While Obama's away...

The President goes to Europe, and the Lefties start talking again about how things "should be"...

Seems its been too long since we last had a national debate about the tax rates, so the Lefties are back on track with plans for another 2% hike to the top income tax rate, a 5% hike to the dividends/return tax rate, and another 7% hike to the capital gains tax.

When its all said and done... that equals a top marginal tax rate of 62% (according to the WSJ). That's up from the current rate of 48%. That's too high, even for me... and here's why.

Keynesian economic theory says that balance is needed, but no balance can be found in the Left's agenda. In 1989, when Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 33%... while the average top tax rate of our ten largest trading partners around the globe was 51%. I might not be an economist, but I'd bet your dollar to my paycheck that THAT is why the US was able to create so many jobs over the course of the next 10 years. It was cheaper for businesses to build and grow in the US than it was for them to do so anywhere else.

Since 2006, that simply hasn't been the case. Our top ten trading partners now have an average top tax rate of 45%... while ours is rapidly rising above 48% on its way (if the Lefties have their way) to 62%. Where then will the jobs and wealth be created? Not here, I can bet you that.

There will be no long-term recovery from this "Great Recession" without a return to functional Keynesian policy when it comes to taxes and spending... and if the use of J M Keynes name (or Arthur Laffer, for that matter) is too distasteful for our conservative members to swallow, then lets just use Reagan's name, instead. Ron understood what I am talking about, as history shows.

A functioning example...

Want to see a functioning example of what I think those that still embrace "hope and change" really want to see happen here in America since the 2008 elections? Look at the headlines and news coming from Belarus.

Here is a post-Soviet state that has retained the government-controlled economic system implemented by the Soviets since their independence in 1991. The leadership in Minsk still "owns and operates" more than 51% of all jobs in the country, and dictates both exchange rates and domestic value of the Belarussian ruble. 12 months ago, that ruble was trading at a rate of 1900 to 1 against the US$... today it is at over 5,300 to 1, and they are looking at devaluing it another 50% before the end of the week. In short, the state-run economy is on the verge of a complete meltdown, and Belarus has no EU membership to partner it's way out of this mess, either (as Greece and Spain have already done).

Vital services like mail, trains and fuel distribution are facing utter failure, and gasoline and diesel prices are 40-50% higher in Belarus than they are in any other European state. National infrastructure is decaying fast, and ranks in the bottom tier for the entire continent (and that is really saying something).

Unsustainable government spending, massive national debt, a shrinking national revenue base with a growing portion of the population more dependant on government support than ever before... all on the shoulders of a freely elected and (seemingly) popular leadership party that openly declares itself to be "soviet" in nature and structure.

This is, perhaps, the last vestige of soviet-style planning in a free, democratic society where we (as Americans) can watch the centralized system of socialism fail utterly. No one can blame repressive, authoritarian regimes for not representing the will of the people in Minsk... they keep electing these "socialists" in free elections. This is socialism at its most free and functional best... and it is failing right before our eyes.

Time's up

The 1973 War Powers Act grants the President of the United States 60 days to conduct military operations without seeking the approval of congress.

US involvement in Libya behan March 19th.

Today marks 61 days & yesterday the CIC wrote a letter to congress explaining that US military involvement in Libya at this stage is so limited, so narrow, that it really isn't worth the effort to seek congressional approval at this point.

Really?

Is THAT what the law says? Sounds an awful like "advisors" in South East Asia to me. Which is exactly the scenario this law was intended to prevent from reoccurring.

****

In other news, the world is supposed to end at 6pm today. If it does, Im calling in. If it doesn't I may need to celebrate dodging such an apocalyptic bullet, thus facilitating a need to, call in. That's your classic "win-win" there.

The Rape of Israel

I am going to do my LEVEL BEST not to descend into a tirade of expletives here, and I mean that sincerely.

Son of a BITCH!

I am LIVID!

This is my first post since what I am dubbing the "Rape Speech."

I f you read this blog then you know that I was convinced that President Obama would abandon Israel with a partition scheme in the early fall. What he wasn't counting on was the deal Netenyahu made with the US congress (to address our body and state clearly the Israeli position on Palestine, which will be coming this week), and the "Arab Spring." I think these prompted the president to move up his timeline, and yesterday was the result.

Along with "pre 1967 borders" there are two important phrases in that speech that will have dire consequences. First - "contiguous." The PoTUS advocated a "contiguous Palestine" not based on Jordanian held territory, but on the 1967 boarders. That splits Israel nearly in HALF, and divides Jerusalem (which he promised APAC he would never do in 2008, as a candidate). Secondly, and I quote: "As for security, every state has a right to self defense. And Israel must be able to defend itself, BY itself."

Do you get what that means? I am NOT capitalizing and italicizing "by" for effect. The president did that. Listen to the speech, he went out of his way to raise his voice and pause on that phrase "BY itself." And this is no accident. I posted here some time back (a matter of months) about an interview I witnessed conducted with Samantha Powers. She is the #2 foreign policy advisor in the White House, and wife of Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar." And she didn't just intimate, she flat out said that the administration must be willing to alienate 1/6th of it's political base in order to redirect billions in US dollars aiding Israeli security efforts, and channel that money into building a Palestinian state. Who do you think that 1/6th is? Wanna take a guess?

This president is overseeing the dissolution of the 63 year relationship between the US and Israeli governments, period. And he CERTAINLY wants the dissolution of the state of Israel as we know it. His partition avocation is equivalent to our telling Canada that the US must have a contiguous boarder with Alaska, AFTER having spent decades trying to wipe Canada off the map, I might add.

The president's first chief of staff once quipped that in politics, "You never let a crisis go to waste", implying you get things done during a crisis you never otherwise could have. The "Arab Spring" is that crisis.

Just think about Titus' apt observation yesterday - there is an inherent trait, something in the cultural DNA of the West that sees a trend towards democratic forms of government. He listed various examples (I would add the Florentine Council, but I guess it's arguable that it was in actuality a mini Medici Empire). YET there is no such historical trend in the East, especially the near East. So what is the proof, or even the indication, that the Arab Spring will produce a sweep of democracies that Israel can now do business with along the 67' borders???!!!

Can anyone tell me whom the leader of Egypt will be 6 months from now? Tunisia? Yemen? Pakistan? Hell, even Iraq? The ENTIRE region is in play, and it's amidst THIS chaos that the president says, "no worries Israel, it will all work out, you can go back to the 1967 borders now."

IS HE OUT OF HIS MIND!? Answer: NO. This has been long in the making.

See this, having advisers such as Samantha Powers, the Israel is "BY itself" comment, the Rape Speech in its' entirety, the the 67' borders demand, THIS is why things like the Reverend Wright scandal MATTER. These windows into a man's soul MATTER. I don't know if this president is anti-Semitic, but he's certainly anti-Israel, and the people with whom he's asking Israel to trust are without question, BOTH.

The bottom line: Israel will NOT comply.

They will NOT recede to the 67' borders. And this isn't a matter of simply rolling back a few tanks and check points, there are entire Jewish communities there, settlements. It just will NOT happen.

So now what?

The United States government is on record as opposing the policy and territorial claims of the state of Israel. What happens now?

Answer : WAR.

I promise you (especially if Obama wins reelection) this will result in war. And when that war erupts, remember the words "defend itself BY itself." It won't be a hot war between the US and Israel of course, but a witholding of support, cold war style opposition, everything short of boots on the ground. The type of legal preventions in place that preclude Lockeed Martin et al from doing business with Iran or Syria will be imposed on doing business with the sate of Israel. The thousands of able bodied strong men, private citizens of the US, that will flock to join Israel's fight will be held up, delayed, and prevented.

