We band of brothers

Capt. Wales' support network
The United Kingdom’s Prince Harry probably already knows he is not a normal human being, but he needs to work on it a bit.
Still, from a trooper standpoint, Capt. Harry Wales has burnished his credentials a bit: He is a trooper in more ways than one. Not only is he a qualified armor officer, but now – like his big brother – is a qualified helicopter pilot (although one with Cavalry spurs of an AH-64 pilot). I will say this for the Wales brothers; they seem to be good leaders and good flyers.
Now, for Capt. Wales’ little dustup in Las Vegas: What was it they say about Vegas – “What plays in Vegas, stays in Vegas” – well, in this case (as in most actually) it doesn’t.
Ok, he is a single 28-year-old Army officer with lots of money to spend. You expect him to act like monk or something? However, being humanly rowdy, his fellow troopers can appreciate his hijinks and his hijinks are something of a tradition in the British army.
One of my favorite authors, John Masters, was a former British brigade commander who rose up in the Gurkha regiments during the late stages of the British Raj in India and during World War II. Read any of his books on British army life, or his autobiography, and you will find such hijinks sprinkled throughout the life in a British officers’ mess (off duty time). It seems it is part of the ritual.
Given the type of life soldiers live, such reaffirmations of being alive take on a special meaning that is difficult, if not impossible, to explain to people who haven’t “been there.” However, to those who have, then they know a solidarity that makes soldiers (of all uniforms) truly a band of brothers. Prince Harry has expanded his “band” to encompass a multitude and I have no doubt that were he to lead a charge, there would be many followers.
In a sense, that is what leadership is all about. Making contact with your followers and getting them to identify with you enough that they will follow you into Hell and back.
(Of course, I wouldn’t recommend such hijinks in today’s environment of cellphone cameras and the internet. Too many people just won’t understand when it inevitably gets out.)
Shakespeare put it best in Henry the Fifth (You know Harry is another version of Henry):
Henry V's Crispen Day Speech
“But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

MAN THE BARRICADES! The minions are planning to overthrow us.

Military terror plot uncovered

When I first read the headline on this story about four soldiers, I thought: My goodness, who in the Army has gone off the deep end this time?

Then I read it was about three privates and a sergeant and I broke out in giggles. Obviously the folks who were putting that story out with all sorts of fears of a military coup in the US have little if no knowledge of the military. You might take a sergeant and three-member work deal and get a job done like moving something or cleaning a vehicle, but overthrow the nation? Somebody needs a reality check.

So they spent $87,000 buying arms and equipment. So what? Apparently they got the money from an insurance policy on someone they killed. Like that has never happened before?

I guess what gets me is some people go into hyperdrive anytime anybody in uniform does something wacko. Now, I know it is pretty much de rigor that Americans are distrustful of a large standing Army. It has been that way since the founding of the republic. Even now, the size of our military, in proportion to our population, is approaching the smallest it has been in three-quarters of a century and probably is fixing to get even smaller. But soldiers are humans too and the country of 300 million-plus can send some pretty strange people to serve.

Still, three privates and a sergeant? A great military coup that is going to make. The blind leading the blind is more like it.

An E-5 sergeant basically is the first rung on the non-commissioned officer ladder, while E-3 privates first class are the basic cannon-fodder of any army. We are not really talking about highly trained or highly skilled and educated soldiers here. We are talking about soldiers who have mastered the basic fundamentals of the art of war, mostly from a tactical perspective and definitely not from either the strategic or logistical perspectives.

Now, if it had a O-6 or two, then it might have been a little threat, but if you want real threat, then the people involved have to be flag officers (O-7 and above). They know where all the keys are hidden.

Mounting a military overthrow of the nation, while maybe a soaring dream to some people, is an exercise that would take a lot more planning and effort to pull off than you are going to find in four snuffies.

The whole affair made me think of John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry in 1859. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, John Brown, a raving abolitionist (against slavery person), took about 20 people and seized the arsenal (which made rifles and such) on the Maryland-Virginia border (it is now in West Virginia, but that is another story) with the hope of sparking an uprising among slaves in the area. The raid lasted long enough for a bunch of troops, under a colonel by the name of Robert E. Lee, to make the trip from Washington, D.C., to Harpers Ferry and storm the arsenal. In less than 5 minutes the raid was over.

Harpers Ferry raid

Mister Brown was hanged and two years later, the Civil War started to decide the issue of whether, as Mister Lincoln said, to determine whether the nation could live half free and half slave.

If these snuffies really had tried to do anything, it would have taken maybe a squad (10-men) of MPs to break it up.

The sad thing is that stories like this reflect a propaganda that tarnishes the actual professionalism, honor and courage that really imbues today’s American military. These four yahoos will get what they deserve, if not in civilian court, then in military court after the civilians get through with them.

Is perception reality?

Pew Poll finds majority think rich don't pay enough taxes

Sometimes the majority is wrong, unless it really doesn’t want equality before the law but only equality of outcome. It seems the Pew Institute did a public opinion survey that found that a majority of Americans believe that the “rich” do not pay enough taxes. Interesting concept is “enough.”

I wish I had bookmarked the page (but I didn’t and at the moment I am too lazy to go find it) but it was either a General Accounting Office or a Congressional Budget Office report that had a breakdown by income of which group paid how much. It revealed that the US federal income tax was indeed very progressive (if you can pay more you do, as a percentage of your income). Now, if that is true, then whatever happened to equality?

No, perception sometimes is about other things. For the last few years we have had pounded into our brains that equality means everybody gets the same, rather than everyone is treated the same by the government.

Now, I suppose, that if I am not getting enough, then I should be getting more. However, the concept of enough, like the concept of need, is quite elastic, wouldn’t you say?

To put it in plain perspective, when you sit down at the table to eat: Does everyone get exactly the same meal? Is that a requirement? Do you need the same meal as everyone else? Do you think the same portions given to everyone else are enough for you? What if you don’t like one of the foods on your plate? Must you eat all on your plate?

I could go on and on like that but I think I am making my point. Each of us is an individual. Our needs and our wants and what is “enough” are defined by our own perception and not by someone else. Oh, yes, we can be influenced by society and our learned value system, but it still comes down to what we perceive and how we, as individuals, define “enough.”

Now, we can accept that each of is an individual and try to cope with the problems that presents; or we can try to give each person an equal share of the pie. Granted, equal shares seem to be fairer, but are they always truly fairer? Again, our individual perception colors how we view that question. You see if you want to be “fair”, then government – at whatever level you choose – has to treat each individual equally, otherwise it discriminates by some arbitrary standard. Does government do that? Don’t be silly, of course it doesn’t treat people equal. Not if some people pay more than others and others receive more than others.

How do you reconcile this dichotomy? Well, you can ignore it or you can try to justify it. We in this day and age are trying somewhat ineffectively to accomplish the latter. We do that by trying to figure out a system that gives each individual what they need or what they want. I say ineffectively because as always with humans some are “gaming” the system to their own advantage.

The system tries to codify how government can dole out its largess to a very large, and therefore impersonal, population. The question then becomes should government (as representative of society) be responsible for providing for the needs and wants of individuals or should individuals be left responsible for that chore themselves?

