Moderate. You really know how to insult a guy (ha). I am reminded of a class I once took - Political Geography. An interesting course. As the title eludes to it was a study in how politics influence our local environment - water supplies, zoning, city incorporation's etc. Within that course we went over a phenomena called NIMBY. Which stands for: Not In My Back Yard. It described those such as the Kennedy's (for an easy example) whom advocated wind power use on a large scale, as an alternative to fossil fuels, but refuse to let the large turbines be placed in the Sound near their compound because it would obstruct their pristine view. So, here I am, a rock-rib conservative my whole life, years later, practicing my own version of NIMBY. Always having opposed unions it would appear that I find them convenient when it serves to protect my back pocket. James would assign this to the embracement of my inner moderate. I'll get back to that in a second, let's first address "Mac." I always viewed "Mac" as someone who thrived on self reliance. Someone who was a social traditionalist. A person who disliked the concept of the public "dole." And yes, someone who wanted the 401k to surge with effective companies making the most amount of money possible. I NEVER intended to be or looked upon "Mac" as somone whom wanted to maximize company profits at any human price. Nor did I think of him as someone that would deny health care to poor or lower class children, or cut taxes so low that infrastructure crumbled. I understand that the people you mentioned Jambo, like Limbaugh, Hannitty and the rest, espouse and come off as THAT type of Mac. But I enjoyed their programs all these years in spite of that - not because of it. Call me an idealist or naive, but I always assumed that record profits, low taxes, that big 401k, and private sector freedom in general could be accomplished on the up and up - no shady or dishonorable practices being employed. And I'm sure that by and large that does occur. But what are we, as conservatives, to do when those whom labor under the auspices of our ideology go overboard? Wal Mart - a genuine American success story to be admired by all conservatives. What am I to say when it is shown that the over seas working factories are rampant with unsanitary working conditions, child labor, and brutal management? Or, in a less serious but still relevant scenario, the Harrah's dilemma I'm facing. Another classic Americana, successful company, employing business practices that punish long term service and try a reverse Robin Hood - rob from the poor (or "less rich" with our toke rate) to give to the richer. As conservatives are we to defend EVERY single aspect of legal, but dishonorable business practices simply because to criticize them somehow betrays our ideology? I don't see it that way. I think it's wonderful that Rockefeller built Standard Oil into a huge success under the auspices of my ideology. That doesn't mean I am then required to hold my tongue when he crosses the line. That's not conservatism. Not to me. Conservatism also includes law and order. A fair shake, not a guaranteed outcome, as liberals advocate, but a guaranteed chance at it. And that's where I disagree with you Jambo on what I am embracing, as I think it's part and parcel of my conservatism. In this instance (Harrahs) we have a group of individuals that feel they have been or will be wronged. Do they turn to the government or whine? No. Individual dealers stood up and said we're not going to put up with this, got together, and are democratically trying to ensure their voice is heard in future business decisions - and to boot the vast majority of us (although not me personally) are shareholders. They are relying on themselves to right what they see as a wrong. I don't find that in conflict with conservatism at all. Now, as I said, when unions get into unapproved political donations and requesting unreasonable pay packages, my ideology kicks in then too. And I would be quick to call them out, and have been. I don't like the term "compassionate conservatism." It's almost apologizing for being a conservative. So lets call it "sensible conservatism." That's what I am. A low taxes, small govt, social traditionalist, sensible conservative. I want the smallest govt possible, and in that trillion dollar budget, if "waste" was properly dealt with, I think low taxes can provide both health care for poor children (not people in my income bracket, despite how "nice" it would be for me personally) and a huge army. Because that makes sense. And that's what all conservatives have to contend with - how far will you personally carry your ideology? Because at the end of that conservative road stands a Libertarian like Ron Paul who would abolish every institution not specifically allowed for -by name - in the constitution. So where do you put on the brakes? At what point? I'll stop at "sensible conservatism."
So ....
Sensible Conservative (ism), (n) - a self reliant individual whom advocates traditional morals; low taxes; a small efficient government; honorable business practices, not just legal; helping the truly underprivileged with a hand up rather than a hand out; a large defense budget; the destruction of our war time ennemies; 2nd amendment protection; a secure border followed by reasonable solutions to those already here; and is typically good looking.
I know, I know. That sounds like a "moderate" to you Jambo. Maybe in today's political landscape of fringe politics it is ... but it's how I define conservatism.
FR
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Problem with American Conservatism
Ryan, this is in no way a slam so drop the quills. But your post triggered a thought in my head that wouldn't go away.