You think that can't happen? You think this president won't go that far? Ask yourself, how many times has he answered that question already to our shock and dismay? Israel is being set up for rape, and our CIC is providing the bed chamber.

But here's one other thing he didn't "count on." How seriously the Israelis take the motto their nation is built upon - "NEVER AGAIN."

If he 's looking to stir a fight, well by God he's going to get one.

I've been thinking...

The Queen has just wrapped up a very impressive and historic visit to Ireland, and the stories and photos from that trip have had me thinking. I'm no Anglophile, mind you... at least not in the way my wife is. She loves everything British, and loves everything "Royal", too. She drank deep of the heady draft that was the wedding of William and Kate, and she is always ready to recall the drama that was Diana and Charles, too.

I won't lie, though... Her Majesty is 85 years old, and while I wish her all the best (God save the Queen and all), it is probably unavoidable that we will soon see what hasn't happened in the English-speaking world since 1952: a royal funeral followed by a coronation.

I'm wondering who will follow her?

Obviously, I know Charles is the "heir" to the throne. He is the next King of the United Kingdom... but he doesn't have to take the throne. Nor am I sure he should.

Charles has lots and lots of baggage. There's the whole Diana divorce, which made him look bad no matter who's fault it was. Then there is the Camilla factor... his first love and current wife, the Duchess is an accepted part of the Royal Family now, but I find it difficult to think that the Queen wants her as the Royal Consort to the King... she is divorced, and was a primary party in the divorce of the Prince of Wales and Diana.

Charles is 63 years old himself... no spring chicken, he. He has rarely showed the poise and grace of his lofty office over 35 years the way his oldest son has since the death of his mother. He's never seemed to want to be King... and I think it is important to make that distinction.

The Monarchy is important and relevant today, but to remain that way the Monarch has to fill a very specific and focused role. Can Charles do that?

I don't know if Charles can... but I really do think William can. The man is a master at getting the cameras and limelights to always catch his "good side"... a trick he must have learned from his mother, who never met a camera that didn't like her, either.

The "NEW" American policy towards the Middle East:

It's surely new for this administration, anyway...

What happened to the promise made only two years ago that America didn't have the "right" to force change down another region's throat? How are Obama's efforts to remove Gaddafi any different than Bush's efforts to remove Saddam, fundamentally speaking? How is Obama's promise to support and reward "rebels" across the region any different than Bush Jr., Bush Sr. or Reagan's efforts to effect change in Afghanistan, Iran or Syria?

I'm really not sure what to make of this "new" policy. He seems to have taken just over 25 months to learn that Bush was right, and force projection was the quickest and easiest way to secure US interests in the region's hot spots.

I got on this topic because Ryan sent me a text saying he'd heard the speech. I got home from picking up the oldest from work and listened to it myself. The only part that really got my worried was the part about the US "supporting" a return to the pre-1967 borders with Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. To be fair, he said it would be a starting point, and that nothing was off the table for discussion... but these pre-67 borders did come up again and again.

Understand this: The Palestinains DO NOT want to go back to the pre-1967 agreement any more than the Israelis do. Why? Because that means that Jordan has all political and security authority for the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Egypt gets authority over Gaza. It was the failing of these two Arab states in keeping their end of the "bargain" in 1949 that started this whole mess in the first place. Had Jordan actually been able to adequately administer the "Palestinian territories" in the agreed upon manner (with full, unfettered access to all Jewish and Christian holy sites, at any time and to anyone, and that all holy sites would be administered by the respective faiths involved equally)... then the fighting over access wouldn't have grown into an all out war of conquest (on the Israeli's part) and extermination (on the Arab's part).

There can be no gray area here: Israel was acting in legitimate defense of its sovereignty when it initiated military operations against Egypt and Jordan in June of 1967. There were more than 100,000 Egyptian troops within 2 miles of the Israeli border on the Sinai, and another 80,000 Jordanians and Iraqis in the West Bank region. Egypt had "closed" the Suez to all Israeli-bound traffic in May of that year... an act that even the UN had said would justify military response against Egypt as early as 1957. The Soviets were force-feeding Syria false reports about Israeli troop movements (this became a known fact in 1998 with the opening of the Kremlin archives to the West) and the Syrians were calling for immediate mass invasion from all possible fronts.

I'm the first to admit that I have criticized Israel for what I perceived to be errors in strategic and political planning over the last 15 years or so... but (no matter what Ryan might think) I have never doubted Israel's right and obligation to defend herself against the very real and constant threat that is another Arab-Israeli war. The "occupied territories" are captured territory, that is true... but they are NOT areas gain through aggressive conquest or expansionist political goals. They are lands taken from aggressors who openly threatened and attacked Israeli citizens, with the intention of creating greater security and safety for those same citizens in the future. We are not to allow ourselves to see the "occupied territories" in the same way we saw Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990, or Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded in 1980. Israel wasn't looking to "grow" into a Jewish Empire, for Pete's sake... it was keeping what was lost by aggressors in the legitimate defense of a sovereign state.

Frankly, I'm still not convinced that a "two-state" solution isn't the best course to follow... but NOT at the expense of Israeli security. And I AM convinced that the PA (and especially Hamas) does NOT want a return to the 1967 borders, either... since that would mean they'd have to recognize and abide by those borders as legitimate and sovereign. They primary goal, since their very inception as a people and a government is the destruction of Israel entirely and complete control of the entire Levant. It's written into their very Charter itself.

I'm also convinced that this is a can of worms that Obama is very rapidly going to wish was never opened.

Finally...

Do you really think the SF referendum is based, even circumstantially (is that another pun?) on anti-semitism? A pervading distrust of anything Israeli by the left?

Your sarcasm was spot on, and the dangers inherent in such anti-religious legislation are real and can be seen as a direct cause-and-effect issue with the rise of the Nazis in Germany circa 1933... but I'm curious to know if you really think that is the root of the effort.

I (personally) have no doubt that it is based entirely in an anti-religious sentiment... but I can't seem to grasp that it is specifically anti-semitic in its origins.

I'm so tired... physically tired... of seeing those posters and billboards screaming "Imagine... no religion" with the WTC front and center, as if all the tragedy that image brings to mind is the fault of all religious belief and action. Or the thought process that automatically labels all Catholic priests as pedophiles and molesting monsters, or that every parochial school student is a present or future victim of abuse.

Why doesn't anyone see that it is the "atheist" states of this world that have perpetrated the worst atrocities against innocents in the last 500 years? When do we stop hearing about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reconquista, the Conquistadors or the Reformation Era and when do we begin to see the Nazis, the fascists, the Communists and the Ba'athists for exactly what they are: secular, anti-religious or pro-atheist attempts to bring about "no religion"?

No matter how you slice it...

... ouch. Painful circumcision puns...

On San Francisco's referendum ballot:

Look, even if it passes, it won't stand the test of time. It is far too intrusive into the realm of religious practice, and NOT only the religious practice of Jews, either. Muslim men are also expected to be circumcised, and more than 70% of all Christian males alive today have also been circumcised.

In point of fact, circumcision is just about the only thing the "Religions of the Book" share anymore (aside from monotheism, that is). They are called the Religions of the Book because they all find roots in the five Books of Moses (Christian Old Testament, Jewish Torah, Muslim Law of the Prophets)... but even if that were strictly true 1,200 years ago, it certainly isn't the case today.

What I think is a better monicer for the three big monotheistic faiths is the "Religions of the Covenants". All base their faiths on promises made between Man and God, and the manner in which these promises are kept. This is the single aspect of the faiths that hasn't changed appreciably in any of them for far more than the last age. The last visible vestige of these covenants is the circumcision of males as they are officially brought into the faith communities.

