My Bad!

Hey Jason! Sorry about that. I thought maybe this was some new Pennsylvania lame-o Tom dragged into this from his work. Should have known better.

I'd ask how things are in the great White North except I've got to take the dogs out. It's currently 71 degrees out with a ten knot southwesterly breeze coming from the Gulf. The Mardi Gras parades run in Gulfport and Biloxi tomorrow, so nice weather is kind of a must. Need to get the facial sunblock out. Won't do to go to work with the third degree sunburnt nose.

Titus, you done chipping all that ice?

Who's Jason???

Jambo writes: "Who's Jason?"

Why, Jason is none other than a Northern Wisconsin-living, gun-owning, Republican-card-carrying, "liberal" hating, Hillary-mocking, child-raising, hard-working, too much tax-paying, military-serving, Rush-loving guy that YOU went to high school with... Jason "Rad"!!!

(In keeping with our semi-anonymous nom de plumes here at the Driveway Bund, I'll leave it at "Rad", okay?)

He's signed up with a Blogger account and is ready to comment when he feels the need to voice rational wisdom amidst our meager intellectual wanderings...

Hehe... that's good, huh?

Welcome, buddy! Page back a few posts and find that comment about Rick's graduation at Fort Ruckers... good times, huh? Still got the flag!

Talk Radio

I think I am going to stop listening to conservative talk radio, and switch over to either the Liberal channel on my satellite receiver or tune in to ESPN ONLY... cause I seem to be getting pissed off on a really regular basis.

Last night, about 1:30 am local time, I'm driving along and listening to Patriot 144 on Sirius. Wilkow is replaying his Friday show... and I hear the following exchange:

(Note: Paraphrazed of course...)

Caller: "What GOP candidate has more expert insight into torture and inhumane treatment than McCain?"

Wilkow: "Do you have a wife?"

Caller: "Uhhh... yeah."

Wilkow: "Does the fact that she has a vagina make her a gynecologist?"

???????

What the ....???

I'm sorry, but what more offensive comment could be made in regards to both denegrating McCain's time in captivity while serving in the Navy AND making the issue of inhumane treatment of prisoners seem trivial and unimportant?

I'm willing to be the first to say that "combat experience" doesn't equate to expert knowledge of combat command and control... I'd say Kerry proved that point very well. None the less, you will never hear ME question ANYONE who has seen the "elephant" in regards to how it shaped their opinion or political view later on.

And as far as McCain's view on "torture" goes... perhaps the Hon. Senator from Arizona ISN'T an EXPERT on torture based solely on his own torture experience, but to suggest the experience is irrellevant is not only juvenile, it's offensive in the extreme.

To finish Wilkow's analogy... if I were a woman, I might not automaticly be a gynecologist because I have a vagina, but I can damn well guaranty you that if I have questions about which gynecologist I am going to visit (read: EXPERT ON TORTURE), I'm going to ask someone with a history of some pretty serious vaginal issues about what she feels are good solutions. I sure as HELL am not going to listen to Andrew Wilkow... No vagina, no time in the service, never been tortured, and doesn't have to common sense to seperate the Senator from the Naval Aviator.

End of rant.

Berkley Protest...*sheesh*

I understand that this nation has a long tradition of allowing its citizens the freedom to question, and even condemn, the Government's actions... especially concerning war. This tradition dates all the wy back to the start of the War of 1812, and in each and every instance, as long as national security and personal safety were not a factor, these voices were allowed to be voiced.

After reading this article about the latest Berkley, CA protest effort I find myself upset, not at the prospect of another Berkley protest, but at the leader of the protest espousing the thought that she is doing it out of a sense of "tradition" herself!

Rather than make the focus of her protest the GOVERNMENT that is directing the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (I assume that is her beef), she has directed her group's efforts at one of the most fundemental institutions of freedom and democracy's defense and protection... the United States Marine Corps.

Would she be attempting to divert potential recruits if she had friends, or family, in harms way in a place like the WTC on 9-11? Or Pearl Harbor in December of 1941? Perhaps children studying abroad at a place like St George University in a small island called Greneda? Or a brother or sister working embassy duty in Tehran in 1979?

Hate G W Bush all you want, and protest to your hearts content... but don't protest the very INSTITUTIONS that defend your rights to free speech... or religion... or the right to freely congregate and vote for another, more suitable President... or even your very LIFE and the LIVES OF YOUR CHILDREN!

Thanks, Jason, for sharing this link with us. Hope to hear your very conservative voice in this forum soon!

The end of the "Two-Party" system?

Had a discussion at work the other night that actually got my mind churning (that doesn't happen often enough at my casino, believe me...). Here's the short-and-sweet:

One of the top five issues facing the '08 candidates this election years is fundemental tax reform. Why? Because "Libertarian" GOP candidate Ron Paul made it so. His ability to be a factor in the actual '08 election aside, his contribution in this area is stunning. His position of eliminating the IRS for an alternative tax-revenue system got the public so fired up, it is now a dominant point in every debate and Q/A format the candidates might become involved in.

However, Paul's GOP bid is over, and his supporters will have to decide who among the survivors they will cast their votes for. I can't point to a Democrat candidate that had as big an impact, but with the question of FL/MI delegates still undecided, the potential for a Democratic disaster is still there.

