLY example of a "deregulation" effort that had any lasting effect or result, and it pretty much ended with the inauguration of George W Bush in 2001. (NOTE: I found it interesting that, next to Reagan himself, the President that most measurably supported the "New Federalism" efforts wasn't Bush Sr... but Clinton, who continued the "block grant" efforts despite rabid Congressional opposition prior to 1994, and again after 1997) I think that a case can be made that THIS policy of Reagan's goes just about as far in contributing to the Boom of the 90s as the Reagan Tax Cuts did, because it encouraged States to spend as THEY saw fit... rather than as the Fed saw fit.
So, again, what do the States do now? Obama will never advocate block grants... and neither will the current Congress (or any Congress, in my opinion). Obama has sworn that he will make the Federal Government the "fix-it-all" solution to every crisis or problem that comes along, which means to me (a registered Democrat, mind you) that he wants an even BIGGER and MORE INTRUSIVE Federal government than we enjoy now.
The Federal Government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona in regards to its immigration law. They have also filed ANOTHER suit (three total now) against the State of Louisiana in an attempt to get the drilling moratorium reinstated there (and all along the Coast). I think that the various States that feel they have had their 10th Amendment rights infringed upon by the Federal Government should file suit. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that, since the SCotUS has decided in 1971 (Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents) that the Federal Government can be held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (which also protects the STATES rights, via the 10th Amendment), Arizona and Louisiana sould file suits for damages resulting from Federal interference in State affairs that are costing the States and their tax payers money.
What better way to get the Feds to STOP interferring in State issues and policies outside of Federal scope than to show that doing so will cost the Feds more money than they gain?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