American Conservatives, (and I am generalizing, but you'll get it in a minute) want low taxes. They want more personal income to invest in large, successful companies so 401K and stock plans go through the roof and allow Mr. American Conservative (Mac from here on out) retirement at forty-five to fifty. Mac and his friends elect people that represent Mac's ideas.
And this is what they get.
Companies like Harrah's, far more interested in culling the herd of fossils who legitimately stand at making twice the hourly rate of some newbie break-in. Cull the herd, get "Harrah's" people in there indoctrinated in the "Harrah's" way and maximize profits for the shareholders. Being the largest gaming company in the world, one property's fossil holdouts mean nothing.
Insurance companies making record profits during the worst two year hurricane season ever. (2004,2005) Allstate, State Farm, Nationwide, Farmers, look it up. Through the roof. IN fact, they were only beaten in total profits by...
Oil companies raping the American public. There is no other way to put it. Flat out rape. I defy someone to tell me how any company can point to $3 a gallon gas and say, "Hey, supply and demand!" When that same company is making 9 billion in profits in ONE QUARTER!
And in legislation, Mac also sees:
Expanded health care for children vetoed. We talked about this, Ryan, remember? How if it passed your kids would have been covered, how nice that would have been? How that would have helped you and your family? I'm not sure where the override vote stands, guess there still may be hope, but for now...
Infrastructure decay. I'm not just talking about Social Security. Let's look at something fundamental, like roads. Not five miles from my ancestral home the I-35W bridge collapses across the Mississippi river. State responsibility, Mac cries, not Federal. Fine, someone get the conservative, low tax governor and legislators in St. Paul on the phone. Mom K. Titus will provide names and numbers. I think you have a dem in power in Nevada, but how are the roads out there? How's the infrastructure?
What makes me smile, not in a bad way but in a good way, not condescending, but in kind of an "I knew it!" way is the moderate that I knew was in Ryan this whole time is finally coming out. I saw glimpses of it when Ryan's kids were benefiting from CHIPS. I heard the pain in its voice when we spoke of Bush vetoing the expanded health care bill, (almost drowned out by the anguish of the Mac in Ryan railing at the failings of a vacillating PotUS, but still there) and I see it now as Ryan prepares for union indoc, preparing to do battle with the company his personal ideologies helped create.
Like I said, no criticism at all. I understand completely your motivation for voting union, but to identify it with Mac ideals is not honest or correct. Embrace the inner moderate. It doesn't make you a bad person.
American Conservatives, (and I am generalizing, but you'll get it in a minute) want low taxes. They want more personal income to invest in large, successful companies so 401K and stock plans go through the roof and allow Mr. American Conservative (Mac from here on out) retirement at forty-five to fifty. Mac and his friends elect people that represent Mac's ideas.
And this is what they get.
Companies like Harrah's, far more interested in culling the herd of fossils who legitimately stand at making twice the hourly rate of some newbie break-in. Cull the herd, get "Harrah's" people in there indoctrinated in the "Harrah's" way and maximize profits for the shareholders. Being the largest gaming company in the world, one property's fossil holdouts mean nothing.
Insurance companies making record profits during the worst two year hurricane season ever. (2004,2005) Allstate, State Farm, Nationwide, Farmers, look it up. Through the roof. IN fact, they were only beaten in total profits by...
Oil companies raping the American public. There is no other way to put it. Flat out rape. I defy someone to tell me how any company can point to $3 a gallon gas and say, "Hey, supply and demand!" When that same company is making 9 billion in profits in ONE QUARTER!
And in legislation, Mac also sees:
Expanded health care for children vetoed. We talked about this, Ryan, remember? How if it passed your kids would have been covered, how nice that would have been? How that would have helped you and your family? I'm not sure where the override vote stands, guess there still may be hope, but for now...
Infrastructure decay. I'm not just talking about Social Security. Let's look at something fundamental, like roads. Not five miles from my ancestral home the I-35W bridge collapses across the Mississippi river. State responsibility, Mac cries, not Federal. Fine, someone get the conservative, low tax governor and legislators in St. Paul on the phone. Mom K. Titus will provide names and numbers. I think you have a dem in power in Nevada, but how are the roads out there? How's the infrastructure?
What makes me smile, not in a bad way but in a good way, not condescending, but in kind of an "I knew it!" way is the moderate that I knew was in Ryan this whole time is finally coming out. I saw glimpses of it when Ryan's kids were benefiting from CHIPS. I heard the pain in its voice when we spoke of Bush vetoing the expanded health care bill, (almost drowned out by the anguish of the Mac in Ryan railing at the failings of a vacillating PotUS, but still there) and I see it now as Ryan prepares for union indoc, preparing to do battle with the company his personal ideologies helped create.