NOTE: Now I admit that there is no "requirement" in Christianity that males be circumcised the way there is in Judaism... but if 70% of Christians today still practice it, it must mean something. However, I admit that this isn't the case in all Christian countries. Most of Europe does not circumcise male children as a matter of course, the way it was and is practiced here in the US and Canada.

Anyway, as long as even a tiny minority (such as the Jewish community in and around San Francisco) feel a religious need for the procedure, it will be protected by the Courts. It is one of the safest, most familiar procedures a pediatrician will ever perform on a child (infant or young teen), and the licenses and training involved are extensive and well established. This is EXACTLY what the "smart" liberals (if there are any) should be avoiding in new legislation... it is far too prone to come back to haunt them and their agenda through "political backlash".

Ah, the sweet sound of sarcasm...

How I've missed it since you stopped posting.

You had a good post there, my friend. Many salient points were made, but I'm going to take my time with just a few...

I liked your point about the "longevity" of revolution, and that ours has lasted the longest. It brought to my mind a fact that isn't bantered about much... if at all... since I was still in school.

Democracy lasts.

The oldest extant republican government on the face of the earth belongs to the 35,000 citizens of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, which can cast its history back to 301 AD and the Diocletian Persecutions. Its Constitution was penned in 1600, and has been officially recognized by all other continuous governmental bodies as sovereign since 1631 (these others include the Vatican, England, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, France and Portugal). Since the fall of the western Roman Empire, it has recognized no king... only its elected Captains are seen as chief executives or heads of state.

Ranking right up there as well is Switzerland. A federated republic since 1275, its current Constitution dates from the end of the turmoil brought about central Europe by Napoleon... 1878, and is still uniquely "democratic" in its nature, even by US standards.

Iceland can trace its legislative government back to 930 and the institution of the Commonwealth and the Althing. This lasted until 1262... when Denmark and Norway united under one crown and "took over" Icelandic foreign affairs. Still, the legislative/judicial body known as the Althingi still exists, and still administers the island and its citizens. That's more than 1,000 years of uninterrupted (domestically, at least) democratic rule.

Do you see my point? When the vox populi is heard, regularly and efficiently, the government lasts. What has kept the British monarchy on the throne as long as it has been there? Parliament, that's what. When the monarchs (after Charles I, that is) ran out of money... the went to Parliament and asked for more. To do otherwise was to take their fortunes and their very lives in their hands.

Hearing that vox populi is NOT a traditional part of eastern history, though... and the Islamic world has had a particularly bad record in paying any attention to it whatsoever. The Ottomans were the most recent monarchs to ignore it, and the loss of WWI and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey were the results. Then you have the likes of Nassir, Hussien, the Shah and his successors, the Ayatollahs, Mushariff, Gaddafi, et al... all felt the razor's edge of the plebiani as they rose up and rioted their way to some kind of resolution.

We haven't seen "democracy" win in the Middle East... we have only seen the plebs rising up and making their voices heard in one violent shout. To see democracy take root, we'll have to see the same thing on a regular basis, sans the violence. Regular, fair and open elections are not conducive to continued repressive rulers or radical, ultra-religious regimes... and thus, probably won't be allowed should those types take power in the first place.

Arab Spring = Jewish Fall?

Can someone explain something to me?

What is it about that tough, persistent tribe that makes them the go-to targets of history's aggressors?

Ya, I get that the basis of Western anti-Semitism was rooted in their rejection of Christ. But slaves to the Pharaohs? What was that, 1,500 years prior? Why are they such targets?

Allow me to fast forward a bit here. The two closest allies our nation has in this world are without question the UK and Israel. Also without question, this president has rejected this notion. We've posted numerous times here on his returning the Churchill bust, eschewing Netenyahu out the back door, no photo op, etc.

Well, today the president is set to give a speech directed at the Arab world, encouraging them to embrace the "Arab Spring." It's a "historic opportunity", etc etc. Now I don't know if the BBC intended this timing, but yesterday they filed a report which included the first broadcast of the post-mortem Bin Laden. He recorded it only several weeks ago (it would seem). In it he is praising the Arab Spring, encouraging Muslims to embrace it, that it's an "historic opportunity", etc, etc.

Now I am not equating Osama & Obama's intentions towards Israel, nor the opportunity they each see in the Arab uprisings. However, there have been rumors floating for some time that come September (roughly) the US will present to the world its' plan for a 2 state solution for Israel and Palestine. Now, does anyone think that Israel's safety will be paramount in that US partition plan? And when you add this speech, embracing the Arab revolutions, I grow concerned.

Here's what I'm driving at - it is crystal clear that the extremists among the Arab Spring intend to turn these various revolutions into a religious awakening, resulting in theocracies across the Mid East. Will they succeed? Who knows. But this president, OUR president, is so biased in his attitudes towards Israel that he is leaping, feet first, eyes shut, in support of these uprisings (and proposing his own plan for Palestine) NO MATTER THE COST to Israel.

In other words he is more than willing to gamble with Israel's future over the "possibility" that these uprisings will turn democratic.

Think about a few things - 1)Israel's status as one of America's two premier allies 2)that attempts have been made to literally wipe them out in the past, and 3)threats to wipe them out pour from the mouths of their neighbors to this day. And THAT is the nation who's future our president is willing to gamble with at the "chance" these uprisings will turn democratic?

Do you know how many nations, out of the 160-some odd on earth, are functioning under the same form of government which their original revolution produced?

1.

The United States of America.

The French were at the center of the Renaissance, the archetypal Western advanced society, and look how their revolution unfolded. And that was without Wahhabism or WMDs.

Israel has it's share of liberals, progressives, and elitists. And yet President Obama's poll ratings there stand, according to the Jerusalem Post, at a staggering 6%. Should we not heed that as a warning?

Be it Coptic and Lebanese Christians, or the state of Israel, I have a feeling this entire affair will get very, very ugly... And soon.

****

By the way ... San Fransisco has a referendum on the city ballot (they got enough signatures this week) to ban the practice of circumcising boys under the age of 18, calling it "genital mutilation." Does that not strike anyone as just a tad anti-Semitic? And just as an aside, you can abort the child a few weeks earlier, but not circumcise him a few weeks later, because that would be cruel. I got that right? Just checking. Now let me see - the Left cried out that we must provide Korans and prayer rugs for detainees at GITMO, and we did. But in a major US city Jews will be banned from practicing their faith in the exercise of a 5,000 year old tradition?

How bout this Mein San Fran - lets start there, but in in a few months move on to banning their marrying outside their faith. No gentiles visiting Jewish dentists, just a piece at a time. Make part of the law one small inconsideration after another, one step here, one there. Then you can get together and talk about these new laws. Maybe get a key note speaker. Have the gathering at night. Try and wear matching outfits. And for global warming's sake, lets use say, torches for illumination rather then electricity. And for entertainment you can have a march for all to see, and they can carry those torches. Then after, in celebration, you can all go out and break glass ... just be sensitive enough not to party too late into the night though, you wouldn't want to interrupt the morning calls to prayer.

Thank God, I'm free at last!

Sorry, Dr. King... I'm just that excited about the prospect of being off for two days for the first time in more than a month.

In fact, Friday night we're having a get-together here at the Chateau d'Lieteau... and I've the go ahead to stock up on porter a plenty. Anyone that chances to actually read this is more then welcome to stop over and enjoy with us.

I, for one, intend to be utterly destroyed by no later than 9 PM... and even though I work in the morning, I am more than due for a hangover at work. We've good Catholic whiskey, reliable porter (even if it is German rather than Irish) and beer and wine for the pagans and the women.

Who's game?

God bless you, #3...

A sad day for baseball...

Harmon C. Killebrew died today. 20 years with the Senators/Twins, and one final year with the Royals, gave him an opportunity to impact baseball like few others have.