Good question. Should the choice of whether to assist others be left to the individual or should it be compelled by the community? It depends, I guess, on how you view property (and I include labor as property). You see if an individual can “own” property, then that creates one set of problems. If all property is “owned” by the community, then that creates another set of problems. The question then becomes which system is “right” and which system meets the needs of the individual best.

Again, that brings us back to the question: Are we individuals? Do individuals have rights? Can individuals be free to make their own choices? Are individuals responsible for those choices? When are individuals not responsible? When is it right for others to take responsibility for individuals?

I firmly believe that as individuals, we are – for the most part – responsible for our own decisions; that we have to take responsibility for our own lives. And having said that: I also believe that we should make the choice to help others when we can; not because we have to or are compelled to do so, but because we choose to do so. I also believe that it is our own self-interest to choose to defend and protect our community and our society. Yes, it is an “obligation” but it not an obligation that you can force a person to accept. It must come from within the person.

I don’t agree with those who say it is right for the government/society to compel anyone to do anything or make a certain choice. They should be free to make whatever choice they want, with the proviso that they also are willing to accept the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. That means that if they make bad choices, then they have to live with those bad choices. Yes, that means that maybe they will be harmed. Yes, that may mean that others might be harmed by association. We can try, if we choose to ameliorate that harm to the others, but even that should by choice rather than compulsion.

I know I could be very wrong in these beliefs. I know that there are a lot of people who might condemn me for lacking in compassion for these beliefs, but they would be ignoring that I, too, have a choice and that choice is when and where and how I assist others.

So, back to the original thesis of this essay: Do the rich pay enough in taxes? Well, it depends on how much you mean when you say “enough.” We should not be like bank robbers who rob banks only because that is where the money is. If we plan to take money – taxes – from people, then it would seem to me that equity should be the rule and not the exception. By equity, I mean that if we decide that people should pay at a given rate, then that rate should be the same for all people. If we decide that people should pay a certain amount, then that amount should be the same for all people. That is what government owes us: Equality.

If there are those who can’t – for whatever reason – can’t “pay” the fee, then I would hope that it would be the choice of others to help. Not because they are forced to do it, but because they choose to do it.

As for taxes, if they are based on a percentage of income, or wealth or whatever, then that rate should be the same for all persons. I realize that is not a popular concept, but it is the one I believe is most fair to all people. I believe in that case we are all contributors to society and not divided into two groups: Those from whom things are taken and those upon who benefits are bestowed.

When you look at our society, or any society, as we go into the future, keep those thoughts in mind. I hope that you would consider their merits and act accordingly.

In the end, as always, the choice is yours, yours as an individual and no one else’s.

American ignorance

Israeli court dismisses wrongful death lawsuit
My progressive classmate out on the West Coast is bewailing the fact that a Israeli court has ruled against an American family who sued the Israeli government over the death of their daughter in 2003.
I don’t see why, because the young lady got what she wanted.
Gasp! I didn’t really say that. Oh, yes I did. She wanted one of two things to happen: A) She wanted the Israeli army to stop what it was doing or B) she wanted it to be the cause of her death so she could be a martyr to her cause. Well, she got her wish.
I don’t know if it was intentional or accidental, but putting yourself in front of a multi-ton vehicle which, whether you want to agree with it or not, has limited visibility, then you are taking your life in your hands. Since people can move more quickly and more agilely it is up to the people on the ground to get out of the way of the lumbering bulldozer. If you don’t, you get squashed.
Now, I know I am sounding cold-hearted, and maybe I am, but I have spent too much time wandering around in armored vehicle parks not to know that it is up to you on the ground to stay out of the way of those big vehicles. You don’t and you are ground into the ground; simple as that. No do overs, no make ups, no oopsies I didn’t want you to do that.
Now, this young lady, you have to respect her, because she believed in her cause. She believed the Palestinians in the Gaza strip in 2003 were getting a raw deal from the Israelis because they IDF was knocking down buildings around where attacks were being launched against the IDF and into Israel. She was trying to stop the IDF engineer teams from flattening the houses of Palestinians who lived in that area. She was willing to put her body at risk. It was dangerous, and if she didn’t know that she was more ignorant than I think she was.
Does that mean she wanted to die? I doubt it. I don’t think anyone really wants to die (except for some zealots who take religion to extreme), especially under a falling wall of cinderblock or the tracks of a bulldozer. Unfortunately, all too many people (especially American idealists) think that nothing bad is going to happen to them. They, in their righteous anger and purpose, will be invincible and immune from any harm. Wrong answer!
Right does not might make (nor, on the other hand, does might make right), but right can get you killed if you get in front of might. That is reality. That is the truth. That is a fact.
Now, I wasn’t in Gaza in 2003, and I wasn’t at the site of this incident. From what I have read about the incident, no one actually saw her go down, but they were aware of it moments later. The blame, thereby being attributed by her supporters, being leveled that the bulldozer operator deliberately and with malice just drove her down. Could be, I don’t know. At the same time, it might not have happened. I don’t know that either.
According to both sides, the IDF tried to keep spectators away from harm, but the young lady eluded their efforts and kept trying to block the operator from doing his assigned task.
Now, you can argue that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal from the Israelis. By the same token, you can argue that the Israelis are getting a raw deal from the various Palestinian and other factions that have lined up to drive the Jewish Israelis into the sea, if they can. Any way you look at it, people are getting a raw deal.
Just this week, on August 26, three mortar rounds from Gaza fell in Southern Israel and on August 27, two factories in the Israeli city Sderot were hit by multiple rockets. In response, IDF aircraft fired ten rockets into three alleged militant training camps in Gaza.  Israelis airstrikes in Gaza. 
So far, this year there have been some 440 reported rocket attacks on Israel.
Now, I know, the whole problem is the Israelis. If they weren’t there, then we would have peace and stability in the Middle East. (And if you believe that, would you be interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn, or maybe San Francisco? I can let them go relatively cheaply.)
Granted, the Israelis are part of the problem, but they are there and have every right to stay where they are. The whole thing could have been solved 65 years ago, if the Arabs in the neighborhood would have just agreed to let the Jewish Israelis have the land they lived on and the Arabs had the land they lived on. However, that solution, known as partition was overwhelmingly rejected and a nice little war followed that ended up with what most of the world considers as the nation of Israel (with its pre-1967 borders) and the Jordanians holding what is called the West Bank, the Egyptians holding what we now call Gaza and the Syrians holding an area called the Golan Heights.
Two wars later, and the Jordanians and the Syrians had been thrown out of the north eastern area of greater Israel; the Israelis held all of Jerusalem and the Egyptians were back behind the Suez Canal. Another war later, and then the Israelis agreed to give the Sinai Peninsula back to the Egyptians (with an American battalion-sized task force acting as a buffer … by the way, they still are there) in exchange for a peace treaty.
Since the early 1990s the Israelis have been trying to make a deal with the various Palestinian factions to trade land for peace, but that has been a non-starter. Now, you can blame the Israelis, if you want (and I know people do) but you see if you keep lobbing mortars and rockets at people, they tend to get defensive and intransigent and the Israelis have. So, they build settlements on the tactically and strategically significant ground because it is in their interest to build them there. Of course, this makes everybody angry, but what do you expect? Do you expect them to put their heads on the altar’s chopping block and give their apparent enemies (remember the ones who keep sending in suicide squads to blow things up, snipers and lobbing mortars shells and rockets, as well as the other gangs who go around stoning people and tossing Molotov cocktails) free shots with the sword or ax.
I feel sorry for the parents of the young lady. However, she was doing what she wanted to do. She put herself out there. It was her choice and she easily could have stayed out of the path of that bulldozer. So, in that sense, the Israeli court was correct: The Israeli government was not responsible for her death. She was … and that was the way she wanted it. She is now a martyr.
Of course, we Americans in our ignorance always think we know what is best and what is right … if only everybody would agree with us (even though we can’t agree amongst ourselves what is right or wrong).