Like I said, no criticism at all. I understand completely your motivation for voting union, but to identify it with Mac ideals is not honest or correct. Embrace the inner moderate. It doesn't make you a bad person.
Monday, November 12, 2007
An inconvenient man ...
I think everyone here knows my views on the global warming frenzy. It's bad science combined with good propaganda and whala - we have a movement. I have presented (during our e-mail threads) mountains of evidence from credible, peer reviewed scientists and foundations that show this alarmist mentality is unwarranted and that man-made climate change is the stuff of science fiction, not science fact. I always let out a hearty "HA!" when Al Gore recites his tired line, "the scientific consensus is ..." Because science is not defined by consensus. It either is or is not provable with no room for "opinion." It is either known for sure or it is a theory - no in between. There is no "consensus" on photosynthesis, after all. At any rate, among the hundreds - and I do mean hundreds - of scientists that agree, is the man whom invented hurricane forecasting. I think that's slightly credible, don't you? Well, another big name has "outed" himself as a global warming skeptic - John Coleman. You may not be familiar with him or the PhD in meteorology he has held for 55 years, but I'm sure you've heard of what he founded - a little thing called The Weather Channel.
Hmmm ... who would seem to have more credibility on the issue of our climate? Al Gore or Coleman?
He uses one word to describe the "global warming movement." SCAM. He says it's a scam. You can link to the weather blog he outed himself on below. I came across this and had to post it. I don't know, come to think of it, how much the other two Bund founders buy into this rapidly being debunked theory of man-made climate change, so it may not even be an issue up for debate. I tend to remember Titus buying into this at one point, but perhaps that has subsided and reason has returned.
For anyone that does buy into it, I would be happy to send you my global warming e-mail that contains staggering amounts of data from credible sources contradicting this so called "consensus." But even without that, ask yourself the following questions and apply a little common sense, and see what you come up with:
1.) If it is such a provable phenomena, why is it presented as a consensus, rather than science fact?
2.) Ice ages have come and gone through out the millinea. Warming and cooling trends have come and gone throughout the million (s) year history of our planet. What caused them? SUV's and Nike factories weren't around. Perhaps they were simply a naturally occuring cyclical event, as is this one.
3.) 98% of the Co2 released in to the atmosphere comes from water evaporation. Another 1% is from other natural sources such as cow and moose flatulation and volcanic activity etc. If the 1% of human induced Co2 is causing (or will cause) all of this catastrophic environmental repercussions, why haven't the other 99% ever done so? The oceans have been evaporating since the beginning of time - and those T-Rex's MUST have cut some hellacious gas - why is it that the 99% part is not harmful, but the last 1% is? Use your best SNL/Dana Carvey church lady voice and say: "that's a mystery."
4.) The earth is something on the order of several hundred million years old, right? Are we to believe that 150 years of industrialization can effect the climate of a planet of that age?
Now, what Gore et al are doing is proselytizing. They're selling you a religion and asking you to "believe." They are NOT however, on the Today Show doing scientific experiments proving their case.
The snake oil salesman has simply traded in his wagon for a Gulf Stream jet - the pitch is the same.
FR
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc
Hmmm ... who would seem to have more credibility on the issue of our climate? Al Gore or Coleman?
He uses one word to describe the "global warming movement." SCAM. He says it's a scam. You can link to the weather blog he outed himself on below. I came across this and had to post it. I don't know, come to think of it, how much the other two Bund founders buy into this rapidly being debunked theory of man-made climate change, so it may not even be an issue up for debate. I tend to remember Titus buying into this at one point, but perhaps that has subsided and reason has returned.
For anyone that does buy into it, I would be happy to send you my global warming e-mail that contains staggering amounts of data from credible sources contradicting this so called "consensus." But even without that, ask yourself the following questions and apply a little common sense, and see what you come up with:
1.) If it is such a provable phenomena, why is it presented as a consensus, rather than science fact?
2.) Ice ages have come and gone through out the millinea. Warming and cooling trends have come and gone throughout the million (s) year history of our planet. What caused them? SUV's and Nike factories weren't around. Perhaps they were simply a naturally occuring cyclical event, as is this one.