"Hammerin' Harmon" and "Killer Killebrew" are well deserved names for this power hitter. His career 573 home runs rank him 11th in the Major Leagues all-time, and only four AL hitters have hit more homers in a career than Harmon (Ruth, Griffey, A-Rod, and Thome, with the last two still playing ball now). He hit over 40 homers in eight consecutive years during the '60s... an era known for its dominant pitching. In 1969, the year he won MLB MVP, he had 140 RBIs and 49 homers, with a slugging percentage of .584. He ended his career with a slug% of .509... something only 151 players EVER have done in a single season, but he was in the over-.500 bracket 9 of 11 years. In the American League, only Ruth and A-Rod have hit more homers in a single season (his high was 49, which he did three times).

Still, he's a name few remember... more's the pity. If more people recalled his name, as well as his manners and demeanor on and off the field, baseball would be a better game.

Well done, Killer... well done.

My God, people... what does it take?

What topic needs to be raised here to get some interest going?

Since he was such a supporter in 2008, I'm going to guess that Ryan is leaning hard in his support of Romney for the 2012 nomination. However, I know Ryan has been a fan of Gingrich for years too... and that is the topic I've chosen to follow today.

Gingrich is running for the 2012 nomination, and he's running on a platform of traditional, conservative values. He routinely points to platforms and agendas dating back to his tenure as Speaker of the House. He has admitted to making mistakes in the past... and insists that he has learned from them and will be a better President for having learned from them.

One "mistake" that he made, though, is making it very difficult for me to take him seriously... and that is his extra-marital affair while he was in office as Speaker with an intern that was more than 20 years his junior. That intern is his current wife, Callista Bisek. I understand completely how the Left will use this obvious contradiction in use of terms such as "conservative moral values" by Gingrich... but I am truly curious as to how Gingrich is going to get moderate conservatives (such as myself) to overlook the hypocrisy of his championing the impeachment process of Clinton for the very same behavior he was indulging in at the very same time. To go to such lengths, and to spend such vast amounts of money, to expose Clinton for doing exactly the same thing he was doing... and to justify his actions while decrying Clinton's... seems to me to constitute a real and measurable hypocritical position for a man trying very hard to show us all how "fair and just" he really is.

Let's face it: Clinton was pushed and pushed by the Star Investigation (justifiably so or not) until he put the noose around his neck and perjured himself in front of the entire nation... and he paid that price, legally and electorally. Clinton was wrong, and it was proven so in court. End of story.

Gingrich did not have to answer any questions in front of a grand jury, or to present any evidence in his defense to a Federal investigator... but has admitted to the same sort of "wrong doing" that Clinton was guilty of, yet expects all of us that remember it to either forget it or over look it. How do I do that?

His explanation for the lapse is that he was "over-worked" and made bad choices... and that may be a valid explanation (he has made no excuses, nor asked for any... to his credit, I'll add), but doesn't that mean that Clinton deserves the same consideration? Should that have been a valid defense in Clinton's case? How much more demanding and pressure-filled was Clinton's job during the same time period? Gingrich was the Speaker of the House... a prestigious and very demanding job, no doubt... but Clinton was President of the United States. Surely, that was a bit harder and more demanding than Newt's job... right?

How do I rationally consider him for the highest office in the free world with this nagging at the back of my mind? Can anyone defend the man, fairly and rationally?

Just a bit more bragging, if you don't mind...

Can't help but put up a pic of our "little girl" from her big day yesterday... in case any of you Phillistines thought I was exagerating about how good she looked.

How does this face NOT have a date for the prom?

Hehe... I have to say, though... she didn't look quite this good as she shuffled out the door just now on her way to eight hours at McD's with about 90 minutes of sleep and a five-minute shower.

Its a tough lesson to learn, but I hope she learns it faster than I did.

Prom...

Yesterday was Katey's prom.

I had to work (of course), and missed all but the initial stages of her "dressing up". I had no doubt that she would be beautiful, but after seeing the pics even my biased opinion was shockingly far off.

The child was gorgeous... hair up and perfect, just a hint of makeup, a beautiful dress fitted to perfection... and she was surprisingly elegant, too. She showed amazing poise and grace in her heels (something she has struggled with in the past).

Anyway, while still at work, I wanted to call and check that all the preparations had gone well and that she had gotten off on time for pictures and the dance. I had no sooner called my wife than the crying started. Mind you, I was calling from my pit podium, so I wasn't completely "alone" when I was hearing all this. Liz was amazingly upset at the prospect of Katey going to the dance alone. "Alone" as in no date... she was going with three other girls, but these three other girls all had dates. Katey did not.

I wasn't worried about Katey "turning heads" because she didn't have a date. Katey is stunningly beautiful, and boys will always notice her... but she typically doesn't "dress to kill" the way she did last night. I was more worried about her schedule...

See, the girl had made plans for (basically) an "all-nighter" of an event. Photos before the dance, trip to the dance (about a 30 minute drive into Scranton, PA), dance and dinner itself, fun times at a restaurant after the dance, then off to an after-party party at a friend's house here in town. Both Liz and I voiced concerns about this all night schedule just a few days ago... but Katey was adamant that she could handle the fun and still make her scheduled start time at McD's this morning. So, right at 6AM this morning, the phone call comes that she is really (REALLY) tired and needs to come home. Liz goes to get her, and she goes immediately to bed for two hours before her shift starts. She asked about calling off... but neither Liz nor I would hear it. She made these plans... she can learn to pay the price for that kind of fun.

So... Katey is napping before her shift, Liz is napping to recover some of her lost sleep, I'm sucking coffee before I have to go back to the casino, and the boys are slaying commies and fascist zombies galore here in the living room with a friend.

Oh, and Katey's "lack of a date"? Seems she had so many requests to dance at the prom from boys that already had dates, she's become a bit unpopular with some of the more frumpy and unattractive girls in her class. Funny how so many boys that hadn't asked her to prom suddenly recalled that they wanted to, but never had a chance/didn't know she was going/thought she already had a date.... excuses by the truckload.

I'm damn proud of that little girl... all this and a work ethic, too.

Nicely done, Katey Jean!

Is that a strap-on bomb or are you just happy to see me?

File this under "Jihadi Does Dallas."

Top of the hour CBS Radio news break just reported that among the top secret documents and Intel seized at the bin laiden compound was quote, "An extensive collection of pornographic material and videos."

How's that whole "pious holy warrior"image working for ya' there Al Qeada?

"72 Virgin Orgy"

"Punjab Puntang 3"

"Infidel-iscious Blondes"

"Osama Been Laid"

I could do this all day...

Newt...

Newt announced his candidacy for President in 2012 yesterday.

Since his departure from politics, and specifically his role as Speaker of the House, I can't say I have entirely dissapproved of Newt's role. He has maintained himself rather well, has developed a far more pro-active style of presentation to his views, and has adopted (or reinforced) a very impressive ability to present an historical perspective to his ideas and goals.

I'm still not sure he has a shot, though.

What does it say of the GOP today that the best "conservative" candidate running (and I do mean that... he's probably got the best plan of them all) is also a former Speaker that beat all the Democratic "mudslinging"... but resigned because of Republican resistance to his efforts? Gephart, Boehner, DeLay and Armey gave him an honest-to-God ultimatum: resign or be voted out. The man that beat 83 of 84 ethics charges leveled by DNC leadership members gets run out of the third-highest office in the land by his own party members.

Add to this the fact that there was no louder or prouder champion of the effort to impeach Clinton than Gingrich, and I think you have all the ingredients called for in the recipe for defeat. The mainstream American Democrat and most of the moderates still unregistered in this country are going to look back on the Clinton era as the "good ol' days", and a name like Newt Gingrich is not going to bring pleasant memories back for those old enough to remember that winter of 1998. He presided over the 1995 shut-down of the Federal goverment... unpopular then, so what can that mean today?