Medicaid: One size fits all?

Ryan plan sparks Medicaid debate

Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin representative/Republican vice presidential nominee, has brought up a good topic for debate: Should the states or the federal government administrate the Medicaid programs that pay for health care for the poor and the indigent.

That is a good question.

Is it better that the states decide the extent of the Medicaid program and who it helps or doesn’t help, or should that decision be a decision made by Congress, or a federal regulatory agency like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Health Care Financing Administration?   Who is the CMMS/HCFA?

Most democratic-socialists will tell you that it needs to be a national program, while most federal-republicans will tell you it needs to be in the hands of the state governments which lie closer to the people. Where you fall out in that debate is the choice you have to make according to what you see the role of government being at each level.

I, for one, tend toward the traditional democratic-republican view point of Thomas Jefferson, even though I dearly love James Madison (and he is one of my personal heroes – even if this is the 100^th year of his disastrous War of 1812 when he shouldn’t have tried to play commander in chief in the field, but that is a whole other story), that government works best when it is closest to the people. In other words, the lower the level of government, the better it works for the benefit of the people.

This is especially true for communities. Communities and their governments, usually municipal or county/parish governments are far more responsive to the needs and desires of their constituents than state governments … and far more responsive than the federal government in Washington. This usually is because the constituents are neighbors to the people running the schools and city halls and let them know their views on their front lawns or over their back fences.

State governments, for similar reasons, usually are little more responsive to the needs of their states than the federal government, but that is partially by design … or malice aforethought, as I put it. Still, state governments can be more reflective and responsive to the demographic makeup and desires of its communities, something that is difficult, if not impossible, at the national/federal government level.

At the national level, in order to avoid being quite arbitrary and capricious in its law and rule making, the government must, basically, make everything “one size fits all.” That, I contend, is a recipe for disaster because problems come in all shapes and sizes and one size definitely doesn’t fit all.

The plan, by those really smart guys way back when, was for each state to be sort of a laboratory of solutions. Each state would try to solve the problems facing its residents, which may or may not be the same or even similar to the ones facing another state. Great idea, but the revolution in telecommunications may have doomed it.

Today, whether it is the Internet or television over cable and satellite, communications are nearly instantaneous, with all problems that are associated with information overload.

One of the complaints in the above article is that advocates for the poor don’t have the resources to go to 50 state capitals to make their cases for greater benefits for the poor and find it much more efficient to take their lobbying to just one place: Washington. But is that not the problem with our national government? Isn’t in the pockets of too many special interests and not looking out for the “general welfare” of the nation?

Of course, the problem with having 51 solutions instead of 1 solution is that it is time consuming and Americans are a notoriously impatient lot. We want our problems solved yesterday, if not sooner, and we don’t like debating over what ought to be done. Just do something, do it now, and make the problem/distraction go away. No need discussing it. No need to come to any compromises. Just do what I want and do it now.

Except sometimes what gets done isn’t what I want, or what my neighbors want, or what might work in some other place but isn’t going to work too well here. Hmmm. Maybe there is a better answer.

As I have said before, government governs best when it governs least, and the best way for that to happen is to leave in the hands of the level of government closest to the people.

Don’t look for that to happen anytime soon, however; the special interests in Washington have no interest in having to work any harder for their causes than they have to.

But it is not my fault I went crazy!

Aurora Gunman's responsibility

It is interesting in our quest to understand what makes an adult walk into a crowded theater and try to kill a whole bunch of people; our society always tries to absolve the individual of his responsibility.

The New York Times spent a whole lot of ink trying to explain that the shooter in the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting that killed 12 (plus the shooter) and wounded something like 55 was obviously mentally deranged and therefore, obviously, not responsible for actions. Barley Corn.

Yes, there were warning signs. Yes, I suppose, that the appropriate mental health professionals at the University of Colorado at Denver campus could have done more. But you know something; the young man in question could have done a lot more to stop himself. You do realize that this person is an adult, a very smart one from all testimony.

Ironically, he knew he was slipping off the edge. He could have made a choice. He could have gone to the psychiatrist that he sent the tome to and said, “Doctor, I have a problem, and I fear I might go out of control.”

With his intelligence and background, particularly since CU-D is the campus of the CU medical school, one would think that he would have enough awareness to know that he was slipping over the edge. He obviously did, because he told “friends” that he was going to do something, but nothing specific enough to run to the cops and say “you need to investigate him.”

What bothers me is that this young man probably will be determined non-guilty by reason of insanity, or at least the NYT is laying the groundwork for that defense.

How about this, folks: A young man makes some really horrendous, atrocious choices, relatively deliberately and rationally. He is aware what he is doing is not correct, and actually does seek some help from the mental health community. He could go the next step and be honest with the mental health professionals dealing with him, or he could just go to them and say “put me somewhere I won’t hurt myself or other people.”

I know I am sounding far too rational for this case, but since the young man did not make those choices, then I fear he should pay the penalty for committing aggravated murder with malice aforethought.

Given the information that we have at this point, insanity is not a defense. Of course, then we can ask ourselves why people do this. Why do seeming intelligent, rational people choose to kill, maim or rape people? It is a good question, and one I don’t have a simple answer to.

However, if you look through history, you find so many cases where this happens that you begin to wonder about people. Whether is small mass murders to mass murders on the scale of the Holocaust or other genocides, people you would think would know better get swept up in the dementia of killing, torture and rapine.

It is not unique to any society. If you think it is, then you are the one who is deluding yourself. It is a plague upon mankind and cuts across all societal structures.

How do we stop it? I don’t know if we can, given the emotional, rather than rational, nature of humans. How many times a day do we do something that defies even our own sense of rationality? Take a moment and examine your own behavior and analyze how many times you let your emotions of the moment, day, week, month, year, to overwhelm what people would tell you is rational behavior.

Yes, humans are rational creatures, but they also are very irrational creatures. That probably is what sets us apart from all the other animals in the animal kingdom. We have the capability to be both rational and irrational at the same time.

