you're damn-near eloquent. So, rather than stealing your "thunder", I'll make my comments short and to-the-point.
Tim Russert. Sorry to see him pass so young, and he may indeed have been the last "objective" face in the mainstream media's anchor position, but if you want to discuss "old school" front-man positions, let's talk about Kronkite and Reasoner and the like, not Russert.
The American judicial system. The issues here are many and varied, but the blame can't be put solely on the Supreme Courts. Because Roe v Wade is now considered a de facto law in this country is the fault of the individual States and the legislative branch of the Federal Government every bit as much as it is the fault of the court itself. As I, myself, have pointed out in the past, previous Courts have made bad decisions, and those decisions were over-turned by the States and Congress enacting Laws that challenged the decisions, and forcing the issue back into court. In the Roe v Wade case, and Doe v Bolton, it would seem that America itself has resigned to accept the results as LAW, rather than challenge them through new, comprehensive legislation.
In fact, the most telling example of such failure is where Courts like the 9th District have routinely ruled against any and all forms of Judeo-Christian public practice of faith, but constantly support the same efforts from Muslim, pagan, or any other non-Judeo-Christian practice. One cannot legally place a nativity scene within 50 feet of public access (which is why most municipalities in Michigan won't allow front-yard scenes because of sidewalks), but entire towns are forced to hear the Muslim adhan, or "call to prayer", publicly broadcast on municipal loudspeakers. Where is the determined legislative effort to right this wrong? Where is the determined executive campaign to make the public aware of this bias?
Oil.
*sigh*
My resistance in the past to ANWAR drilling was based solely on the propensity of the American government to look for short-term solutions to really big issues, and while I cannot argue that increasing domestic production of oil by as much as 15% would be a good thing for issues like national security and immediate global supply, I still stand firm that any and all increase in production and exploration of domestic supplies be matched by Federal grants and programs with the intention of developing and producing alternative forms of energy... i.e. non-petroleum based energy productions methods. Simply ending all moratoriums on coastal or NWA drilling and exploration does nothing to end the President's call for an end to our national "addiction" to oil.
What I find so amazing is that pundits like the kind we here on the radio are constantly equating ANWAR access as the answer to our troubles at the pump. The cost involved in setting up, drilling out, moving and shipping the crude oil under the ANWAR would pay for 2.7 nuclear power plants capable of replacing as many as 9 traditional coal-fired plants that consume more than 1.5 times the "fossil fuel" than we'd be bringing out of the ground. Nuclear plants do not put gas in our tanks, I know... and the economy right now is far more effected by the cost of gas than it is the cost of electricity. My point is that the issue of ANWAR is now a focus of the far-right as much as it is the far-left... and no rational discussion of the pros and cons is going to result.
The one point that no one ever mentions, however, is the lack of voice that individual States have in the matter. The ANWAR oil is completely located in Alaska, and the Alaskan people are very strongly in favor of drilling it. As are the citizens of FL for the drilling of oil off the Gulf Coast. Where is their voice heard? Who is impacted more than they are by the drilling of these sources? If the vast majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling, why on earth should some tree-hugging hippies in southern CA or liberal legislators in D.C. have a greater voice than they do?
To watch the price of a barrel of light, sweet crude double in less than 4 years is not the sole effect of President Bush's decision to deregulate the commodity price of crude oil, but it certaily is a large factor. Since the deregulation, the price has never gone below what it was at the deregulation, and the trend has never been anything but UP. This is great for investors and speculators, but bad for producers and consumers. I think the question that "true capitalists" like the ones we hear on the radio so often need to ask themselves is "Which aspect of the system benifits the over-all economy more: speculative investors or oil and gas consumers?"
Your points about the transportation risks versus drilling risks is a very strong one. More on that later.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
"I was taught to avoid cliches like the plauge..."
F. Ryan here ... my brief absence post trip isn't due to any technical difficulties as with Jambo, just some quiet contemplation, had to square away a few things in my head regarding the personal, but enough of all that ...to recent events ...