3.) 98% of the Co2 released in to the atmosphere comes from water evaporation. Another 1% is from other natural sources such as cow and moose flatulation and volcanic activity etc. If the 1% of human induced Co2 is causing (or will cause) all of this catastrophic environmental repercussions, why haven't the other 99% ever done so? The oceans have been evaporating since the beginning of time - and those T-Rex's MUST have cut some hellacious gas - why is it that the 99% part is not harmful, but the last 1% is? Use your best SNL/Dana Carvey church lady voice and say: "that's a mystery."
4.) The earth is something on the order of several hundred million years old, right? Are we to believe that 150 years of industrialization can effect the climate of a planet of that age?
Now, what Gore et al are doing is proselytizing. They're selling you a religion and asking you to "believe." They are NOT however, on the Today Show doing scientific experiments proving their case.
The snake oil salesman has simply traded in his wagon for a Gulf Stream jet - the pitch is the same.
FR
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc
Stupid is as Wynn does.
Badboy - let me just comment on your "Caesar's being stupid" line since you're 1,900 miles away and I have a Caesar's swipe card.
I know that as conservatives we are supposed to hate all things union. But let's be mindful of something. Unions, historically in the US, are responsible for many of the working conditions we GOP working rank and file now take for granted: 8 hour work days; 5 day work weeks; safe and sanitary working conditions, etc. Not to mention, unionization is a democratic and self dependent process - there is a vote, and the organizers on property are individual Caesar's workers whom volunteer to use their own time and effort to correct (via a union yes vote) what they see as wrongs committed by management. Now, before Titus falls out of his chair after having read me defend unions, let me say this: the modern day "inheritors" of these historical movements have perverted and pimped out what was originally a justified organization of individuals. Political donations are made without member consent; some, such as the Auto Workers Union, give no thought to how their demands are crushing the very companies they work for; and movements to remove the secret casting of ballots - so that you have to vote in front of your pro-union coworkers, are all deplorable, and have given unionizing in general a deservedly bad name.
So my point is this - the concept of workers getting together to correct a clear and obvious wrong -such as Steve Wynn stealing their tokes - is in and of itself an understandable reaction. Or, as in the case of a coworker of mine, he has been dealing at Caesar's for 36 years, and the unionized cocktail waitress that gets hired tomorrow will have a base salary higher than his because he still makes minimum wage - in a company that sets one record profit quarter after another. In those instances I understand the impulse to unionize because as we all know, marching into a shift boss office and demanding a redress to your grievances will get you little more than a permanent Let-It-Ride schedule and denied days off requests. Unfortunately, although this and many other union efforts may start off with an earnest attempt to correct wrong done by mgmt, years from now this union (the Trans Worker Union) will likely politically and economically pimp out and pervert the dealer's local, just like any other. There should be a happy medium - record profits for shareholders and good treatment of employees.
And just let me add this - the only people that could have stopped this inevitable city-wide dealer unionization that I'm predicting, were those such as Gary Luvman (CEO Harrah's Inc), Sheldon Adelson (owner of the Venetian) and every other head of every other casino by coming out and emphatically stating, "NO, we will not take your tokes like Wynn - EVER." But instead the standard line was "let's wait and see what the courts decide" (the Wynn dealer's law suit). THAT was stupid. And it gave the TWU all the window they needed.
FR
I know that as conservatives we are supposed to hate all things union. But let's be mindful of something. Unions, historically in the US, are responsible for many of the working conditions we GOP working rank and file now take for granted: 8 hour work days; 5 day work weeks; safe and sanitary working conditions, etc. Not to mention, unionization is a democratic and self dependent process - there is a vote, and the organizers on property are individual Caesar's workers whom volunteer to use their own time and effort to correct (via a union yes vote) what they see as wrongs committed by management. Now, before Titus falls out of his chair after having read me defend unions, let me say this: the modern day "inheritors" of these historical movements have perverted and pimped out what was originally a justified organization of individuals. Political donations are made without member consent; some, such as the Auto Workers Union, give no thought to how their demands are crushing the very companies they work for; and movements to remove the secret casting of ballots - so that you have to vote in front of your pro-union coworkers, are all deplorable, and have given unionizing in general a deservedly bad name.
So my point is this - the concept of workers getting together to correct a clear and obvious wrong -such as Steve Wynn stealing their tokes - is in and of itself an understandable reaction. Or, as in the case of a coworker of mine, he has been dealing at Caesar's for 36 years, and the unionized cocktail waitress that gets hired tomorrow will have a base salary higher than his because he still makes minimum wage - in a company that sets one record profit quarter after another. In those instances I understand the impulse to unionize because as we all know, marching into a shift boss office and demanding a redress to your grievances will get you little more than a permanent Let-It-Ride schedule and denied days off requests. Unfortunately, although this and many other union efforts may start off with an earnest attempt to correct wrong done by mgmt, years from now this union (the Trans Worker Union) will likely politically and economically pimp out and pervert the dealer's local, just like any other. There should be a happy medium - record profits for shareholders and good treatment of employees.