{sigh}

Follow up on Chiang...

More interesting dynamics from the Asian population...

I'm running the poker room all week this week, and I got to talking with the floor during a lull yesterday about the Chiang Kai Shek thing. One of the dealers heard me and chimed in from a dead spread table (open but not playing)...

"I know why those people don't know Chiang." he says. His name is Pandhe, and he is from Tibet. He speaks five languages, is unbelievably good at his job, and is always smiling and happy. The only thing that he really doesn't seem to like is Chinese people. His grasp of history is remarkable, and he is more than savvy in "current affairs" (and I mean that... he's every bit the junkie we all are). Hailing from Tibet, he really has no patience for anything Chinese... and seems particularly sensitive (seemingly) to subtle slights that we "anglos" don't pick up on routinely.

The secondary reason they might not know Chiang, he explains, is that I am pronouncing the name as it is said in Cantonese. I asked if it was wrong, and he said no... it was pretty good pronunciation... but most of the Chinese help in the joint speak only Mandarin, and Chiang's name is pronounced Jiang Jieshi (I worked hard to get it right, with Pandhe's help) in Mandarin, which is what is spoken across nearly all of northern China and all of Taiwan (Chiang's eventual native land). It is (I assume) the manner in which he would have pronounced his name himself... were he still around to say it.

However, the primary reason that the other Chinese in the casino don't know him is that he didn't know a one of them that got past the Chinese equivalent of 8th grade. He went on to explain that 90% of all the employees that hailed from China (rather than those of Chinese-American descent) were all from provinces that were unbelievably rural and unbelievably poor... and thus, schooling was almost completely optional once a basic ability to read and write was established. He also said that one of the reasons so many of them struggled to learn English (and many do... hard as they try, they really do struggle) was that they never adequately learned how to learn anything. Pandhe, for better or worse, has a really attitude towards the Chinese... something he admits readily... because he (a foreigner) can speak both Mandarin and Cantonese better than almost every native Chinese he knows.

Living this close to New York, we sometimes have Chinese-language newspapers in the break room, and Pandhe (later, on a break we shared) pointed to two supervisors looking over the paper. He looked me dead in the eye, and said: "I'll bet you your dollar to my next paycheck that neither of them can read anything other than the headlines. Go ask them." I didn't, but another friend did... and sure enough, when asked to read the caption on a photo of Qaddafi that was in the middle of a page, they couldn't tell us who the picture was because they couldn't read the caption.

I was shocked. I can't say that I am "ok" with the degree of disdain that Pandhe seems to hold all Chinese in... but he is far more aware of the cultural nuances of the people than I am, and his assessment of their abilities to "read" seems right on. If what I see now as the "educational norm" for the population of Chinese at my work is in anyway indicative of the success/failure ratio of Chinese education in general... is this really the sort of "system" that even liberal Democrats want to emulate?

Forget Osama...

Want errant spelling in names?

What about Gaddafi? Is it "Qaddafi"? "Kadafi"? I swear, that name is found with more ways to spell it than any other I've encountered.

Speaking of this, I have a similar story to relate.

We were at work, in the dice pit, and our casino (like many now, I assume) has a large percentage of its employees that are Chinese. Many of these people were educated in China, and we were discussing the differences in education between what is received here and what is given there. A glaring point seems to have been discovered when I mentioned Chiang Kai Shek, who was the most prominent nationalist leader during WWII and became the President of Taiwan.

Our Chinese co-workers had no idea who we were talking about. I mean NO IDEA. We described him over and over... I did my best to muster up the best summary of his career that I could, on the spot and at work... but either my pronunciation of his name was so far from the mark that they didn't see who I was talking about, or they simply didn't learn about this guy the way we did.

I'm inclined to think it was a bit of both... we have people at work from Taiwan, too, and they knew no more than the mainlanders did about who Chiang Kai Shek was... yet I'd have bet my bottom dollar that their education system wasn't as biased against him as Red China's was, right?

Anyway... a very odd experience. Imagine, not one of those people knew who I was talking about. Undoubtedly one of the five most influential figures in Chinese politics in the last 200 years... and only the Americans knew who we were talking about.

Usama or Osama? Dead or alive? The answers:

3 things -

1.)CIA uses "Usama." And after hearing of a report, which recorded 93 incidents of pundits and journalists mistakenly saying "Obama" rather than "Osama" (when describing being slain in a raid no less), I can understand why. I, however, have always gone with the "O" spelling.

2.) The "he's not dead" conspiracy theories were beginning to take root, especially in the Middle East where these things are as much a part of the culture as McDonald's is here.

Well, I heard news this morning which answers, or lays to rest (if you'll pardon the pun), both questions. In a Reuters article, out of Dubai (& confirmed in Egypt), found HERE, Al Qeada confirms both the death and the spelling:

"In a historic day for the great Islamic nation... the mujahid (holy warrior) Shiekh Abu Abdullah, Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden, God have mercy on him, was killed on the path taken by those before him and will be taken by others after him... Congratulations to the Islamic umma (community) for the martyrdom of its son Osama."

They also threatened to avenge his death, yada, yada, yada. But I hope this settles both issues, for everyone.

Oh yes, the third thing - not releasing the OBL death photo. Look, personally I don't need to see it to believe he's dead. SEAL TEAM 6 doesn't do "surrender" (did you see the photos the Pakistanis released of those bodies left behind?). But I did want to see it, for whatever reason drives the human compunction to verify facts visually. However, if releasing the photo were to cause our troops in action even one more unnecessary burden, then I say fine, keep them out of public view.

BUT! President Obama (and AG Erik Holder) don't you dare try to sell me on the fact that that's the reason you're withholding the photo. It may well have been requested by Generals to be witheld, and those Generals may well be right, but that's a mere convenience for you. For you two are the gentlemen whom pushed, and hard, to release the additional Abu Grab photos upon assuming office (& relented on the idea only after immense public pressure & repeated requests from commanders in the field), and reversed the Bush era policy of not filming/photoing the coffins of US service men KIA, upon their return to the States. And now I'm to believe you don't want to release the OBL photo because it might give the terrorists a recruiting tool, a reason to be even more angry?

Yeah, right. Sell that crap to someone else, I ain't buying.

Again with the labels...

This could become a real fight... just you watch.

Liz works for the county Public Defender's Office, and is routinely at the County Court House. I like our court house here... it is almost exactly the same as it was when it was built in 1850. Sure, they added the obligatory elevator, and I'm pretty sure the metal detectors weren't there prior to the Civil War... but the actual court rooms are the same, with the same windows, floors and "pew" benches that have been in the building for more than 150 years. The offices are tiny, but all share huge tall ceilings and transom doorways.

Anyway, while at the county court house, Liz noticed a table set up with what she called "party trees"... a diagram of who is running for what office in the upcoming May primary election here in NEPA. This is our 18-year-old's first chance to vote, and Liz thought she'd want to know who to follow prior to the actual vote. I couldn't agree more! What a fantastic way for our Katey to see who is running for what and to be able to look up the issues they are running on.

So, just a few minutes ago, I find one of these "party trees" (they are diagramed like a family tree) for all candidates running under the Democratic ticket. Some names I recognize, others are new... and it is pretty easy to follow... but I can't find the GOP tree. I ask, and come to find that she didn't bother getting a GOP tree, because Katey is a "Democrat".

???

Now don't get me wrong... I'm a Democrat myself, so having the child pick a party when getting her state-issued ID is fine and dandy, and I understand that the primary election in May is party-affiliation only. If Katey wants to vote, she has to be a registered Republican or Democrat, and can only vote for that party's candidates. I'm simply wondering why we must instantly apply a "label" to her position, even in primary season, when she should already be looking to determine for herself what she feels about each and any issue that might pertain to the election.