First, the trip was a smashing success, period. Its great to be in a room (or under the stars as the case was) where everyone "gets" every little jab, quip, and even the occasional friendly insult which comes only after years of building a friendship.
****
I was a fan of Tim Russert, sorry to see him pass at 58. I watched the tribute to him, including his son Luke's (22 yr old Boston College grad whom I'm quoting in the subject line) farewell to his father, it was quite moving and was as Catholic Irish as the day is long. In my estimation not just NBC, but the "old", or "mainstream" (if one can still call it that) media just lost its' last legitimate face. In fact I found it quite telling that many of his colleagues mentioned in their eulogizing that his ability to "play it up the middle", or to "be an equal opportunity prosecutor" (of the issues), always struck them. Isn't that what reproters are supposed to do?No less then 2 presidents, 6 senators, 3 Kennedy's, 2 governors and countless others turned out for the event. But the real reason I liked Tim was because you could just tell, he absolutely loved this thing we call politics, he was a genuine fan of the process. And how many of the elite media even watch football, let alone end their broadcast saying, "Go Bills." I just flat out liked the guy, and he would have fit right in to the Bund.
****
The Supreme Court of California has decided to put us on a path to social suicide, and the US Supreme Court has chosen a similar path, but with literal suicide at its end. There is no other way to put it in my estimation - too many in America have no concept what it means to be at war, none. And the absolutely hypocritical and historically void Philistines they are, those whom applaud this decision, are surely among those whom in the same breath would laud praise on Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not "the") greatest presidents in the history of our Union - the man whom suspended "bring me the body" for "certain" US citizens. And it gets even worse, Barak Obama subsequent to this ruling was asked in a telephone conference with journalists, if Bin Laden, should he be captured, be afforded his day in US civilian criminal court, and he answered, "yes." It is precisely, as the McCain camp aptly pointed out, this type of mindset (of treating terror like a crime rather then an act of war) that contributed to the conditions which would later allow 9/11. In fact the overall conclusion of the 9/11 commission's report, which every Democrat operative worth his salt uses to bang over the head of one GW Bush, concluded that (& I'm paraphrasing) "they were at war with us, yet we were not at war with them." As has been noted Obama clearly has a 9/10 mindset, and what baffels me is he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the next CIC as it stands now - I ask you, what is wrong with this nation? This also provides a very valuable lesson for all future executives, when contemplating war, go NOT for a piece of legislative authorization - get an actual DECLARATION OF WAR. Had Bush done this then many of these national security issues and challenges, including the status of these detainees, would be muted.
And lets for a moment go to the former court of which I spoke. There is but no question that the branch most out of sorts with the American people, and the one most impervious to redress or rebuke by those same people, is the judiciary. Counterfeit marriage - and that's what it is, not "gay marriage", that's as oxymoronic as "illegal immigrant" - was rejected by over 2 million Californians in a ballot initiative not 3 years ago. Yet by judicial fiat that will has been overturned. What is the recourse? There are only two in my estimation: one is a constitutional amendment. As I recall civics it is the only action by the legislature which could resist judicial impositions. It can't be judged "unconstitutional" if it is an "amendment" to that very document. But what is the practicality of this occuring? Regardless of the people's will there is enough political maneuvering in Sacramento to keep such a measure within the realm of a pipe dream. A federal amendment? The sheer organizational effort that would be necessary to mount a majority state ratification simply boggles the mind. The second and last option would be an impeachment of a sitting judge. Explain to me just whom has the political clanking round ones to introduce those articles into the United States Senate? The days of an executive as bold and respected as FDR exist no longer. And even though either of these options are reasonable responses to both the CA Supreme Court regarding counterfeit marriage, and the US Supreme Court regarding detainees, jurists know full well this will simply not happen, thus they have no fear.
And while we're at it I am astonished that the advocates of the CA ruling invoke "States Rights" in defending the Golden State's decision. Can anyone on the American ideological left explain to me why the chant of "States Rights" is a valid one regarding California allowing homosexuals to "marry" and is used as an argument against a federal constitutional amendment to ban it, yet those same leftists invalidate state's rights concerning the issue of abortion? The states are capable enough in their wisdom to dictate whom should be married, even if it rebukes over 5,000 years of civilization's definition of that institution, yet the 30 year old Roe V Wade ruling is much to aloof and nuanced to allow Mississippi to decide? Please Pelosi, enough.