And just let me add this - the only people that could have stopped this inevitable city-wide dealer unionization that I'm predicting, were those such as Gary Luvman (CEO Harrah's Inc), Sheldon Adelson (owner of the Venetian) and every other head of every other casino by coming out and emphatically stating, "NO, we will not take your tokes like Wynn - EVER." But instead the standard line was "let's wait and see what the courts decide" (the Wynn dealer's law suit). THAT was stupid. And it gave the TWU all the window they needed.
FR
That's what happens when you let our boys simply do their job ...
AH HA! How appropriate that I should come across this information on none other than Veteran's Day.....
The statistics on Iraq, in particular Baghdad for September (i.e. the full results of the "surge") are in from the Iraqi Interior, Health and Defense Ministries, and have been confirmed by the UN: Indirect fire attacks (incoming rockets etc) have dropped from 400 per month to 20. IED explosions in the capital have gone from 187 per month to 18. Al Qeda has been completely driven from Baghdad and now remains a problem in only 13% of the country. The number of violence related deaths in September 2006 (across the nation) were 1,400; but in September 2007 it was 290. Between January and the end of September 2006 the total dead was a staggering 27,000, where as during that same period in 2007 the number has dropped to 7,100. The number of bodies sent to the central Baghdad morgue this time last year (September) was between 100 and 150 per day. It now stands at 10 per day with 50% of those deaths occurring due to "normal" circumstances (elderly, car accidents etc), causing UN Secretary General Ban Kahi Moon to announce that September is the lowest month for casualties yet this year; and that the UN is considering establishing a small peace keeping force in Basra (now that the US Marine Core has made it safe for the blue helmeted little darlings). And just to drive home the point, consider this story ...
Taxi driver Ahmed Khalil Baqir used to station himself outside Baghdad's main morgue, waiting for grieving families who went there to claim their relatives’ dead bodies.
"I was totally dependent on them for my living," Baqir, a 44-year-old father of four, said." I never thought about picking up people in the street as I was being hired five to eight times a day by these families. But now it is a waste of time to wait there and these days I wait only for about three hours in the morning and I continue my work picking up passengers in the street.”
Overall violence in Iraq is now down an incredible 77%.
These statistics were compiled by the IRIN - the media wing of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74892, but these numbers and this story can be confirmed at virtually any mainstream news source with a little effort and a few clicks, or by Googling "Iraq violence down."
And that brings me to my next point: WHERE IS ALL THE BREAKING NEWS COVERAGE AND ABOVE THE FOLD HEADLINES??? Shame on the US press core. They went to such great lengths to cover every explosion, every death, every car bomb, every IED, every scrap of information that could serve as an indicator that this front in the war on terror was a catastrophic blunder; but now, when the tide is beginning to turn - a time which I believe history will regard as our turning point - the coverage is noticeably absent. I shouldn't have to descend three to four clicks of the mouse into a news site in order to recover this information. The link for this monumental story on FOX, MSNBC et al should simply be the home page - it is not. And even more shameful is the "however there are still pockets of violence in XYZ" that ends each of these reports. The "positive" aspects during the worst of the violence was not tagged at the end of each of the "negative" reports in months past. In this day and age, especially in a time of war we must be thankful for alternative news sources such as the Internet, blogs, and talk radio. Although I never cite the latter as my news source, more often then not the story that I subsequently research and post on is brought to my attention by AM or Sirius radio. This story was brought to my attention by Rush - which certainly sends a cold shiver up the spine of a certain Bund member - but I think we should give credit where credit is due. Even if you think Limbaugh and his lesser compatriots are nothing more than a never ending series of blowhards pontificating the rantings of a biased moron, you must still admit that there multimillion person reach - for free no less - has been vital in getting out what good news there is in Iraq, which has now hit a critical mass threshold, overtaking the "bad." There may be biased in why they choose to report these things, but not in the numbers they report on - that can be confirmed, and has, and they are due a level of thanks for getting this message - that our troops are doing spectacularly well - out to the masses (in the millions).
But on this Veterans Day let me give thanks to those who most deserve it - the US Military: To every infantry man, to every Airborne Ranger, to every medic, every airman, to every SEAL, Delta, cook and mechanic: THANK YOU. History will not forget your service, and we will not forget your sacrifice.