As I said, I don’t have a solution to this dichotomy. I am, however, a reluctant proponent of capital punishment, in that there are some behaviors for which there is no forgiveness. There are some things that people can do that transcend the boundaries of civilized behaviors and therefore those people have forfeited their right to live in civilized society. Since we no longer have the Botany Bay option (sending them off to a deserted island where there is no chance of escape and return to civilization), then the only way to remove them, and the threat they pose, from society permanently is for them to forfeit their lives. You can make a case for perpetual incarceration, but these people still pose a threat not only to the people who perforce must watch over them to ensure they stay behind bars but also to the other people who must, by necessity, share accommodations with them. At some point, society has to say that mere banishment to some penal facility is not enough. In those cases, when the crime has been so wanton or so heinous (killing or attempting to kill a large number of people qualifies, in my humble opinion), then the killer’s life is forfeit.

I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this point, and I do understand. However, some things truly are evil or unacceptable and have to be eliminated. In those cases, there are no excuses.

Fairy tales?

Real Life Sleeping Beauties

What was that song that Frank Sinatra used to sing about fairy tales.  Sinatra sings Young at Heart 

Well, it seems that some young ladies and young men in the Ukraine are feeling very young at heart … or at least they believe in the Sleepy Beauty fairy tale.

Tale of Sleeping Beauty

There must be an awful lot of hopeless romantics out there (shyly raising my hand because I prefer the Disney version) because this deal in the art museum in Kiev, Ukraine, has got to be out there. I mean who would sign a contract pledging to marry someone based on a kiss while they are allegedly asleep … and who would sign a contract pledging to marry someone if your kiss woke them up. I can see all sorts of problems here.

But, as Frank says, fairy tales can come true; they can happen to you; if … well, if you want to believe.

I hope these young people find their fairy tales coming true. I guess it is little different that the reality series in the U.S. called The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. I really am not sure I would want my “courtship” played out before television cameras. It would rather freak me out, to tell the truth. But that is because I am not the most suave and debonair person that you are going to see (far from it) although I am quite romantic in my own way (I think, you need to ask my beautiful, wonderful, talented and special wife if that really is true, however).

Anyway, who says fairy tales can’t come true? Just look at any political campaign in the US.

What reality?

Report of conflict in Syria
I watched the above news report by an Independent Television News reporter that was aired on NBC in the US with incredulity.
I was not shocked by the bombing. I was not shocked by the artillery shells going off. I was not shocked by the flames in the buildings. I was not shocked by the riflemen and grenadiers firing their weapons. I was not shocked by a six-year-old boy lying wounded in a hospital. None of that was any surprise to me. You know why? Because that is what war is all about.
It seems that Amnesty International didn’t get the meme from the International Committee of the Red Cross: What is going on in Syria is a war, a civil (well a very uncivil really) war.
The Amnesty complains that the bombs and artillery are “battlefield” weapons, as if the “battlefield” was some sort of prizefighting ring or jousting field for medieval knights. What alternate reality are these people living in? War is not a prizefight or a joust.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like seeing non-combatants get caught in middle of a battle, but that is going to happen, especially when the combatants decide to duke it out in cities.
War is not a place where you send in unarmed observers to keep a running tally on who does what to whom. That is a recipe for getting the observers killed. It amazes me how much the news gatherers of today seem to treat war as some kind of video game. Believe me, it isn’t and it never was. Still, we see these reports decrying the fact that the battles have any impact on “innocent” civilians.
Well, as we have seen around the world, unless you are under about the age of five, there are no “innocents” per se in a combat zone. You usually are for one side or the other. You just try to stay neutral in a combat zone and I will make a wager that neither side will trust or respect you. Both will think you are working for the other side, unless you are working for them.
Still, we have people in this world who put on the blinders and think that war is anything but the cruel, ugly, deadly, terrible thing that it is.
I am sorry people but war kills people, indiscriminately. It destroys things, indiscriminately. It maims things, indiscriminately. That is what bombs, and rockets, and artillery and mortar shells, and grenades, and mines, and bullets do. They are not discriminate. They don’t just hit the bad guys, or the bad places. Just ask the nine people wounded in New York City Aug. 24, 2012. The police did not intend for their bullets or the shrapnel from their ricochets to hit anybody but the killer that they were trying to put down.
I will pretty much guarantee that the pilots of the planes in that video or the gunners on the artillery or mortars that landed in the video or the guns being fired by the people in the video were not deliberately being aimed at non-combatants. Not on your life. Those gunners, bombers and shooters where just hoping that the rounds that they were sending down range were going to hit “the bad guys” and, you have to remember in war, the bad guys includes those who support and back the fighters.
Now, I suppose, in some alternate universe, the prizefight paradigm or the joust model exists and the spectators can line up in the stands and watch the battle without expecting any harm to come their way. However, that is not how it is in the real world; and in Syria, as well as many other places around the globe, we are living in a real world.
Whether it is diplomatic personnel in Mexico (even if it was two US Marines assigned to the embassy) or a bunch of people meeting with a terrorist leader in Pakistan, or a clash between tribal forces in Africa, that is the real world. Bullets fly, bombs drop and people are wounded or die. That is the reality of war.
It helps to remember that war is not glorious. War is not gallant flags waving.
War sometimes is necessary, unfortunately, and the only thing to do in a war is to apply enough force quickly and efficiently enough to get one side or the other to quit fighting because it is no longer cost effective, whether in human lives or wealth expended. To do anything else is, indeed, a war crime.
The human tragedy is that we cannot agree on what is good or bad, or who should be in power or who should not. All too often, because we are basically sore losers or the winners are not magnanimous, we end up with people taking up arms to make their cases. That really is all that wars are, political and economic discussions extended to a different sphere that uses violence, death and destruction to resolve the differences.
There apparently is no antiseptic alternative to war, unfortunately, although democratic societies where the people agree to compromise and abide by the majority rule, if it respects minority rights, come closest to it.
Regrettably, it seems that that willingness to compromise and share, to be magnanimous, is a quality that is sorely lacking in the modern world, despite what the people at Amnesty International and other people and organizations of like mindset want to believe.

Fire discipline

2 dead, 9 wounded in New York

Wounded hit by police bullets

19 hit by bullets in Chicago violence

Two dead, nine wounded. All of the wounded were from police bullets. What does one make of this?

Well, you can take away several lessons from it.

First, police are humans and can get very scared.

Second, scared people aren’t the best shots in the world.

Third, when bullets fly, they hit whatever gets in the way and not necessarily the target.

Ok, if I was going to criticize the police officers, I would say that they forgot one of the basic marksmanship rules I was taught when I first learned to shoot, and which was strongly reinforced when I went into the military: Always, always, always know where the bullet is going to go when you shoot it … or at least have a relatively good idea where it will impact. Unfortunately, when you are scared poopless – as most people would be looking down the muzzle of .45 caliber handgun at close range – remembering that axiom is pretty difficult.

In the military, I was taught in the Navy, never bother shooting warning shots and always shoot for the center of mass of the target. Why not a warning shot? Because where is it going to go? IF you shoot up, there probably are things above you that don’t take kindly to bullets and cost lots of money to fix. If you shoot down, the deck most likely is metal and the bullet most likely will ricochet off in God-knows what direction.

However, if you shoot for the center of mass of a person, a) you have a much greater chance of hitting what you are shooting at and b) when it hits the person, it is not very likely to ricochet off and hit something you don’t want it to hit.