****
Now, to that viscous grease which lubricates our wheels of freedom .... OIL!
The United States of America ... we don't take energy seriously, period. It has been so available and so cheap for so long I suppose the lethargic reaction to its sudden spike in price is to be expected. To say that I am disappointed in the President's "speech" today is, well, beyond an understatement. He simply placed it in the hands of Congress, and left it at that. The colossal Clydesdale of history galloped into the Rose Garden, winked at him, and instead of mounting her and putting a stamp on the end of his presidency, namely putting America on the road to energy independence, he simply waived at that mare and watched her trot away.
The comprehensive (in the truest sense of the word) plan Jambo and I put forth as a remedy to America's energy needs is well known in this forum. In brief it is to open up drilling in scores of places; eliminate red tape to building refineries (the US hasn't brought a new one on line in over 30 years due to it); go nuclear in an impressive way; and from the executive office spearhead legislation and offer inspiring public sentiments for a moon shot prize for that company which can introduce a reliable renewable source. But consider this - the entire argument, taking up the time of our two parties and both presidential candidates - is this silly debate over ANWR. I've done some research. ANWR is in North Eastern Alaska. Alaska is about the size of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Whales. The portion which would be affected by drilling is about the size of Dulles Airport. I'll go one better: Take your morning newspaper and spread the front page out so that both it and the back page are face up. Then pick one letter, any letter in the normal type - the paper would represent the whole of the area and that one 10 font letter represents the space which would be affected by drilling. Now, this is certainly not to say that ANWR is the single key to energy independence, my (& Jambo's) plan is clearly much broader then that as can be seen above. My point is that if we can't agree over this small aspect of the over all necessary actions, then how in the name of all that is holy will anyone ever be able to introduce a plan as far reaching as ours?
And for these arguments that the oil tapped by drilling wouldn't come into use for 5 to 10 years - does anyone hazard to guess when last that argument was made? 5 to 10 years ago. Not to mention, anywhere from 15 to 35% of the price per barrel of oil comes from speculators. These are commodity traders that "speculate" what the price per barrel will be in the future. Volatility, in the form of an unstable or erratic Iran and Hugo Chavez; not knowing from one second to the next whether Russia will side up economically with the West or give the likes of Kim Jong Ill a soothing Siberian massage; the probability of terror attacks on supply lines or another Katrina (or what's happening in the mid-west regarding corn and Ethanol shortages); ALL of this figures into that speculation, and drives the price up. What brings it down is "stability." And plain ol' supply, especially at the rate China and India are growing and consuming. Were we to open up our lands it would provide at least some of both - supply and stability in the world's remaining superpower taking an initiative. Right now China, India, & Vietnam (yes, Vietnam) are all hustling to bid on drilling contracts 60 miles of the coast of Florida in conjunction with Cuba. Are we going to let VIETNAM take more initiative towards securing their energy needs than us? Do we really need to add that insult to the injury of our war there? And both parties are responsible for what should be intolerable - our dependency. In 1998 President Clinton said you can't lease anything "here" for oil until 2012. Want to know where "here" is? Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. And all of the following are indefinite: the Olympic Coast; Cordell Bank, California; Monterrey Bay, California; the Gulf of the Farallones, California; the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico; Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys; Gray's Reef South and Atlantic; Monitor Mid Atlantic; Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. Congress? They started their moratoriums back in the 80's, stopping the leasing in 1982 of Central and Northern California. Then in 1984 it was Southern California. Then in 1990 (thank you George H. Bush) the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Then in 1991 Washington, Oregon and the Florida Panhandle.
Anyone still think drilling is not at least "part" of the solution? Consider this - even with all the bans on the outer continental shelf we at present extract 30% of our oil needs in the "non-banned" areas. That's more then we import from any one nation. And get this gang, the government estimates that those banned areas in the outer continental shelf, the ones they said no to in Congress just this week, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into. Like I said, we don't take energy independence seriously.