Sincerely,
The Bund.
The statistics on Iraq, in particular Baghdad for September (i.e. the full results of the "surge") are in from the Iraqi Interior, Health and Defense Ministries, and have been confirmed by the UN: Indirect fire attacks (incoming rockets etc) have dropped from 400 per month to 20. IED explosions in the capital have gone from 187 per month to 18. Al Qeda has been completely driven from Baghdad and now remains a problem in only 13% of the country. The number of violence related deaths in September 2006 (across the nation) were 1,400; but in September 2007 it was 290. Between January and the end of September 2006 the total dead was a staggering 27,000, where as during that same period in 2007 the number has dropped to 7,100. The number of bodies sent to the central Baghdad morgue this time last year (September) was between 100 and 150 per day. It now stands at 10 per day with 50% of those deaths occurring due to "normal" circumstances (elderly, car accidents etc), causing UN Secretary General Ban Kahi Moon to announce that September is the lowest month for casualties yet this year; and that the UN is considering establishing a small peace keeping force in Basra (now that the US Marine Core has made it safe for the blue helmeted little darlings). And just to drive home the point, consider this story ...
Taxi driver Ahmed Khalil Baqir used to station himself outside Baghdad's main morgue, waiting for grieving families who went there to claim their relatives’ dead bodies.
"I was totally dependent on them for my living," Baqir, a 44-year-old father of four, said." I never thought about picking up people in the street as I was being hired five to eight times a day by these families. But now it is a waste of time to wait there and these days I wait only for about three hours in the morning and I continue my work picking up passengers in the street.”
Overall violence in Iraq is now down an incredible 77%.
These statistics were compiled by the IRIN - the media wing of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74892, but these numbers and this story can be confirmed at virtually any mainstream news source with a little effort and a few clicks, or by Googling "Iraq violence down."
And that brings me to my next point: WHERE IS ALL THE BREAKING NEWS COVERAGE AND ABOVE THE FOLD HEADLINES??? Shame on the US press core. They went to such great lengths to cover every explosion, every death, every car bomb, every IED, every scrap of information that could serve as an indicator that this front in the war on terror was a catastrophic blunder; but now, when the tide is beginning to turn - a time which I believe history will regard as our turning point - the coverage is noticeably absent. I shouldn't have to descend three to four clicks of the mouse into a news site in order to recover this information. The link for this monumental story on FOX, MSNBC et al should simply be the home page - it is not. And even more shameful is the "however there are still pockets of violence in XYZ" that ends each of these reports. The "positive" aspects during the worst of the violence was not tagged at the end of each of the "negative" reports in months past. In this day and age, especially in a time of war we must be thankful for alternative news sources such as the Internet, blogs, and talk radio. Although I never cite the latter as my news source, more often then not the story that I subsequently research and post on is brought to my attention by AM or Sirius radio. This story was brought to my attention by Rush - which certainly sends a cold shiver up the spine of a certain Bund member - but I think we should give credit where credit is due. Even if you think Limbaugh and his lesser compatriots are nothing more than a never ending series of blowhards pontificating the rantings of a biased moron, you must still admit that there multimillion person reach - for free no less - has been vital in getting out what good news there is in Iraq, which has now hit a critical mass threshold, overtaking the "bad." There may be biased in why they choose to report these things, but not in the numbers they report on - that can be confirmed, and has, and they are due a level of thanks for getting this message - that our troops are doing spectacularly well - out to the masses (in the millions).
But on this Veterans Day let me give thanks to those who most deserve it - the US Military: To every infantry man, to every Airborne Ranger, to every medic, every airman, to every SEAL, Delta, cook and mechanic: THANK YOU. History will not forget your service, and we will not forget your sacrifice.
Sincerely,
The Bund.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Baddboy says, "What did he just say?!?"
You guys should be ashamed of yourself, only one post this month? What is there nothing going on other than Caesars getting stupid and going union. Time to start a shit storm of huge proportion.
I never thought I would here myself try and help the cutting of the defense budget but I was watching the Army/Rutgers bloodbath at work last night and it came to me that we have one too many military academies. If the Naval Academy can train Marine Corps officers why can’t West Point train Air Force officers? In a military that is completely reliant on combined arms and combined command why is it that we aren’t combined training our officers?