In the New York City case, obviously, the police officers didn’t always hit the target that they were aiming at … and that was a major oopsie. Still, in a way, the fact that most police departments use hollow-point bullets actually worked in their favor this time. You see, when a hollow-point bullet hits something it usually breaks apart and loses a lot of its energy. When it hit a human body, it creates a god-awful wound. When it hits something else it breaks into smaller pieces and goes off in several different directions at a somewhat less speed which means that the people hit by the pieces are going to get hurt, but less likely to have a really serious wound like the person hit by the initially intact bullet.

The tragedy is that the police officers basically emptied their magazines in their pistols at the target. This is an understandable reaction when facing someone with a large-bore pistol (and all pistols look large-bore when you are staring down the muzzle of one). You want to make sure the guy you are shooting at is down and out of the game. However, with your adrenalin pumping and your instincts screaming - “WARNING EXTREME DANGER” - it is very hard to keep your brain engaged to remember that aimed shots work better than un-aimed shots. And since most police officers rarely find themselves in a shooting situation, they don’t have a lot of experience to draw upon in those cases. Soldiers will tell you it takes experience to know when to shoot and when not to shoot … especially when your life is on the line.

Now, a second point: It is interesting that the gunplay in New York City got national news play while a series of shootings in Chicago that left 19 wounded got zip. I suppose that may strike you strange, but then I understand it. It might be that I spent a lot of years in the news business and understand how these things work, especially for television.

Most of the gunplay in Chicago happened off in its various ethnic neighborhoods on the South Side – the basically who-cares-what-happens-there section of the city. The New York City shooting happened just outside a major tourist attraction – the Empire State Building.

That is No. 1. No. 2 is that it happened quite close to where the major television networks and cable news companies have their offices. In fact, a CNN news producer just happened to be walking by when it happened. The shootings in Chicago were all nowhere near the offices of the TV stations or newspaper offices. The NYC shooting could feature good video while the Chicago shootings featured none.

Strange world we live in isn’t it?

I bet it also is politically incorrect of me to point out that the mayor of Chicago also is the former chief of staff for President Obama and that the president points to his “hometown” as the model of America. Actually, it is irrelevant to the President or how he is doing his job. It is just an interesting coincidence.

Last point: The shooter in NYC was breaking the law. He didn’t register his handgun with city authorities. However, it is somewhat significant to point out that the pistol had been purchased 20 years earlier in Florida, quite legally. So, ratcheting up restrictions on gun purchases would have not done much in this case.

Going up?

Space elevators?
It reads a bit like science fiction, but the proposal to build an elevator to space – which is science fiction right now – is an intriguing concept.
The idea, as I understand it, is to run an 8.000-mile-long piece of - for the lack of a better term - carbon-fiber rope up into geostationary orbit around the earth. Then using the rope, you haul things up and down to space. Great idea, but how the heck are they going to get that long string out to somewhere in space.?
Look, I know that engineers have a long history of stringing long pieces of wire together to make very strong structures. Just look at suspension bridges like the Gold Gate Bridge. There are thousands upon thousands of miles of wire twisted into giant cables that hold those bridges up. It is not rocket science, but getting a wire like that into space seems to me that it will take a whole lot of rocket science.
How would you do it? I haven’t a clue. Do you take the wire up into space and then dangle it back down or do you try to tow it up into space? Do you have any idea how much weight that would be? Lordy, it would be more than any rocket we now have even on the design boards.
I think it is a great idea, and I volunteer to be the elevator man that runs the car up and down. For you younger people, elevators used to have operators who ran the elevators in most big buildings, instead of just pushing a button for the floor you want.
Pappy told me a great story about an elevator man he met in Kansas City about 70 years ago. It seems that Pappy was checking into a hotel there in the evening and just as the elevator car came to take him up to his floor, these two big bodyguard types with a rather inebriated fellow slung between them came rolling up. The elevator man looked at Pappy and said, “One moment, sir, I will be right back” and then whisked the trio up to the top floor. When he got back, the elevator man – being quite a gentleman about it, Pappy said – apologized to Pappy and said, “You know, of course, who that was?” Pappy admitted his ignorance. The elevator man said, “Why that was Senator Truman.” (As in Harry S. Truman, the Pendergast machine hack politician who would become president of the United States in 1945 when Franklin Roosevelt died.)
Elevator operators got to meet the most interesting of folks. Too bad we are so automated these days we don’t need them any more.

Auto industry success?

Obama says let us have more bailouts

GM costs taxpayers $25 billion

Sometimes I think one has to be seriously delusional to be a politician, or otherwise how can they believe what they say?

President Obama told a political rally that he wants to repeat the success of the auto industry bailouts of three years ago with other industries. Is he kidding?

First of all, I fail to see how the “bailouts” or “rescues” to use the more politically correct term were a success. Oh, yes, GM and Chrysler still exists, sans more than a few nameplates and dealerships. Both ended up in bankruptcy court and apparently GM is threatening to return to bankruptcy court. Now, if that is what is termed a success, I hate to see what would be termed a failure.

Second, the federal government really doesn’t have any business owning large consumer product companies … and that is what car companies are: Consumer product companies. I can see a case for the government owning businesses that provide government with products, although that often can be done just as effectively and cheaply by private agents, but I don’t see that large enough demand for cars for the government to be building cars for itself … tanks, maybe; cars, no.

Third, I really don’t like seeing the federal government circumventing the law to favor one group or another or one industry over another. Yes, watching companies go belly up for any reason is not pretty and it hurts … humans get hurt really bad sometime. However, that is part of life and it seems it is a part of life that, for some crazy reason, a whole bunch of people seem to think that we can avoid. Speaking from personal experience: WRONG ANSWER!

I have made any number of lousy stinking decisions in my life, and I have paid a price for most of them. Very few of those times was that price something I enjoyed. No, and some of them hurt like the dickens but I learned I had to endure them.

Yet, it seems that somewhere along the line, we in this country have come to the idea that we don’t have to pay a price for our bad decisions. We have decided that we are not responsible for the things that go wrong and they always are the fault of someone else. Our president seems particularly adept at making that claim, much to my dismay.

You know, sometimes tsunamis happen. It isn’t your fault, but you get swept away all the same. Well, over the last four or five years, there have been a number of economic tsunamis that have swept across the landscape of the U.S. and the world and every one of them probably could have possibly been avoided if we lived in a perfect world. But, you know what? We don’t.

But instead of doing what we should have done, which was try to cope and then rebuild from the creative destruction and chaos that resulted, we tried to soften the impact by not letting the Wall Street financiers and the corporate giants and big banks take it on the chin and let the market sort itself out. That was a huge mistake and I thought so at the time, and I still think so.

It all sounds well and good that our government is riding to our rescue … but you know something, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Keeping records in perspective

Arctic sea ice set to hit record low

Interesting story about the annual melt of the Arctic sea ice pack, but I am not sure that the headline or the premise about it really means much.

Synopsis of the story: Taken from satellite imagery, it seems that this summer’s artic sea ice pack melt has significantly reduced it from what it was just a few years ago. It seems that global climate change could be responsible.