And for the RFK's and Al Gore's of the world: there have been no spills over 1,000 barrels in 15 years of the outer continental shelf drilling. The National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil. Remember these words. Imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. Again, imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. Natural seeps! Is the earth itself to be taxed under Algorian theory? And whom do you suppose, given these numbers, would be more "responsible" to the environment off the coast of Florida, American oil companies or VIETNAM??
And to further demonstrate how out of touch with the American people 100% of the Democrat Party is, and at least 50% of the GOP I might add, a recent Rasmussen poll, released this week surveyed self identified "liberals" regarding the issue of domestic drilling. "Given the surge in fuel prices would you be open to more domestic oil drilling?, was the question. And these are liberals now: 17% had no opinion, 37% were opposed, and 46% were in favor.
Like I said, we don't take our energy needs seriously .... end of rant.
First, the trip was a smashing success, period. Its great to be in a room (or under the stars as the case was) where everyone "gets" every little jab, quip, and even the occasional friendly insult which comes only after years of building a friendship.
****
I was a fan of Tim Russert, sorry to see him pass at 58. I watched the tribute to him, including his son Luke's (22 yr old Boston College grad whom I'm quoting in the subject line) farewell to his father, it was quite moving and was as Catholic Irish as the day is long. In my estimation not just NBC, but the "old", or "mainstream" (if one can still call it that) media just lost its' last legitimate face. In fact I found it quite telling that many of his colleagues mentioned in their eulogizing that his ability to "play it up the middle", or to "be an equal opportunity prosecutor" (of the issues), always struck them. Isn't that what reproters are supposed to do?No less then 2 presidents, 6 senators, 3 Kennedy's, 2 governors and countless others turned out for the event. But the real reason I liked Tim was because you could just tell, he absolutely loved this thing we call politics, he was a genuine fan of the process. And how many of the elite media even watch football, let alone end their broadcast saying, "Go Bills." I just flat out liked the guy, and he would have fit right in to the Bund.
****
The Supreme Court of California has decided to put us on a path to social suicide, and the US Supreme Court has chosen a similar path, but with literal suicide at its end. There is no other way to put it in my estimation - too many in America have no concept what it means to be at war, none. And the absolutely hypocritical and historically void Philistines they are, those whom applaud this decision, are surely among those whom in the same breath would laud praise on Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not "the") greatest presidents in the history of our Union - the man whom suspended "bring me the body" for "certain" US citizens. And it gets even worse, Barak Obama subsequent to this ruling was asked in a telephone conference with journalists, if Bin Laden, should he be captured, be afforded his day in US civilian criminal court, and he answered, "yes." It is precisely, as the McCain camp aptly pointed out, this type of mindset (of treating terror like a crime rather then an act of war) that contributed to the conditions which would later allow 9/11. In fact the overall conclusion of the 9/11 commission's report, which every Democrat operative worth his salt uses to bang over the head of one GW Bush, concluded that (& I'm paraphrasing) "they were at war with us, yet we were not at war with them." As has been noted Obama clearly has a 9/10 mindset, and what baffels me is he has at least a 50/50 chance of being the next CIC as it stands now - I ask you, what is wrong with this nation? This also provides a very valuable lesson for all future executives, when contemplating war, go NOT for a piece of legislative authorization - get an actual DECLARATION OF WAR. Had Bush done this then many of these national security issues and challenges, including the status of these detainees, would be muted.
