I see where the House Democrats have a new plan to end the war in Iraq. The Democrats are advancing a resolution that would accuse the nation of Turkey of genocide when 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, that preceded the current Turkish state, back in World War I.
I think the Democrats have finally hit on a way to force George Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. They have been unsuccessful at cutting off funding for the war, so now they are going to piss off the Turks so much that the Turks will cut the supply line into Iraq, forcing a reduction of troop strengths becase a vast majority of the supplies (like 70 percent) are routed through facilities in Turkey.
In addition, the resolution will further complicate U.S. efforts when the Turks, who are currently be held at bay by the good offices of the U.S., will no longer feel restrained from attacking the Kurdish separatists who have taken refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan and strike accross the border in terroristic raids.
I think Nancy Pelosi is absolutely brilliant and this is a wonderful strategy to force the defeat in Iraq to a conclusion and make sure that any efforts of the Bush Administration to salvage the mess in Iraq fail for lack of supplies, without the Democrats being accused of failing to support the troops.
Now, it will be a simple matter of pointing to the incompetence of the Bush Administration in handling the "Turkish situation."
I do so love American politics ... it is so educational
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Random Thoughts 12
In reviewing the news , I see where the Iranian president and the Ayatollah are back out baiting the U.S. and daring it to smack down Iraq. What is with these guys? It is like they want a fight, and are doing their best to ignite one all the while saying they just want peace. I fear the president what's his name that seem impossible to pronounce as has some apocalyptic vision that he wants to fulfill. It really is haunting though.
.
.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Random Thoughts 11
My rant today is about OJ Simpson. Enough already even. I see where Simpson supposedly has been arrested for an incident in Las Vegas where he and his bodyguard entourage allegedly rousted a couple of entrepreneurs who were auctioning off his memorabilia ... which apparently had been illicitly acquired. Well, I really would not like to get worked up over this, but its headline status on the news makes me want to throw up. I guess I am tired of this apparent fixation on Simpson, the murder of his ex-wife and all the other stuff about this once-great football player and sometime movie star.
Why oh why do we get so hung up on celebrities like him? Is it because he is "black" and got away with murder? OK, I don't know if it murdered his ex, the criminal jury said there was reasonable doubt, a civil jury said the preponderance of evidence was that he was responsible for the two deaths and now every one is coming out of the woodwork to say that a book that was ghost written for him is the real truth and Simpson is confessing. Well, they say that confession is good for the soul but I hope the book flops. Of course, given all the media attention, it won't and thousands, if not millions, of copies will be sold.
I guess I want to be an ostrich went it comes to celebrities and just ignore them. Who cares what idiots like Simpson, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Angeline Jolie, Katie Couric (did I leave out any names I saw on the front of the checkout rags I saw at the grocery store when I got milk last?) happen to be doing, thinking or outraging?
I know ... it is what passes for news these days ... much like the news of who was appearing in the Colosseum in Rome this week was for the Romans two millennia ago (or was it 15 centuries, who the flip cares?)
I sometimes feel like the Rearden guy in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ... trapped in this world and wanting to change it so people would focus on reality ... but then I could go off on the tangent of whose reality. Anyway, the Sunday New York Times (9/16/07) had an interesting piece that book and Rand's Objectivism philosophy has had on a lot of business leaders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=cd6337257785a5ce&ei=5087%0A
OK, I guess I am done ranting now.
Oh, and for those who want another perspective on Iraq, George Bush, etc.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/14-09-2007/97145-bush_iraq-0
Why oh why do we get so hung up on celebrities like him? Is it because he is "black" and got away with murder? OK, I don't know if it murdered his ex, the criminal jury said there was reasonable doubt, a civil jury said the preponderance of evidence was that he was responsible for the two deaths and now every one is coming out of the woodwork to say that a book that was ghost written for him is the real truth and Simpson is confessing. Well, they say that confession is good for the soul but I hope the book flops. Of course, given all the media attention, it won't and thousands, if not millions, of copies will be sold.
I guess I want to be an ostrich went it comes to celebrities and just ignore them. Who cares what idiots like Simpson, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Angeline Jolie, Katie Couric (did I leave out any names I saw on the front of the checkout rags I saw at the grocery store when I got milk last?) happen to be doing, thinking or outraging?