It's tough for me to solo this effort, though. Besides the fact that it would be wrong for me to strongarm the effort and push the child towards any particular point of view, it seems I'm too "particular" (Katey's words, not mine) and I have a real tendency to "preach" when I talk politics. I'm no fool. I know this to be true... but I am very surprised that Katey has recognized this already. I hadn't thought I did that to them the way I do that here, or to friends like Mick the Lib or Cramey or Super Jon.

I don't for a minute think that the girl isn't going to vote very (VERY) liberal... she is a product of the New Millenia, post-NCLB education system, so they learn at a very early age that Bush was "bad" and Obama is the most historic President since... well, probably EVER. All her teachers, since she entered school 12 years ago, have all been members of the teacher's union, and all push an agenda that is far, far from my own. Our 16-year-old has made the observation (numerous times, in fact) that "Republicans" don't like immigrants and Muslims, and want to take money away from teachers and schools. They know almost nothing about George W. Bush, other than he was "bad" and started a war for oil. There is no doubt that these children will need much work if they are going to learn the value of seeing both sides of an issue, let me tell you.

{sigh}

who's on first?

They are really sucking all the "atta boy" out of this. That's why I could never believe it's an elaborate hoax, they'd be much more in synch if it were.

Here's the speech I write for him on Sunday night when he broke the news:

"Today I ordered an assult on a compound in Pakistan that we believed housed Usama bin Laden. This was not a police action. This was not an execution of a warrant This was not an attack on a foreign head of state. This was the engagement of a lethal enemy combatant on the field of battle, within the greater war on terror. In addition, his continued existence, whether in custody or in hiding, represented a clear and present danger to the United States of America. With all this in mind, and utilizing my vested powers as Commander-in-Chief, I issued orders to kill on site. I am happy to report that due to the unparalleled skill and courage of our special forces those orders were carried out. Usama bin Laden is dead. We buried the body at sea, here's the photo and conclusive DNA evidence. And because I have classified almost every other detail of this mission, you may direct all further questions, to me. You've been great DC, tip your waitress, good night."

DONE!

But for whatever the reason, take your pick- ideological, foreign consumption, it semi-endorses Bush era policy, etc, they are expending an awful lot of energy to avoid saying that (not to mention to avoid admiting that water boarding revealed a vital piece of the puzzle) & so they come off as sounding like a married man trying to explain to his wife why he had condoms in the glove box.

"No comment"...

That needs to become the new mantra of the Obama Administration, especially when it comes to topics and subjects that the various officials of the administration are asked to comment on when they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Between Leon Panetta and John Brennan alone, there are no fewer than NINE different versions of what happened between the start of the raid and the burial of the body. The only people that seem to know even less than these two idiots are the actual Pakistanis in charge of monitoring possible terrorist activity within their country.

One mistake or one piece of misinformation might be understandable... but this bunch has been sending mixed signals from word GO, and they still don't have it all together. If there is no information to be passed on (as I suspect the case might have been until all the details were sorted out and analyzed by those who know what the hell was happening)... then why in the HELL was anyone talking about it at all?

There can be only one answer: Grand-standing.

Its understandable that people want to make themselves and their boss look good... we're starting an election cycle, and any positive news can only help a President with an approval rating of less than 48%... but this isn't (or shouldn't) be the case now.

A couple controversies...

One, Pakistan. This is prickly. First it's obvious bin laden was receiving material support & Intel from sympathizers (financial or ideological)within the Pakistani government, especially the Pak secret police (ISA, I believe). What they're going to claim is without the $3 billion in annual US aide that the secular government could fall into the Pakistani Taliban's hands, along with their nuclear payload. The case President Obama must make to them is $3 bil wasn't even buying us an adress to OBL when that adress was an hour outside the heart of your government. So we better get more bang for the buck, or no buck.

Two... the administration has slightly boggled the after action report, to the media at least. Did he try to surrender, was he armed, was it a kill mission? etc. The Press Sec says one thing, National Security Advisor another, his deputy another. By suggesting from the start that the SEALs would have let him surrender, or that he need resist for a kill shot to be legitimate, was an unnecessary hole (premise) to dig themselves in. This wasn't the execution of a warrant. OBL would have had no sunder opportunity if a 2000lb daisy cutter landed on his roof, and the PoTUS would have been well within his authority to order that. He should just state, "it was a kill mission, because capture would have invited more American deaths", and be done with it. After all, the bounty was "dead or alive", right?

Three... it's clear now (Leon Panneta, CIA director & Peter King, the chairman of the House Intel Committee have confirmed), that KSM was the first to turn CIA on to the couriers, and that came about via water boarding & then working that thread through detainees at GITMO. That would seem to justify some of Bush's most controversial decisions. Personally, I think the PoTUS himself already vindicated Bush, after all GITMO is still open & tribunals have resumed. I am concerned that "EITs" (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) have been discontinued. We can argue over their morality, but not their effectiveness.

At any rate, drone attacks under Obama are up 800%; troop surge in Afghanistan; we invaded a sovereign nation to hit the OBL compound; & the mission was a straight kill op ... so how does it feel American & European Left wingers? To know your guy is a bad-ass killing machine??!!

hehehe...

If I had a dime...

for every goofy comment box or picture plastered on Facebook or chain e mails, I'd be able to take the summer off at the VERY least. From the Statue of Liberty holding Osama's head up instead of the torch to the FB chat box with Osama's pic and user name saying "BRB someone at the door" (priceless, by the way and my personal favorite) the Internet is loaded with them. You need to Youtube the Naval Academy's celebration... Another priceless picture.

Do I have a problem with the celebrations? No.

What I do have a problem with is Pakistan.

Can someone please tell me how this guy was living comfortably in civilization in a suburb of the CAPITAL of Pakistan and no one there knew? Do we believe there wasn't tacit approval of his presence? Of support for his hiding?

I'm sure in the last 72 hours this has been torn apart by every talking head with mass media access so I won't vent large. If anyone has benefited from the War on Terror, it has been the nation of Pakistan. Has any other government received MORE aid from us since 9/11? (Iraq and Afghanistan not included, since we toppled both governments) Now that Osama is keeping Davey Jones company and we as a nation are becoming way more fiscally wary, Pakistan has to be expecting the spigot to start closing.

Al-Quieda long ago morphed into an organization devoid of central command and leadership, but NOW it truly becomes a nest of cockroaches that need to be stamped out wherever they crawl from.

My take...

I see your point... and don't worry, Liz does too... and I agree with what you say, but I'd add this to my personal take on the whole "celebration" thing:

There is little doubt that, like anything else in America, some things are taken too far. These are the "celebrations" that are going to get the most hype in the media, simply by definition. That is unfortunate, because I do not think it reflects the whole (it never does, does it?).

The vast majority of America would be perfectly comfortable with the impromptu gatherings that happened at Ground Zero, the Philadelphia Phillies game against the Mets, the Mall in Washington DC, etc, etc. Here we did not see images of a bloody or mutilated turbaned figure as a caricature of OBL being waved, dragged or burned... here we saw people holding hands, singing "God Bless America" or "The Star Spangled Banner", or (at worst) chanting "USA! USA! USA!" Fresh flowers were taken to the sites where thousands died at bin Laden's directions, and for the first time in nearly a decade... tears were not all tears of loss and pain.

I dislike the "celebration" that denigrates the effort... but I abhor the generalization that says that all of America is that ignorant or stupid to feel or act as the few that are repeatedly shown on TV do. We are a mature, rational culture that has consistently grown from past mistakes... the Presidential race of 2008 is ample proof of that, I feel... and while not everyone that reacted to the news did so in a completely mature and rational manner, holding the rest of us responsible or equally guilty for the actions of that select and very visible few is just as ignorant and stupid as anything I've seen yet.