And lets for a moment go to the former court of which I spoke. There is but no question that the branch most out of sorts with the American people, and the one most impervious to redress or rebuke by those same people, is the judiciary. Counterfeit marriage - and that's what it is, not "gay marriage", that's as oxymoronic as "illegal immigrant" - was rejected by over 2 million Californians in a ballot initiative not 3 years ago. Yet by judicial fiat that will has been overturned. What is the recourse? There are only two in my estimation: one is a constitutional amendment. As I recall civics it is the only action by the legislature which could resist judicial impositions. It can't be judged "unconstitutional" if it is an "amendment" to that very document. But what is the practicality of this occuring? Regardless of the people's will there is enough political maneuvering in Sacramento to keep such a measure within the realm of a pipe dream. A federal amendment? The sheer organizational effort that would be necessary to mount a majority state ratification simply boggles the mind. The second and last option would be an impeachment of a sitting judge. Explain to me just whom has the political clanking round ones to introduce those articles into the United States Senate? The days of an executive as bold and respected as FDR exist no longer. And even though either of these options are reasonable responses to both the CA Supreme Court regarding counterfeit marriage, and the US Supreme Court regarding detainees, jurists know full well this will simply not happen, thus they have no fear.
And while we're at it I am astonished that the advocates of the CA ruling invoke "States Rights" in defending the Golden State's decision. Can anyone on the American ideological left explain to me why the chant of "States Rights" is a valid one regarding California allowing homosexuals to "marry" and is used as an argument against a federal constitutional amendment to ban it, yet those same leftists invalidate state's rights concerning the issue of abortion? The states are capable enough in their wisdom to dictate whom should be married, even if it rebukes over 5,000 years of civilization's definition of that institution, yet the 30 year old Roe V Wade ruling is much to aloof and nuanced to allow Mississippi to decide? Please Pelosi, enough.
****
Now, to that viscous grease which lubricates our wheels of freedom .... OIL!
The United States of America ... we don't take energy seriously, period. It has been so available and so cheap for so long I suppose the lethargic reaction to its sudden spike in price is to be expected. To say that I am disappointed in the President's "speech" today is, well, beyond an understatement. He simply placed it in the hands of Congress, and left it at that. The colossal Clydesdale of history galloped into the Rose Garden, winked at him, and instead of mounting her and putting a stamp on the end of his presidency, namely putting America on the road to energy independence, he simply waived at that mare and watched her trot away.
The comprehensive (in the truest sense of the word) plan Jambo and I put forth as a remedy to America's energy needs is well known in this forum. In brief it is to open up drilling in scores of places; eliminate red tape to building refineries (the US hasn't brought a new one on line in over 30 years due to it); go nuclear in an impressive way; and from the executive office spearhead legislation and offer inspiring public sentiments for a moon shot prize for that company which can introduce a reliable renewable source. But consider this - the entire argument, taking up the time of our two parties and both presidential candidates - is this silly debate over ANWR. I've done some research. ANWR is in North Eastern Alaska. Alaska is about the size of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Whales. The portion which would be affected by drilling is about the size of Dulles Airport. I'll go one better: Take your morning newspaper and spread the front page out so that both it and the back page are face up. Then pick one letter, any letter in the normal type - the paper would represent the whole of the area and that one 10 font letter represents the space which would be affected by drilling. Now, this is certainly not to say that ANWR is the single key to energy independence, my (& Jambo's) plan is clearly much broader then that as can be seen above. My point is that if we can't agree over this small aspect of the over all necessary actions, then how in the name of all that is holy will anyone ever be able to introduce a plan as far reaching as ours?
And for these arguments that the oil tapped by drilling wouldn't come into use for 5 to 10 years - does anyone hazard to guess when last that argument was made? 5 to 10 years ago. Not to mention, anywhere from 15 to 35% of the price per barrel of oil comes from speculators. These are commodity traders that "speculate" what the price per barrel will be in the future. Volatility, in the form of an unstable or erratic Iran and Hugo Chavez; not knowing from one second to the next whether Russia will side up economically with the West or give the likes of Kim Jong Ill a soothing Siberian massage; the probability of terror attacks on supply lines or another Katrina (or what's happening in the mid-west regarding corn and Ethanol shortages); ALL of this figures into that speculation, and drives the price up. What brings it down is "stability." And plain ol' supply, especially at the rate China and India are growing and consuming. Were we to open up our lands it would provide at least some of both - supply and stability in the world's remaining superpower taking an initiative. Right now China, India, & Vietnam (yes, Vietnam) are all hustling to bid on drilling contracts 60 miles of the coast of Florida in conjunction with Cuba. Are we going to let VIETNAM take more initiative towards securing their energy needs than us? Do we really need to add that insult to the injury of our war there? And both parties are responsible for what should be intolerable - our dependency. In 1998 President Clinton said you can't lease anything "here" for oil until 2012. Want to know where "here" is? Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. And all of the following are indefinite: the Olympic Coast; Cordell Bank, California; Monterrey Bay, California; the Gulf of the Farallones, California; the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico; Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys; Gray's Reef South and Atlantic; Monitor Mid Atlantic; Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. Congress? They started their moratoriums back in the 80's, stopping the leasing in 1982 of Central and Northern California. Then in 1984 it was Southern California. Then in 1990 (thank you George H. Bush) the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Then in 1991 Washington, Oregon and the Florida Panhandle.