Of course, the implication is that the change is due to anthropomorphic causes. Oopsie. That is a leap of faith that really is not justified by the facts at hand. Now, please understand, I am not contesting that the climate might be changing. In fact, I will just about guarantee it is changing. I just don’t buy off on the argument that is all the fault of humans and because the U.S. is the richest and most consumer driven country that it is entirely  its fault. (I will back this up in a second).

Ok, to me the operative point in the above article when it talks about hitting a record low it is only dealing with a period from 1979 (when they started taking pictures from satellites orbiting the earth) until 2012. Let me get my calculator out: That is a grand total of 33 years … and the world is how old? Four billion years, you say, and just 15,000 years ago the ice pack extended all the way down to somewhere around New York City … and then some thousands, or is it millions, of years ago, there was barely any ice at all. Hmm, some record.

Actually, I was thinking about it. I have a damaged heart (about 25 percent of it doesn’t work anymore) and I thought about putting it in that sort of perspective. It is like taking my pulse, and then taking it again five seconds later, and then again a few seconds later and then trying to tell me how my heart is fairing. Good try, but bad information. Oh, yeah, an EKG only takes a minute or so, but that is only a snapshot and your cardiologist (you do have one don’t you?) will tell you that is all it is. If they really want to know what is going on they have to monitor you for a few months or so, and take lots of pictures over time and maybe go in a do a little exploring with cameras and the like. But just looking at pictures taken over a few seconds will not necessarily tell them the whole story.

So, while I have no doubt my heart is damaged, I know that it is monitored 24/7 and I report the results of that monitoring every month or so. Still, that doesn’t tell the doctor what is going on inside my heart, or its muscles or its arteries. It just gives him something to compare against. It doesn’t tell him when it is going to finally say: “Ok, I’m done. I’m going to stop working now.” No test is going to tell him, or me, that.

Interestingly enough, despite my having a host of risk factors, no doctor can tell you precisely which one triggered my heart disease. Sorry, they just know that statistically if you do x, y or c or you don’t do a, b or z, then they are more likely to find blocked arteries in your body and other health problems. Of course, statistically, you can NOT do x, y or c and do a, b or z, and you still can have heart problems. Amazing how that works. Maybe we humans ain’t all that smart after all.

Now, it seems that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are one of the biggest culprits in the anthropomorphic climate change models. What would you say if some scientists told you that the US is pumping out less CO2 now than it was 20 years ago?

US CO2 emissions at 20 year low

My goodness, maybe the US has been doing something right after all.

However, my point would be that if the US has reduced its carbon footprint so much and climate change still is happening doesn’t that call into question the current causes of climate change? I ain’t no scientist but it would seem to me that the evidence would point that way. You know, of course, that it is just possible that there are other, non-human-related, factors at play here.

I do get tired of our hubris that we think that just because we think, then the world must revolve around us. Just because we seem to be sentient, that we are in control.

As my old math teacher used to say: Apples and Oranges.

Maybe we need to stop thinking that we are in control and think more about coping with reality. I do that on a daily basis … not always fun, but it has kept me alive longer than the worst prognoses said I would live. And that makes me happy.

Of course, you can think you are in control. That is all right. You do have the right to think silly thoughts.

No Fear tour

No Papers No Fear tour

Ok, it sounds like some music group, but apparently there is a bus-load or so of undocumented immigrants / illegal immigrants / illegal aliens (you take your pick) on a tour of U.S. cities flouting the fact that they have no immigration papers and basically, at least from my impression, are telling American citizens and their government where they can stick their immigration laws and rules.

Once again, folks, does this seem right to you? If it does, I surely would love to have an explanation, because I don’t understand. You see, I have first hand experience with the U.S. immigration system: My wife is, and still is and will be, a Canadian citizen. She has her “Green Card” which took almost three years to get. She has a work permit, which took a year to get. In other words, we played by the rules. We paid the fees, etc., too. So, between you and me, I don’t have a lick of sympathy for these people who have entered the U.S. without following the rules and the law. Sorry, like in the game of Chutes and Ladders, you get to go back to square one and start all over.

Unfortunately, that is not the politically correct view we should have. We should be empathetic and understand that most of these people are here contributing to the U.S. economy (supposedly doing jobs “normal” Americans refuse to do and would rather sit out collecting on welfare and extended unemployment), but I am not sure I buy that argument.

And then we are supposed to be welcoming of those young people whose parents brought them here illegally more than five years ago and are between 16 and 30 now because they weren’t responsible for their plight, their parents were.

With all due respect to what are probably righteous and upright individuals, but sorry but that is equine fecal material. Of course, we can’t apply the “law” to you because it wouldn’t be “fair”. That is part of the problem with our society today: We are carving out so many exemptions to applying the law that it no longer applies to anybody. And that really burns me.

You see, I happen to be one of those people who firmly believes that the law – any and every law – should apply to everybody. It shouldn’t matter what race, religion, ideology, color, economic status, wealth or whatever. When it comes to the law, we all should be equal before it. Is that what we have now? Not only no, but HELL NO! and that is wrong.

The easiest place to start is the federal tax code, particularly the income tax portions of it for both individuals and corporations. The code is so riddled with exemptions, deductions and tax credits (most tailored for specific special interest groups, rich and poor) that it is not surprising few Americans do their own taxes. They go out an hire someone professing to be a professional who has studied and understands the intricacies of it, or buy a computer software program that promises the same.

I know, and understand, all the various reasons given for all those exemptions, deductions and tax credits, but they are wrong. They are wrong because they make some pigs (oops, people) more equal than others, to borrow a cliché from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

It doesn’t matter what the law is, you will see that it has been tailored to impact one group while leaving another group unaffected. You see this in all sorts of regulatory law and administrative law where the regulations and rules only apply to individuals or corporations that meet certain criteria. Don’t meet the criteria, and then the law doesn’t apply.

Sorry but that is bovine scatology.

So, these people going around the country making a big deal that they have no papers? Ok, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where are you? Got a group that is making it easy for you and are in violation of the rules you are supposed to enforce. Oh, that is right; our President (you know the man who is constitutionally empowered to enforce the laws of the United States) has told you not to enforce that law. It seems that he either disagrees with the law as it stands … or he has some other reason (like trying to buy votes of the Hispanic community – please, people, don’t sell your souls and your votes so cheaply).

I didn’t know that we could pick and choose what laws we wanted to obey. Hey, do you think that is a great idea? Hell, why have any laws then at all. Let’s just let our hair down and enjoy the anarchy. I mean that why should we let government control any of our activities? Hey, progressives, I need to hear from you on this. Why should government tell us what to do on anything? Why should government be allowed to regulate any of our behaviors? If we want to go out and kill someone, Hell, it is our choice, where does the government have any business in it.

Heck, if we want something, aren’t we just allowed to take it?

I know I am being sarcastic here, folks, but it seems to me that when we stop applying the law to all, and only apply the law selectively, then we are drifting into deep trouble.

Yes, I know prosecutors will tell you all over the country that they and the court system is overwhelmed and that they can’t prosecute every case of a broken law. They plead for prosecutor’s discretion. Seen far too much of that in my years of covering court and putting court news in the paper. Plea bargains are fine, so are suspended sentences, but when you are prosecuting a person for a seventh offense DUI, or fifth time for driving while suspended, or the umpteenth time for assault, battery or burglary … or armed robbery or violations of stock exchange regulations, then it is time to reexamine your priorities. As prosecutors, they need to really get out there and explain why some laws are “good” and need to be enforced and why some laws are “bad” and shouldn’t be on the books.