I know ... it is what passes for news these days ... much like the news of who was appearing in the Colosseum in Rome this week was for the Romans two millennia ago (or was it 15 centuries, who the flip cares?)
I sometimes feel like the Rearden guy in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ... trapped in this world and wanting to change it so people would focus on reality ... but then I could go off on the tangent of whose reality. Anyway, the Sunday New York Times (9/16/07) had an interesting piece that book and Rand's Objectivism philosophy has had on a lot of business leaders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=cd6337257785a5ce&ei=5087%0A
OK, I guess I am done ranting now.
Oh, and for those who want another perspective on Iraq, George Bush, etc.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/14-09-2007/97145-bush_iraq-0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Random Thoughts 10
I have been doing my usual thing of reviewing the news on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, and commentary from the Drudge Report and Neil Boortz (He is an Atlanta-based talk-show host who actually went to the same high school I did ... although he was ahead of me by four or five years) and have a whole bunch of random thoughts ... well some are related.
It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.
Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.
Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.
Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.
Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”
First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.
Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.
It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.
Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.
Nuff ranting for now.
It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.
Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.
Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.
Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.
Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”
First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.
Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.
It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.
Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.
Nuff ranting for now.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Random Thoughts 9
I see where Fred Thompson has entered the Republican lists in the contest for the presidency in 2008. This is probably a plus for the GOP ... Thompson comes across on the TV as none of the others do ... due undoubtedly to his years of acting on the big screen and the small screen. He just looks more presidential than the other candidates.
I see where Oprah is raising money for Obama ... I don't think his campaign will want for anything. I am not a Obama fan ... but I am not all that swept up in the Oprah fever that seems to have engulfed afternoon TV watchers. Actually, I have to say, Oprah impresses the heck out of me. She is a tremendous TV personality who connects well with her viewers and is an incredible business woman ... a tycoon in fact.
I read where Bush is asking the Democrats to unite behind him in a bipartisan front on Iraq, given that the surge actually seems to be meeting with at least a modicum of success. Note to tell Dubya: Don't hold your breath. Too many Democrats have invested too much of their soul in destroying his administration to ever be bipartisan. Such is the pettiness of politics in America today.
For an interesting take on the Iraqi front in the "War on Terror", I really do recommend people visit Michael Yon's web site and blog. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iv-of-iv.htm - read the whole series on Anbar http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-ii-of-iv.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iii-of-iv.htm
The interesting part is that he says what I beleive ... now ain't the time to cut and run ... but to lead, follow or get the hades out of the way for those who will.
I also see the Mister Bin Laden has rejoined list on the media front of the war between the west and Islamic extremism. Those Al Quaida guys are getting so media savy ... we should be taking notes ... ok, the text of his translated speech is so full holes and screwed up facts but who cares ... his audience doesn't, because like some of those in the U.S. who still think Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they don't care about the facts.
Anyway, the whole thing is classic propaganda ... oh Where is Frank Capra when we need him? The U.S. desperately needs a new "Why we fight?" series like Capra's films from WWII ... only don't look for Hollywood to help on this one. They seem to be AWOL or working for Major Quisling this time.
Tis enough for now.
I see where Oprah is raising money for Obama ... I don't think his campaign will want for anything. I am not a Obama fan ... but I am not all that swept up in the Oprah fever that seems to have engulfed afternoon TV watchers. Actually, I have to say, Oprah impresses the heck out of me. She is a tremendous TV personality who connects well with her viewers and is an incredible business woman ... a tycoon in fact.
I read where Bush is asking the Democrats to unite behind him in a bipartisan front on Iraq, given that the surge actually seems to be meeting with at least a modicum of success. Note to tell Dubya: Don't hold your breath. Too many Democrats have invested too much of their soul in destroying his administration to ever be bipartisan. Such is the pettiness of politics in America today.
For an interesting take on the Iraqi front in the "War on Terror", I really do recommend people visit Michael Yon's web site and blog. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iv-of-iv.htm - read the whole series on Anbar http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-ii-of-iv.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iii-of-iv.htm
The interesting part is that he says what I beleive ... now ain't the time to cut and run ... but to lead, follow or get the hades out of the way for those who will.
I also see the Mister Bin Laden has rejoined list on the media front of the war between the west and Islamic extremism. Those Al Quaida guys are getting so media savy ... we should be taking notes ... ok, the text of his translated speech is so full holes and screwed up facts but who cares ... his audience doesn't, because like some of those in the U.S. who still think Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they don't care about the facts.