Anyone still think drilling is not at least "part" of the solution? Consider this - even with all the bans on the outer continental shelf we at present extract 30% of our oil needs in the "non-banned" areas. That's more then we import from any one nation. And get this gang, the government estimates that those banned areas in the outer continental shelf, the ones they said no to in Congress just this week, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into. Like I said, we don't take energy independence seriously.
And for the RFK's and Al Gore's of the world: there have been no spills over 1,000 barrels in 15 years of the outer continental shelf drilling. The National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil. Remember these words. Imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. Again, imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. Natural seeps! Is the earth itself to be taxed under Algorian theory? And whom do you suppose, given these numbers, would be more "responsible" to the environment off the coast of Florida, American oil companies or VIETNAM??
And to further demonstrate how out of touch with the American people 100% of the Democrat Party is, and at least 50% of the GOP I might add, a recent Rasmussen poll, released this week surveyed self identified "liberals" regarding the issue of domestic drilling. "Given the surge in fuel prices would you be open to more domestic oil drilling?, was the question. And these are liberals now: 17% had no opinion, 37% were opposed, and 46% were in favor.
Like I said, we don't take our energy needs seriously .... end of rant.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Happy Father's Day!
To all the Dad's here in the Bund, which happens to be all of us. I actually got today off. How kick ass is that? Kids will be over sometime in the next ninety minutes. Sweet.
Happy Father's Day!
Happy Father's Day!
From the "Mick"
Mick wanted me to share this with you guys, to show that he understands the importance of getting the "truth" of the situation in Iraq from first-hand sources.
His "first-hand" source is none other than the Colonel commanding the 1st BCT, 504th PIR, of the 82nd Airborne Division out of Fort Bragg, NC... currently stationed at COB Adder, near Tallil, Iraq.
The good Colonel writes:
"Thanks! All is going well - a few flare ups now and again but unquestionably a historic run at these guys. I'm not saying we've achieved a knock out by they're definitely on the ropes.
Well, we have miles to march before we rest. We have just a short stint more to go but we're going to take every step with our heads up and on a swivel. We want to ensure that we provide all the support we can to the Iraqis and rid this place of malign groups and actors that have such a casual attitude towards extremism and violence. Every Paratrooper will be tired at the end of this race, I will assure you of that!
Lastly, thanks for all of your unwavering support this past year. The price of freedom is very high and with that cost comes major responsibilities, ones we all can't discard or take lightly. The world today is radically different and the United States of America, regardless of what some talking heads might say, remains the beacon of light for all the world to see!
Be safe and have a great summer!
ATW / Strike Hold!!!"
Thanks, Mick... inspiring words from a man that is leading the men in the field... not some political lacky talking from a podium to the White House press corps. I'd love to meet this guy!
His "first-hand" source is none other than the Colonel commanding the 1st BCT, 504th PIR, of the 82nd Airborne Division out of Fort Bragg, NC... currently stationed at COB Adder, near Tallil, Iraq.
The good Colonel writes:
"Thanks! All is going well - a few flare ups now and again but unquestionably a historic run at these guys. I'm not saying we've achieved a knock out by they're definitely on the ropes.