However, I know that a) that takes too much work and b) it is easier to just game the system.

I guess, if this is what the American people like, or at least are willing to tolerate, then I should, as Pappy used to say, “Go back in the teapot.” I just wish more people would say it is time for this crap to stop.

Enforce the law, or repeal it and let us take the consequences.

Disturbing defense trends

I am not linked in as well as I once was to things that are happening the Army, but I do try to follow as best I can. I recently was trying to catch up on the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the young intelligence specialist who is to stand trial for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified (if nothing other the FOUO/NFD (For Official Use Only/No Foreign Dissemination) but much classified (which is the next step up) and secret) documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and I noticed something that I thought was disturbing about issues that the defense had raised.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.

Blame America first

Iraq helps Iran skirt sanctions

Iran calls Israel an insult

Syrian airstrikes continue

China warns Japan over islands

North Korea threatens US

Politically incorrect guide to U.S. interests

I am always fascinated by those who blame the United States for all the woes in the world … as if the Americans had that much power. I am sorry, but superpower or not, the U.S. never has been in “control” of anything outside the U.S., much less control of events inside its own borders.

There are those who look at the conflicts around the world and say “Well, what are you going to do about it America?”

Whether it is the civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Sudan or Congo; or threatening conflicts between Japan and China, or the Chinese and Filipinos, or the Chinese and the Vietnamese, or the Indians and the Pakistanis or the Israelis versus Iran … or even the U.S. versus Iran, do you really think these conflicts are being triggered by remote control? Do you really believe that there is some nefarious group that is manipulating all these conflicts? Give me a break. The answer is much simpler than that: Nobody is in “control” or you can say everybody is in control. In each of these conflicts, there really is very little the U.S. – or you or me, for that matter – can do to influence their resolutions.

The problem is, as the problem has been throughout history, is that there are individuals – good, bad or indifferent – in each one of the above countries who is making guesses about what they can or cannot do and which would maybe result in an outcome that is to their benefit and the benefit of their country. Those guesses probably not all the educated, or educated so much that they still don’t know what they are doing.

In Syria, there are so many players playing so many angles who knows what will happen. I sure don’t, but I can tell you this: It will be a bloody mess, literally and figuratively.

In Iraq, despite eight years there and a significant contingent of American “advisors”, the Americans are not calling the shots and nobody is being “handled.” The Iraqis and their leadership are going to play the game to suit their own interests and not necessarily the country’s best interests.

In Sudan and Congo, the same metric is going down but with different players and, sorry folks, but the U.S. not only won’t, but can’t do anything to affect it.

The events in the South and East China Seas? You think Beijing or Tokyo or Manila or Jakarta or Hanoi really are going to jump when the U.S. says: “Ok, boys, everybody back in their corners.” Do think the North Koreans are going to stop blowing smoke about “sacred wars” if the U.S. would just sit down and talk to them like they were rational adults?

Like the U.S. is going to have a whole lot of influence over Pakistan and be able to tell it and its neighbor to stop rattling each other’s cage.

And Israel and Iran? Why does the Iranian leadership have to keep rattling their sabers? It just makes the Israelis rattle theirs. A friend of mine said everything would be all right if the Israelis would just settle their long-term problems with the Palestinians. Hello? What planet is he on? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Bill Clinton came within inches of that goal in 2000, but Yasser Arafat walked out at the last minute. I am sorry, but compromise sometimes means accepting a 95 percent solution rather than a 100 percent solution.

As for the Israelis, I don’t like a lot of their policies, especially the settlement policies, but you know, I can halfway understand them. Even then, they gave up all the settlements in Gaza in a bid to trade land for peace and a fat lot that got them.

I know there are those who blame the Israelis for all the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I think that is a red herring. It would seem, at least for Gaza, that Egypt has had as big a role, if not bigger role in what has happened in Gaza. You do know Egypt ruled Gaza for almost 20 years and still has a border with Gaza, with their own border guards on it. I suppose, if they had wanted, they could have flooded Gaza with humanitarian aid at any time over the last 60 years … but they didn’t and they probably won’t … at least not with any aid that would create a self-sustaining, functional economy. Same goes for Jordan with the West Bank.

Still, one has to remember - despite the announcements by the Iranians and others in the Muslim world - that the Holocaust DID happen. Six million European Jews and about four million others were systematically murdered by the German Nazis. A good chunk of the Israelis are descendants of the survivors and they have decided never again.

You see, no one took Mister Hitler seriously when he wrote about and said what he planned to do. The Israelis are not about to make the same mistake twice. When you have somebody saying they want to see you eradicated because you are an insult to the world and others say they just want to wipe your nation off the map, then people with the Israelis’ background tend to take them at their word. Preemptive strikes usually work better than second strikes, basically because you often can take out much of the other side’s abilities to do any damage.

If you think the U.S. is about to be able to call the shots for the Israelis, then you are sadly mistaken. Yes, the U.S. is their bosom buddy and has helped them for years, but in the end, the Israelis are going to do what they think is in the best interest of their own survival (with the minimum of acceptable losses and casualties on their side).

Granted, the Iranians (one really should call them Persians to understand the length of their history) should be proud of their heritage, but they also should understand that in the 21st century, the empires of centuries and millennia ago are not about to be resurrected. Unfortunately, the ayatollahs and IRGC never got the meme.

The whole thing points to the probable future that it is going to get awfully violent around the world, whether it is Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Eurasia. And don’t think North America or Europe is immune, because they are not.

In the United States we have seen what appears to be an uptick in political violence. It almost makes one dread what will happen this fall.

Whatever happens, please try to remember: The Americans are not in control. The multinational corporations are not in control. The Zionist Conspiracy is not in control.

NO ONE person, entity, group or thing is in control. And with all those actors and factors, mistakes are going to be made and my bet is that things are going to get really, really ugly.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but the old saying is “if you want peace, prepare for war” and maybe you will get lucky.

Who really does have a say?

Poor have no say in government

A Princeton University academic, a sociologist with a doctorate, says according to his research that the poor and the middle class have no say in government policy. No say? That is an interesting construct and a very interesting allegation.

First of all, I have not read his book; merely the above article about his book. Woe unto me, for I know I am venturing into unstable ground here, but it makes me wonder about what policies he is talking about.

According to the article, it quotes him as saying:

"If federal policy more equally reflected the preferences of all Americans we would see a more progressive tax structure, higher unemployment benefits, stronger regulation of business and industry, a more protectionist trade regime, more prayer in public life, and less access to abortion."

Ok, but my question would be is that what the federal policy should be? You see, the problem I have with that basically is that it looks on the government as not only a protector but as a purveyor of government largess to the benefit of this group or another. Is that what the federal government is supposed to be in the United States? Is it supposed to be protecting this group or that group or any group? Is that what government has come to mean to people?