I support completely the effort that brought us to this point in the war against terrorism. I applaud the courage, strength and sacrifice of each and every man and woman that worked to put those SEALs in the time and place they were so they could do the job they did... from 2001 to May 2, 2011. I trust that the meager degree of justice that was meted out to OBL yesterday will be completed utterly by a Just and Merciful God, according to His will and not ours, just as I trust that those whose lives have been devastated by the actions of OBL in the past are never far from His divine and perfect Love.

Ten years of pain, fear and suffering have been heaped on this country because of one man's despicable actions... and those that suffered most have earned the right to applaud his death, if they so choose to do so. I won't complain...

"celebrations"

It may seem as if my last "picture post" was to flaunt what you undoubtedly knew would be my take on "celebrating" OBL's death. But it wasn't. I arranged that post prior to seeing your last. I merely wanted to mark our site with "history's first draft", that being the headlines of various newspapers around the nation. In addition, that shot of the President and senior staff was during the raid, they were watching it live from the situation room, complete with audio sending the spent rounds into the air around them (and that gasp from Hillary says the proverbial "thousand words"). And the SEAL TEAM 6 pic, well ... that's just frigging cool, and my Bund tip of the hat to the most elite warriors on this planet.

Funny, the discussion you had with Liz is one I had with my mother. She wasn't too keen on the celebrating either. Beck had the same take as my mother and your bride. And all for the same reason it seems- on a gut level it appeared unseemly to them. They preferred to think of it as a moment of reverence. And here's how I answered my mother:

The bulk of the "unseemly" (their words) celebrating was offered by college age kids, or there abouts. Now think about something. 9/11 occurred when they were anywhere from 8 to 11 years old. Their entire identity as an American is one wrapped up in fighting terror, specifically this one man, OBL. And in a war where there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship, I understand the need to take to the streets to celebrate what must have been a very cathartic moment for young men and women whom don't remember an America that wasn't at war with Osama bin Laden. How could they not celebrate? How could they not see a VE Day in this and run out and kiss a nurse?

And for those slightly older, say my age (35). Men (and women) whom perhaps consume news and information a bit more than the (non veteran) college aged kids. Whom are more familiar with the heartache of mistakes and sacrifice in Iraq (the former by civilian leaders, the latter by our armed service members). Whom perhaps understand slightly better the Gordian knot that is Afghanistan has no easy answers. For us this seemed like a single, bright, clearly positive moment in 10 years of moving the ball one yard at a time. Finally, we had a touchdown - and it was a big, big pass. How could we not celebrate? How could we not grab a nurse and kiss her?

So my take on this - it wasn't a celebration of death, but of life. That with this man gone life on this planet was more safe, more certain. That 24 SEALs delivered this touchdown pass with no casualties. You see, I see the celebration of life everywhere in these gatherings. And most importantly, those whom lost their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, wives and husbands on 9/11 from the victims in the towers, to the first responders, Flight 93, and the Pentagon, those surviving family members were afforded some level of justice which held a wholly different meaning for them then the rest of the nation - they could close a very personal chapter and in some small way reclaim a peice of their life. How could they not celebrate that?

And to be honest, as I watched these gatherings, it was heartening in a world of MTV, Jersey Shore, and tabloid minutia to see 18 to 25 year olds gathering in front of the White House and spontaneously erupting into a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

As one man put it, "It was like the entire country won the World Series last night." And anyone who's ever witnessed their team do that knows it's a celebration of your victory, not the opponents loss.

So score one for America...

And I see nothing wrong in celebrating that.

a day to remember...

The failure of "labels"...

This is tough to write, but I feel compelled to try to put it down. However, I do not hold any high hopes that it will spark any kind of productive discussion in this forum.

I'm laying down last night, getting ready to turn off the TV and get to sleep, and my wife says something about the latest she's seen of the news concerning OBL. I don't recall her words, but I do recall reacting rather sharply to the acerbity in her voice. Her comments were about the nature of some of the "celebrating" that was going on across the nation, and whether it was appropriate in its form and scope.

I must have been a bit dismissive in my comments, because the talk got heated and she ended up going downstairs so that our "discussion" didn't wake children. We ended up on the porch smoking and (basically) fighting. Not strictly about OBL and the celebrations associated with his death... more about the nature of our mutual opinions on numerous topics.

Liz seems to "want" to be a liberal... but can't bring herself to embrace all that is modern liberalism. She wants to see increased funding from the government for things like education and health care, but hates the products associated with past efforts like No Child Left Behind (and the PSSA tests that our children now take every two years). She wants to see low-income and poverty-stricken families recieve assistance from the government, but firmly advocates that these same families need to speak, read and understand English ONLY while doing so. She wants to see opportunities presented to the poor in this country, but would build another "Iron Curtain" from Califonia to Texas to ensure that no one from outside the country ever benefited from those opportunities.

I call myself a "conservative", yet I advocate an open-border policy, I defend Keynesian economic theory in many instances, I am against the death penalty, and I am utterly opposed to the thought of an "official" language for this nation (English or otherwise).

The spark that ignited this debate last night was the scenes of celebration in which images of OBL were burned, tee-shirts are being sold depicting his death, and other such acts. Liz seems to think this is as "wrong" as the scenes of Saudi citizens dancing in the streets of Riyad after the WTC collapsed on 9/11/01... and that it will only bring more hatred and violence to Americans as a result.

I recall pissing Ryan off something fierce when I said I was no fan of the tee shirts printed with images of the dead sons of Saddam Hussein in 2003. He defended not only the printing of those shirts, but promised to buy some for his boys to wear proudly about town. I wouldn't buy these OBL shirts either, of course... but I'm not sure the reasons are entirely the same.

This nation has invested more time, blood, treasure and tears into the fight against OBL than it has in almost every other shooting war we've ever fought. Very nearly 10 years of some of the toughest combat under the toughest conditions, with tens of thousands of US servicemen and women exposed to untold dangers... that kind of effort has a price. Eliminating OBL and his ilk as a threat to the US and the world was our primary goal in invading Afghanistan, and in remaining there, we have dedicated ourselves to ensuring that the Taliban (a repressive regime that harbored, protected and supported OBL and his like) did not have an opportunity to regain power. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans have someone they know and love that has served or is serving in Afhganistan, and in seeing OBL dead, we can see some of their efforts and sacrifices vindicated. There is no question in my mind or heart that having OBL dead makes the world a much safer place than it was 48 hours ago.

My point is that I think it beyond my place to judge or criticize someone who may be a "Gold Star" parent that chooses to celebrate the death of OBL any way they please. I, personally, prefer not to celebrate the death of anyone, even OBL... but I will celebrate the victory that this means to the US military: the culmination of nearly a decade of effort and sacrifice under extreme conditions with a successful conclussion. OBL is no longer a threat to the world in general or the US in particular. I also recognize that this brings a lot of closure to those that lost loved ones on 9/11... and that there can only be real relief in knowing that the man who masterminded that entire nightmare from beginning to end is now dead and gone.

There may be no perfect justice in this world at the hands of mortal men, and his death can't return anyone that OBL killed or injured to health... but it should be a clear and tangible lesson that we have a responsibility to both God and our fellow Man, and failure to understand that responsiblity has a heavy price indeed. In short, OBL has "reaped what he sowed" and that many times over. I'm satisfied with that.

How's this for big news?

I'm not 100% sure on this topic, but I have to share what I have so far...

The SEALs that went in and got OBL are the operational assetts of SEAL Team Six. In 2003, I met the XO for SEAL Team Six at the Break Room Too in Ocean Springs, MS. He is the son of our old Table Games VP... Jim P. !!!