I am in no way shape or form attempting to say we should fold the Air force back into the Army, that would be a major mistake if for nothing else acquisition of new gear for the Air Force would suffer immeasurably. What I am saying is that we should be training our future officers together in a like minded fashion with similar leadership doctrine. The Air Force would argue this but they no longer teach leadership, they do teach management and call it leadership but as most of us know they are two different things. I’m not even sure how much money it would save to shut down the Air Force Academy and move the students and curriculum to New York but it would definitely help with training for sure. The Army and Air Force would still recruit their own cadets but they would train and learn together as a single entity until graduation.
I say move Air Force cadets to West Point only from a historical perspective. I wouldn’t even dream of knowing how much would have to change at USMA to be able to support that many new students or if they even have the real estate to be able to do it but it would seem to me that since the AFA has only been around since the 1960’s that they would be the ones to close their doors.
Well lets see where this one goes
Baddboy
I never thought I would here myself try and help the cutting of the defense budget but I was watching the Army/Rutgers bloodbath at work last night and it came to me that we have one too many military academies. If the Naval Academy can train Marine Corps officers why can’t West Point train Air Force officers? In a military that is completely reliant on combined arms and combined command why is it that we aren’t combined training our officers?
I am in no way shape or form attempting to say we should fold the Air force back into the Army, that would be a major mistake if for nothing else acquisition of new gear for the Air Force would suffer immeasurably. What I am saying is that we should be training our future officers together in a like minded fashion with similar leadership doctrine. The Air Force would argue this but they no longer teach leadership, they do teach management and call it leadership but as most of us know they are two different things. I’m not even sure how much money it would save to shut down the Air Force Academy and move the students and curriculum to New York but it would definitely help with training for sure. The Army and Air Force would still recruit their own cadets but they would train and learn together as a single entity until graduation.
I say move Air Force cadets to West Point only from a historical perspective. I wouldn’t even dream of knowing how much would have to change at USMA to be able to support that many new students or if they even have the real estate to be able to do it but it would seem to me that since the AFA has only been around since the 1960’s that they would be the ones to close their doors.
Well lets see where this one goes
Baddboy
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
"Damnit Jim I'm a doctor, not a politician!"
Today Giuliani received his biggest campaign boost to date.... Pat Robertson gave him a live and gushing endorsement. That wing of the Party, the Christian Coalition, for which Robertson through his young Lieutenant Ralph Reed founded, was the only shall we say "cautious" group in terms of supporting Rudy within the GOP. Prior to this it was rumored that Dr. James Dobson of Focus On the Family would start a third party if Giuliani got the nod - which would be disastrous for the GOP and all but assure a Hillary presidency. I don't see how Dobson would do that now - Robertson's faithful are the good doctor's core audience. Robertson undoubtedly was pleased/relieved (as was I) when Rudy indicated several weeks ago that Alito & Thomas were the model of justices he would seek for Supreme Court nominees even if it meant ultimately reversing Roe vs. Wade.
Also, what Robertson eluded to in his press conference is what I am hearing in the conservative chattering class more and more, along with everyday people with whom I talk (admittedly anecdotal evidence), and it's this: Rudy 's big plus among GOP voters is that we believe he will be absolutely ruthless with two groups: Hillary INC, and terrorists. He seems to be looked upon as the guy who won't hesitate to strike a death blow (politically or literally) if the situation calls for it. He'll fight bare-fisted and bite where as his closest competitor, Romney, seems a bit too refined for the times in which we live.
Well, I'm going on record now with my prediction: Rudy gets the nod and picks up Romney for the VP spot. I think, and James correct me if I'm wrong, that will be the first mayor to win the nomination, let alone the presidency. The other side is easy - Hillary, even with her disastrous debate performance the other night. I hope you all have caught that on the news, you'd have to be held up in a cave somewhere not to. Within the span of 60 seconds, with Senator Chris Dodd and moderator Tim Russert both pressing her for a straight answer, she said that Spitzer's (the NY governor) plan to issue illegals a legal drivers license was both a bad idea and a good idea, and denied ever saying either. It was the classic politician taking both sides of the issue, except she didn't pull it off. Now Bill is saying that Edwards and Obama (both whom smell blood in the water and have attacked her flip flop) are quote, "swift-boating" Hillary. At least the GOP is being smart - when your opponents begin fighting each other all you do is volunteer to hold their coat and shut up. But even with that Hillary won't lose the nomination, she's just too well organized and too willing to cross any line needed to win. It did occur to me though that she doesn't have an ounce of her husbands talent (not many people do), and that debate made it very obvious. And that's the problem when she's under pressure - in comparison to Bill she's twice as crooked and only half as good at explaining it, which means there will be one, maybe two debates in the general election and ZERO appearances on tough questioning shows like Meet The Press or O'Riley, as where Giuliani (presumably) will do them all.