Another is immigration. In a state where Latino/American voters a huge factor, which GOP candidate came out on top? The one with the most moderate immigration reform position... McCain. I can't help but feel that this give a new light to Ryan's position that the MAJORITY of legal immigrants and native-born Latino/Americans whole-heartedly support the kind of "closed" border mentality that Ryan (and many conservatives) advocate. The results of "Super Tuesday" will make or break my point on this issue, when so many other states with large, LEGAL Latino/American voting blocks have their voices heard.

In the last 25 years, we have seen the "multi-party" elections play a more prominent role in our Presidential races... Perot and the Reform Party are a great example, but a more general shift around the Independent or Libertarian parties are also examples. With such volitile and pressing issues as national security, immigration and health care looming nearly constantly now (on both sides of the isle), what are the chances that we will see, spread over the next 10 to 15 years, a larger and more vocal presence from "third" party candidates? The success of Perot and the Reform Party hasn't been matched since 1998, and I admit that Perot had a poor showing (electorially speaking) in '92... however, he DID get a full 19% of the traditional "conservative" popular vote... enough to have assured Bush Sr of another four years in office.

Both sides must come to grips with the possibility that, sometime in the near future, they will by vying for votes from relatively similar platform choices, and I think this is a GOOD thing. It will force candidates to provide substansive plans and agendas to their typically meager platforms, and the need to be able to address specific issues clearly and measurably will become paramount.

More on Fascism

In regards to Ryan’s “Fascism” thread, I wanted to add this to my previous comments… especially as he seemed to think it was a “fun” thread anyway.

In addition to the several “facts” of fascism I listed in my posts, I need to add this one… that a fascist state focuses its efforts and policies to “right” the perceived wrongs perpetrated on a society or culture by another group or society. It strives to return the nation/state/culture to a lost “golden age” where the influence of that society was at a peak, and that influence was “taken away” by another sociopolitical body. The focus is on a gross and measurable decline in society, and the effort is to reverse this decline and return the society to greatness and power.

Franco’s “Falange” ideas harkened back to the Spanish Empire. Mussolini’s Syndicalism plan strove to return Italy to the glory that was Rome. Hitler dreamed of a “THIRD Reich” that would last a thousand years, but would return Germany to that which was lost when first Charlemagne’s, then the Keiser’s empires fell to ruin. Romania’s “Arrow Cross” longed for a return to the dominance of Central Europe and the Balkans by the Hunyadi dynasty of the 16th Century, when John Hunyadi was all that stopped the Ottoman’s from over-running Christian Europe (ironically, Dracula was part of this era!).

Fascism must have this facet of ideology to remain “fascist” in my book. The USSR did NOT long to return to a society that once was, but was lost. Far from, they KNEW that they were breaking new ground by striving for a society that had never existed at all. For this reason I do not include Imperial Japan in the list of fascist states of the last century. Japan was imperialistic in its determination to gain and maintain hegemony over all “Asian” peoples and the Pacific Rim, but it was simply expanding an existing empire that actually was surpassing any historical “greatness” (as measured in territory or political influence) that it had ever achieved in the past. They did not long for past glory, nor did the Russians. They longed for MORE power and influence than they currently had (or ever had, for that matter).

There is no question in my mind that communism and fascism are, in fact, ideologically and diametrically opposed.

Let's play a game II... Titus' turn

James and I talked a bit about this, so I guess his views may mirror what I write here. We'll have to see...

What were Reagan's greatest FAILURES as a President?

I will list them in no particular order, as I understand them to be, okay? Feel free to comment at your ease.

1. For a President that stated time and time again that he would NEVER negotiate with terrorists, I feel Reagan did a whole lot of just THAT... negotiating with terrorists. Delaying the release of the hostages until AFTER the inauguration borders on criminal. Then selling them (the Iranians) weapons ILLEGALLY only 3 years later... wow. Then there was the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983. After those 200+ Marines died by a murderous "jihadist" attack, the US had withdrawn ALL military presence from the country. I think the message sent with that action was "You win... we quit" in Lebanon, and the terrorists maintained a war of terror against our "ally" every day since. Finally, let's not forget that the FIRST US President to officially recognize the PLO as a legitimate elected governing body, and recognize Yassir Arrafat as its leader, was Ronald W. Reagan on Dec 14, 1988.
2. Ryan only recently beat me up for acting shamefully by suggesting that I MIGHT support Obama in the primary election, based (partially) on a President's power to appoint judges. I submit that another failure of the Reagan years was the appointment of O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. What two justices have gone further to "legislate from the bench" than those two? None, in my book. This is a legacy that America has had to live with for 20 years and more, and the precedents these two judges set in their actions and findings will continue to plague America for decades to come. I also feel his lack of support in defending his Bork appointment has had echoes down the decades as well... we haven't seen a President DEFEND an appointment since until Bush Jr. took office, and I think the reason for that is the precedent that Reagan set in letting a Democratic Congress hound him into making a different choice.
3. (NOTE: This is James' input... not entirely mine, but I agree 100%) Reagan's 1st Inaugural Address pledged "...to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people." Stirring words, but he forgot them when he forced all 50 states to raise the drinking age to 21, or risk the loss of ALL Federal highway funding... even if the states expressly held that the determination of the legal drinking age was a STATE RIGHT.

Gotta cut this short for now... more later, I hope.