Anyway, the whole thing is classic propaganda ... oh Where is Frank Capra when we need him? The U.S. desperately needs a new "Why we fight?" series like Capra's films from WWII ... only don't look for Hollywood to help on this one. They seem to be AWOL or working for Major Quisling this time.
Tis enough for now.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Random Thoughts 8
Sen. Larry Craig.
I don't know what to make of his case. OK, he did plead guilty to disturbing public order, but did he?
I sure has heck don't know, but it bothers me that apparently he is being coerced to resign by a spiteful opposition party and the main stream press. I suppose that had Craig been a Democrat instead of a Republican, that the media would have jumped on this just as hard ... I mean they jumped on the Democratic rep who allegedly got hostile at the National Airport baggage claim area, well sort of did. Of course, he allegedly assaulted a airline worker, and that does, sort of might be, cross the line ... but then nobody called for his resignation.
I guess the issue is that Craig is a hypocrite for being an outspoken opponent to special privileges and rights for gays while being a closet gay person himself .... or is he?
Again, I don't know. Haven't a clue ... but I do know the next time I am in the Minneapolis airport ... or any airport ... or rest area ... or any public rest room ... I ain't gonna wiggle my toes no way, no how.
Hell, I didn't know that was a signal to the person in the next stall that you were soliciting for an illicit homosexual liaison. I am not sure I know anyone who would have had a clue it was. Well, the young adults might, because they usually are plugged into the latest language variations, i.e. slang terms and signals.
It does bother me that nothing apparently was said other than the toe wiggling, that to me seems like the basis for an extremely thin case and one that was wont for abuse of police authority.
And it also bothers me that the Democrats are dumping on this issue so vehemently ... shouldn't they be standing up for the senator's rights as a gay person, since gays make a major constituent group for the party? It just strikes me as being a mite bit hypocritical and more than mite bit peevish.
I don't know what to make of his case. OK, he did plead guilty to disturbing public order, but did he?
I sure has heck don't know, but it bothers me that apparently he is being coerced to resign by a spiteful opposition party and the main stream press. I suppose that had Craig been a Democrat instead of a Republican, that the media would have jumped on this just as hard ... I mean they jumped on the Democratic rep who allegedly got hostile at the National Airport baggage claim area, well sort of did. Of course, he allegedly assaulted a airline worker, and that does, sort of might be, cross the line ... but then nobody called for his resignation.
I guess the issue is that Craig is a hypocrite for being an outspoken opponent to special privileges and rights for gays while being a closet gay person himself .... or is he?
Again, I don't know. Haven't a clue ... but I do know the next time I am in the Minneapolis airport ... or any airport ... or rest area ... or any public rest room ... I ain't gonna wiggle my toes no way, no how.
Hell, I didn't know that was a signal to the person in the next stall that you were soliciting for an illicit homosexual liaison. I am not sure I know anyone who would have had a clue it was. Well, the young adults might, because they usually are plugged into the latest language variations, i.e. slang terms and signals.
It does bother me that nothing apparently was said other than the toe wiggling, that to me seems like the basis for an extremely thin case and one that was wont for abuse of police authority.
And it also bothers me that the Democrats are dumping on this issue so vehemently ... shouldn't they be standing up for the senator's rights as a gay person, since gays make a major constituent group for the party? It just strikes me as being a mite bit hypocritical and more than mite bit peevish.
Anyway ... I think if all the hypocrites in public offices in Washington were forced to resign and leave town tomorrow ... a great hush would fall over the city.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Random Thoughts 7
I have been hanging out of late at a web site for writers (www.helium.com), which seems to be an eclectic place with both mostly poets and occasional scribes. Anyway, they do have discussion threads for a host of different topics including one on the liberal bias of the mainstream news media.
In that vein, I came across and interesting article by a former BBC editor I would commend to any one's perusal. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece) Having been a journalist for most of my life, and having witnessed exactly what this former editor says, his take is spot on ... even for a Brit.