Well, we have miles to march before we rest. We have just a short stint more to go but we're going to take every step with our heads up and on a swivel. We want to ensure that we provide all the support we can to the Iraqis and rid this place of malign groups and actors that have such a casual attitude towards extremism and violence. Every Paratrooper will be tired at the end of this race, I will assure you of that!
Lastly, thanks for all of your unwavering support this past year. The price of freedom is very high and with that cost comes major responsibilities, ones we all can't discard or take lightly. The world today is radically different and the United States of America, regardless of what some talking heads might say, remains the beacon of light for all the world to see!
Be safe and have a great summer!
ATW / Strike Hold!!!"
Thanks, Mick... inspiring words from a man that is leading the men in the field... not some political lacky talking from a podium to the White House press corps. I'd love to meet this guy!
Dropping the ball... again
McCain is really pissing me off.
Here I have been waiting and waiting for the Democratic primary to end so that the real campaign could begin, and what do I get? McCain playing "opposition politics" with Obama. He may as well be standing there saying "If Obama is for it, I'm against it." Nothing original, no leadership or charisma demonstrated, no definition of plans or goals... just what he DOESN'T agree with about Obama.
Now, I'm the first to admit that I do NOT feel Mac is getting fair time from the media. You can't read an article and not get 2.5 quotes from the speeches of Obama... but all you get from the McCain camp is paraphrasing and summations. That tells me Mac has to get his face and voice on TV. Fox News interviews, stumping in arenas that can't be ignored (say flood-ravaged Iowa)... he can't wait for the media to decide whether what he is saying has any worth, he just needs to SAY IT.
Here I have been waiting and waiting for the Democratic primary to end so that the real campaign could begin, and what do I get? McCain playing "opposition politics" with Obama. He may as well be standing there saying "If Obama is for it, I'm against it." Nothing original, no leadership or charisma demonstrated, no definition of plans or goals... just what he DOESN'T agree with about Obama.
Now, I'm the first to admit that I do NOT feel Mac is getting fair time from the media. You can't read an article and not get 2.5 quotes from the speeches of Obama... but all you get from the McCain camp is paraphrasing and summations. That tells me Mac has to get his face and voice on TV. Fox News interviews, stumping in arenas that can't be ignored (say flood-ravaged Iowa)... he can't wait for the media to decide whether what he is saying has any worth, he just needs to SAY IT.
Friday, June 13, 2008
You're right...
Ryan must be foaming at the mouth by now.
You understand WHY he's foaming, right? Yes, the decision from the SCOTUS... but worse than that. He'll have to justify the decision based on a 7-2 GOP appointment record. Only Breyer and Ginsberg are Democratic Presidential appointees (thanks to Big Bill).
This should have been a 7-2 slam dunk, but instead, 3 GOP-appointees made a bad call based on very liberal agendas. The one I am most disappointed with is Kennedy, but I should be used to it, I guess, coming from him.
You understand WHY he's foaming, right? Yes, the decision from the SCOTUS... but worse than that. He'll have to justify the decision based on a 7-2 GOP appointment record. Only Breyer and Ginsberg are Democratic Presidential appointees (thanks to Big Bill).
This should have been a 7-2 slam dunk, but instead, 3 GOP-appointees made a bad call based on very liberal agendas. The one I am most disappointed with is Kennedy, but I should be used to it, I guess, coming from him.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Some technical assistance, please?
Ok. If I log in through the blog dashboard thingie, I can post, but I can't log in or post directly from the Bund. What is up with that? I didn't have these problems before, in my former house with my former computer which I miss very much. Damn it.
I have a couple of kick ass posts to put up because I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth over the Supreme Court's decision concerning the prisoners at Gitmo. But I don't want to risk these jewels of debate being lost in the ether of cyberspace because my freaking computer now is a contemporary of FDR.
Talk to me, KeyMaster. What am I doing wrong?
I have a couple of kick ass posts to put up because I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth over the Supreme Court's decision concerning the prisoners at Gitmo. But I don't want to risk these jewels of debate being lost in the ether of cyberspace because my freaking computer now is a contemporary of FDR.
Talk to me, KeyMaster. What am I doing wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