Alright, in other news I bought a brand new 2007 Ford F-150 Super Cab. It's silver with black trim, power everything, and I love it!! That's my first truck - you wouldn't think so being I'm from Mississippi. The car I was driving was given to me after the storm by my father - a 98' Buick century; but when it hit 200,000 miles last week and couldn't pass the smog emissions test (ugh, the price of living out west), I decided what the hell, go get a truck finally. I got a good deal too - 1.9 % interest for 60 mos with 1,1oo down (they gave me 600 for that car). Don't ask me how I qualified for that interest rate. I can only guess it was because the salesman was from Pensacola FL and we talked at length about the storm during the test drive, so I got a sympathy rate.... sure as hell wasn't due to a stellar credit report. Titus, out of curiosity what did you end up doing with that big Dodge Intrepid I sold you? Did you have some one drive it all the way up to PA with your truck? I know you didn't leave the new truck.
Oh, and the next Democratic debate, hosted by CNN, will be here in sunny Las Vegas at UNLV. I'm thinking of trying to be in the audience - though I'm reminded of Sean Connery's words in Indiana Jones III when they hit Berlin: "Son, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."
Later guys ... live long and prosper (hey, I'm young and good-looking, I can get away with being a Trekkie without coming off like a nerd ... I've known the touch of a woman ... he he)
FR
Also, what Robertson eluded to in his press conference is what I am hearing in the conservative chattering class more and more, along with everyday people with whom I talk (admittedly anecdotal evidence), and it's this: Rudy 's big plus among GOP voters is that we believe he will be absolutely ruthless with two groups: Hillary INC, and terrorists. He seems to be looked upon as the guy who won't hesitate to strike a death blow (politically or literally) if the situation calls for it. He'll fight bare-fisted and bite where as his closest competitor, Romney, seems a bit too refined for the times in which we live.
Well, I'm going on record now with my prediction: Rudy gets the nod and picks up Romney for the VP spot. I think, and James correct me if I'm wrong, that will be the first mayor to win the nomination, let alone the presidency. The other side is easy - Hillary, even with her disastrous debate performance the other night. I hope you all have caught that on the news, you'd have to be held up in a cave somewhere not to. Within the span of 60 seconds, with Senator Chris Dodd and moderator Tim Russert both pressing her for a straight answer, she said that Spitzer's (the NY governor) plan to issue illegals a legal drivers license was both a bad idea and a good idea, and denied ever saying either. It was the classic politician taking both sides of the issue, except she didn't pull it off. Now Bill is saying that Edwards and Obama (both whom smell blood in the water and have attacked her flip flop) are quote, "swift-boating" Hillary. At least the GOP is being smart - when your opponents begin fighting each other all you do is volunteer to hold their coat and shut up. But even with that Hillary won't lose the nomination, she's just too well organized and too willing to cross any line needed to win. It did occur to me though that she doesn't have an ounce of her husbands talent (not many people do), and that debate made it very obvious. And that's the problem when she's under pressure - in comparison to Bill she's twice as crooked and only half as good at explaining it, which means there will be one, maybe two debates in the general election and ZERO appearances on tough questioning shows like Meet The Press or O'Riley, as where Giuliani (presumably) will do them all.
Alright, in other news I bought a brand new 2007 Ford F-150 Super Cab. It's silver with black trim, power everything, and I love it!! That's my first truck - you wouldn't think so being I'm from Mississippi. The car I was driving was given to me after the storm by my father - a 98' Buick century; but when it hit 200,000 miles last week and couldn't pass the smog emissions test (ugh, the price of living out west), I decided what the hell, go get a truck finally. I got a good deal too - 1.9 % interest for 60 mos with 1,1oo down (they gave me 600 for that car). Don't ask me how I qualified for that interest rate. I can only guess it was because the salesman was from Pensacola FL and we talked at length about the storm during the test drive, so I got a sympathy rate.... sure as hell wasn't due to a stellar credit report. Titus, out of curiosity what did you end up doing with that big Dodge Intrepid I sold you? Did you have some one drive it all the way up to PA with your truck? I know you didn't leave the new truck.
Oh, and the next Democratic debate, hosted by CNN, will be here in sunny Las Vegas at UNLV. I'm thinking of trying to be in the audience - though I'm reminded of Sean Connery's words in Indiana Jones III when they hit Berlin: "Son, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."
Later guys ... live long and prosper (hey, I'm young and good-looking, I can get away with being a Trekkie without coming off like a nerd ... I've known the touch of a woman ... he he)
FR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