I also note that Dubya's top political advisor is stepping down from his official White House position at the end of the month. I imagine the Democrats and anti-Bush Luddites with be jumping with joy at this news. Thinking as many do, I believe, that Rove was one of Bush's puppet masters and Dubya is just a mouthpiece and puppet on a string, I fear they are going to be surprised to find that the president is going to be just about the same. I think those who hate Bush to the point of myopia, fail to see that what is going on in the White House at this time is almost predictable. The end times for this administration is near and those weary from the constant struggle in the highly partisan environment that is our nation these day, especially its capital, are leaving the epicenter in order to prepare to get on with their lives. This is just one more step that belies the canard I seem to hear so often in the blogosphere about King George and how he is a threat to democracy and our freedoms and the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, it ain't and he ain't. I predict that on January 20, 2009, at noon, someone not George W. Bush will be standing in front of the U.S. Capitol Building taking the oath of office as president of the United States in what remains the most exceptional and incredible acts in the world: The peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. After which George Jr. will return to Texas and do whatever ex-presidents are wont to do.
A lot can happen between now and then, but I am willing to bet my shirt that everything that can be done will be done to make this peaceful transition occur as scheduled and on time.
In that vein, I came across and interesting article by a former BBC editor I would commend to any one's perusal. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece) Having been a journalist for most of my life, and having witnessed exactly what this former editor says, his take is spot on ... even for a Brit.
I also note that Dubya's top political advisor is stepping down from his official White House position at the end of the month. I imagine the Democrats and anti-Bush Luddites with be jumping with joy at this news. Thinking as many do, I believe, that Rove was one of Bush's puppet masters and Dubya is just a mouthpiece and puppet on a string, I fear they are going to be surprised to find that the president is going to be just about the same. I think those who hate Bush to the point of myopia, fail to see that what is going on in the White House at this time is almost predictable. The end times for this administration is near and those weary from the constant struggle in the highly partisan environment that is our nation these day, especially its capital, are leaving the epicenter in order to prepare to get on with their lives. This is just one more step that belies the canard I seem to hear so often in the blogosphere about King George and how he is a threat to democracy and our freedoms and the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, it ain't and he ain't. I predict that on January 20, 2009, at noon, someone not George W. Bush will be standing in front of the U.S. Capitol Building taking the oath of office as president of the United States in what remains the most exceptional and incredible acts in the world: The peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. After which George Jr. will return to Texas and do whatever ex-presidents are wont to do.
A lot can happen between now and then, but I am willing to bet my shirt that everything that can be done will be done to make this peaceful transition occur as scheduled and on time.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Random thoughts 6
Question for the day: Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and surrounding countries in the Middle East to stop the violence?
Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.
If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?
The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.
The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.
Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.
If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.
IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.
The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.
The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.
Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.
If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?
The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.
The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.
Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.
If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.
IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.
The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.
The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Random Thoughts 5
Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?
Short answer: No
Long Answer:
What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?
Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.
First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.
Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.
Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.
Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.
Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).
Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.
The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.
The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.
The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.
The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.
The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.
In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).
Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.
No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.
Short answer: No
Long Answer:
What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?
Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.
First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.
Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.
Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.
Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.
Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).
Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.
The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.
The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.
The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.
The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.
The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.
In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).
Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.
No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Random Thoughts 4
While perusing the news today, I noticed an article on representatives from Jordan and Egypt going to Israel to extend the hand of peace from the Arab League.
Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.
The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.
Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.
The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.
Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."
The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.
And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.
In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)
Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).
I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.
Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.
The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.
Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.
The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.
Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."
The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.
And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.
In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)
Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).
I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Random Thoughts 3
A few passing comments on the news.
I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.
I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Random Thoughts 2
There are a few words I would like to share, not my own, but I will add my thoughts.
Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."
I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.
An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.
What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.
My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.
As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.
For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.
I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.
To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.
As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.
To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.
Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."
I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.
An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.
What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.
My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.
As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.
For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.
I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.
To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.
As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.
To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.
HELLO, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.
Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.
Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?
Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.
Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.
Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.
And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.
And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.
I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.
Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.
Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.
Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?
Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.
Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.
Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.
And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.
And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.
I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.
Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.
Random Thoughts 1
There is a old doggerel (a poem/song - in this case written by the operattists Gilbert and Sullivan) taught to me by my father lo these many years ago that began.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.
And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)
'TWAS on the shores that round our coast
From Deal to Ramsgate span,
That I found alone on a piece of stone
An elderly naval man.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
And weedy and long was he,
And I heard this wight on the shore recite,
In a singular minor key:
Oh, I am the cook and the captain bold
And the mate of the Nancy Brig
And a bosun tight and a midshipmite,
and the crew of the captain's gig ...
In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.
And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)