How fantastic is that!

I don't know the man personally, of course. Just met him at the bar with his father and friends (Beau, Di, a couple of the old Paradise Island refugees), but we had a good laugh and quite a few drinks. It was the night Baby Beau and I did the SNL routine about "Who would win? Ditka or God?" Needless to say, I don't know that the man is still with SEAL Team Six... or if he is even still in the service. He was very nearly my age, and while I'm not "over-the-hill"... I'm old enough to know I'm not young anymore.

Just thought I'd share that bit of "its-a-small-world" trivia with all of you...

May 1st

Liz told you?! I must of called & text you 20 times last night! No answer! STILL no response to a single text either.

At any rate - May 1st has dual historical significance now. 5/1/45 is when Adolf Hitler died (suicide of course).

Buy a newspaper today & keep it boys, show it to your grandkids! This is, for us anyway, as close as we can come to what VE day must of felt like!

Ryan asks...

Got a text from Ryan just now (one of many since this news broke) asking why I picked the War of 1812 to compare 9/11 to rather than Pearl Harbor.

A fair question...

I was looking for a greater cost in lives and property than 9/11... and the 2,459 servicemen and civilians that died at Pearl Harbor couldn't excede the 2,996 dead from the September attacks. I know that the last time a foreign army was actually fighting American troops on our own soil was during the 1812 War... and I had thought that the taking of Detroit in July of 1812 had been by an invading British and Canadian force. However, I was wrong. Once the "declaration" of war had been made by both sides, the first actual armed attack against the enemy was not by the British, but by the Americans.

We invaded Canada in July of 1812... and got beaten so badly that when we retreated back to Detroit, we were forced to surrender not only the town of Detroit, but most of the Michigan territory that it controlled. That defeat cost the Americans more than 3,000 troops... and I thought it the greatest loss to an invading force on American soil in our history.

However, I was wrong. So, I retract my previous comparison, and admit that no greater loss of American life can be found in our history than that suffered when the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1941.

"Ding-dong, the witch is dead!"

Sorry... it was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news from Liz early this morning.

Like the Wicked Witch of the East, bin Laden has been a spectre in the American psyche since 2001. For nearly a decade, the man's name has been in the news almost constantly... mainly because he was still at large for so long after masterminding the most devestating attack on the US since the War of 1812.

I do hope that enough physical evidence of his death exists... this isn't simply about "closure" for a still greaving America. This is about ending the ability of one man to forment hatred and violence against the West by his every appearence and word uttered. The man was the focus and end of every terrorists dream of taking on the "great satan" that is (in the eyes of most radical Islamists) America. Finally dead, with no grave to visit and no relics to procure... a vital piece of terrorist ability has been removed, once and for all.

I am not surprised by the (already) increasing comments on the web about the "murder" of bin Laden, rather than his capture and trial... and I won't dignify the posts and articles with links. Regardless of the fact that a forty-minute firefight is a damn dangerous place to be (more so when you are up against 25 Navy SEALs)... let's assume for just a few minutes that there was, actually, an opportunity to take bin Laden alive.

The helicopter that the SEALs arrived in malfunctioned, and had to be destroyed by the SEALs before leaving the compound, which means they did it on foot. Taking a dead OBL out of the compound might not sound a lot easier than taking a live one out... but I am 100% sure it was. Add to that the fact that, once back in US Navy hands, OBL would have needed to be taken somewhere. The only possible choice for that destination is GITMO... and no matter how far away from US home soil that place is (being in Cuba), it is still US custody, meaning it is still a reason for every crackpot terrorist with a gun or grenade to try and "terrorize" the US into releasing him.

The only other terrorist known to have particpated in the 9/11 attacks that we have in custody has caused enough trouble without every going to trial. Two States have tried to organize trials (NY and NJ), but neither seems to have the means (or, frankly... the will) to do so safely. Now, after promising a swift and fair trial, even Obama has had to revert back to the option of military tribunals to do the job, because the fallout from a civilian trial is simply too big to ponder.

In short, what would we do with him? He has admitted to planning and financing the attacks (all of them, from '96 to '03) in no less than 4 separate countries, and the "doctrine" of terrorist actions says that admitting to the crime is better than denying it, even in a courtroom. Knowing this, all a trial would do is wrack up tens of millions of dollars (conservatively, mind you) in court costs and fees, with the inevitable end being that he is found guilty and sentenced to death (life imprisonment not being an option for someone this dangerous, I'm sure).

As I said on this very blog years ago... there was no way we were going to bring OBL back alive, even given the chance. The only success that could stem from his capture was his eventual death, anyway... so why circumvent the process at all? It was always our goal... nationally, I feel... to eliminate that threat completely. Even in a jail cell in the most secure prison on earth, the man was a threat we could not afford to suffer.

So, to quote Baum's "Mayor of Munchkin City, in the County of the Land of Oz":

"Yes, let the joyous news be spread... the wicked Old Witch at last is DEAD!"

GOT HIM!

Were I a tee shirt vendor, especially in NYC, I'd be printing that logo by the dozen.

As I'm sure you all know by now on 1 May, 2011 the Commander-in-Chief addressed the nation and uttered the words, "Osama bin Laden is dead, and the US has taken custody of his body." Details are still floating in but apparently he was hold up just 30 miles North of the Pakistani capitol, in a residential area. 24 US Navy SEALS took the residence, and he was shot, in the head.

More later ... about what this says of Pakistani intellegence; the decision to immediately bury the body at sea; & what this says about the Obama administration.

And I should add: congratulations Mr. President, well done.

I hope the "Arab street" that celebrated on 9/11 saw the images in Times Square tonight!

John Paul II

What a shame that John Paul II has to have so much negative attention thrown at him by people that have no interest, one way or the other, in whether or not his beatification happens.

The man took the gospel message of forgiveness to heart, and if he had a fault, it was in trusting others too much. Blaming him for others sins is not only illogical, but patently wrong in itself. Father Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ, was a mentally disturbed sociopath who not only fooled the Papacy, but thousands of the faithful as well. He was a sick man who did evil things, but John Paul II didn't see the same facts that we see today... he couldn't possibly be answerable for "protecting" Maciel, but if he is responsible for anything, it is in believing that Maciel repented his sins and was working to atone for them.

His efforts in every facet of his role as Pontiff so far outshine his possible failings that there can be no question that the latter counters the former. He almost single-handedly reshaped the manner in which the Church trains and grooms priests for ordination. He showed the world that hundreds of millions of young people across the globe WANT to live holy and spiritual lives, and that they are NOT growing less and less interested in matters of faith. He showed that acts of heroism and piety are not found only in the dusty tomes of hagiographies... but that they surround us in our daily lives each and every day.

Most importantly, he showed us that "saints" are real people... people we can know and understand first hand, rather than through reading religious history texts. The world (and I do mean the entire world) knew Mother Theresa, and there are hundreds of thousands of Europeans who knew the story of Fr. Max Kolbe from those that survived the Nazi death camps. He understood the power in knowing that all of us are called to live holy and virtuous lives... but that the difference can come from just one small act of supreme sacrifice or kindness, and not from a life dedicated to such efforts. In short, we are all human and none of us are "perfect", but God expects us to try anyway... and the rewards stem from small acts far more often than epic ones.

Is it any surprise that 99.99% of every voice that is critical of the Church's effort here is NOT even a practicing Christian? If they do have faith, it is tainted by a bitter and angry view of the Church as a whole, and is (seemingly) incapable of seeing John Paul in the context of his efforts.

I, for one, stand with those kids who stood just outside the Square of St Peter's during John Paul's funeral services, chanting over and over again... Santo subito! Santo subito! Santo subito!

A Saint Now!