The author of the study seems to think so. Obviously the wealthy have too much influence on federal policies, like the progressive tax structure? Is that true? I may be wrong but I have read somewhere in government documents that nearly half of Americans pay very little if anything in federal income taxes. The vast majority of these people, according to the demographics accompanying that statement are people who come from the lowest and lower levels of income (at or below the median income of somewhere around $45,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty progressive to me. It also seems to me that the “poor” benefit a lot more from the federal government than the wealthy seem to be, but I could be wrong.

You see, one of the things those really smart guys who framed the constitution that outlines what the federal government is supposed to be really, really feared was the “tyranny of the mob.” You see, being revolutionaries, they knew the power of mobs and how they can swing quickly into tyranny of the majority.

Since we all agree that there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, it would seem that they do have a large influence on public policy. Is that not “representative democracy”? Well, I suspect it isn’t if you think that there should be no wealthy.

I am not arguing that “rich” people don’t have more influence than one person one vote, because obviously they do. But then that is what the founders wanted. They wanted “minorities” to be protected from the tyranny of the masses. Granted, we never really have done all that good of a job protecting all minorities all the time, but still it is what we should be trying to do.

The reason we want the “wealthy” to pay more is the same reason that bank robbers rob banks instead of stock brokers: That is where the money is. So, if you want to get the money and give it to someone else, then you have to take it from the people who have it. That seems to be a simple enough concept, but then you have to ask yourself is that really the right thing to do?

Well, there are those people who do think that it is. These people are those who honestly believe that a human society can function under the precept that you give to each according to their needs and you take from each according to their ability to give. It is a really utopian concept. However, if you look at history … it doesn’t work. It seems that people are just not made that way. I guess it is a fault in the human genome (something like the old religious concept of “original sin”) but I don’t know. However, I do know that it doesn’t work.

Behavioral specialists will tell you flat out that the best way to get people behind a project is to give them a personal stake in it. That is why democracy usually works, because the “people” have a stake in it, or at least think they do. I think that is because, deep down, each one of us thinks that we have a right to own our own labor. We have this funny belief that it belongs to us as individuals and not necessarily the group, or community or society or the state.

Those same behavioral specialists will tell you that individuals don’t always work just for the sake of working, In fact, very few people work just for the sake of working. Usually, they want a return of some sort on their investment, and if possible they want to maximize that return. In other words, we want a reward for our behavior.

Now, in this case, according to the academic, the reward people get from government is directly linked to their wealth. The more you have, the more you get from government, or so it would seem the argument would go. But is that really true? It seems that the social safety net that we have pays out considerably more to individuals who fall more into the “have not” category than the “have” category.

Which then leads to the interesting question of why is it in the society’s interest to rob from the rich to provide from the poor? Why is it that we allow government to do that?

Again, I thought the whole idea was that the government would be neutral and we all as individuals would be equal before the law. I know, it is a foolish utopian concept, but I find it much more appealing than the to-each/from-each utopian concept. I realize I may be in the minority here, but it is my humble opinion.

You see, the reason special interest groups (regardless of political bent) spend lots of money on political races is because they believe that there will be a large monetary benefit (or maybe just an ego boost) that they will get in return. The money is invested to influence the “government” to spend whatever largess it has to spend to that special interest group’s benefit. It doesn’t matter if it is a labor union or a corporation, or economic group or any of the plethora of other special interest groups that we can (and do) divide ourselves into, the point of the objective is how much money or benefit can we get for us.

You want to take the big bucks out of politics? It is really easy: Take away the power of government to give big bucks to special interest groups. It is just like drugs. You want to take the crime out of the war on drugs, then decriminalize drugs, legalize their use, tax them and regulate them. Guess what, there goes the biggest reason for crime.

You see, there are only two things that really motivate people: Power or rewards (usually in the form of money). Give individuals a feeling of power, and that helps make them happier. Give individuals rewards for the investment of their time and labor and they feel better.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in the U.S. is the subdividing of the culture into competing blocs for what always was and always will be a limited government pie. We have, as I have said before, done let the cat out of the bad and the people have realized they can vote themselves money out of the common treasury.

This a sad state of affairs.

Power corrupts, doesn’t it?

President considers executive order on cyber-security

President Obama is considering circumventing Congress’  inability to pass legislation implementing certain cyber-security measures his administration wants to see in effect. His response, apparently, is to consider implementing the measures via executive order.

Does this report not bother anybody? It bothers me a bunch. It bothers me because I am seeing the legislative branch being bypassed all too often, in my humble opinion, by recent administrations (especially the most recent) using questionable methods.

The most obvious is the use of executive orders, signing statements and intelligence findings. I understand the necessity of each; however, I do have reservations about even that. I realize that Congress has sometime in the past given presidents the authority to use such tools, I just think their use has become abused and not limited as it should be.

But then, that always is the case, isn’t it?

For example, until about 100 years ago, there were few regulatory agencies in the United States and those that existed enforced Congressional laws, not their own. Then, in the early part of the 20^th Century, new agencies were created to protect the public. As the years passed, these agencies were given more and more power to draw up their own rules and regulations to enforce. Of course, Congress had a check, but basically once a rule was in the Federal Register, it became law. This is not because the Congress approved it, but it is assumed to be approved under the authorizing statute.

 

Code of Federal Regulations

 

Now, the justification for this is that Congress is too busy, or lacks the technical expertise, to micromanage these various agencies and delegates its authority to make the law to these parts of the executive branch.

Now, what Congress can do, Congress can do, although a simpleton like myself thinks it is abdicating its responsibility … but then Congresses have been doing that since the revolution. One of my favorite songs from the musical 1776 is John Adams’ lament “Piddle, Diddle and Resolve.”

What becomes bothersome is that there appears to be no real check or balance to this federal rule making and it seems to be really open to abuse of powers.

So, here we have a president, whose agenda can’t get passed by Congress, issuing executive orders to various and sundry federal agencies telling them either to ignore existing law and invent new law (amnesty for young illegal immigrants) or to make new rules that put certain policies, not Congressionally mandated or authorized, into effect (Aid to Libyan and Syrian insurgents, wavers for mandates under the Affordable Care Act, etc.) and we are not supposed to question anything?

I am sorry, but this really bothers me. If it bothers you too, then think about it. I would like to know what we can do. I would hope an election would change things, but do you think it will?

Anyway, the random thought of the day.

Diplomatic immunity?

British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.

Journalistic hit job

Mormon Church takes in billions in tithes, owns billions in property and businesses

First of all: Who the heck cares how much Mormons give to their church? Who cares what they spend it on? And why would anybody be trying to study it?

Ok, folks, once again, it seems that NBC News has decided that the fact that the Mormon Church receives about $7 Billion per year through tithes from its members, that makes it a) worthy of a news story and b) critical analysis of the LDS Church’s investments. I guess this is because probably Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney happens to be Mormon and this gives NBC an opportunity to sling a few globs of mud and stuff.

Well, how about the Roman Catholic Church? I mean Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, the major parties’ presumed nominees for vice-president are both Catholics. What about their church? Oh, the best estimate I could find was somewhere between $100 Billion and $400 Billion, and that does not include the money that church receives from being the largest landholder in the world. As for all it other assets, let’s just say they are priceless.

My point being is that who the devil cares how much the Mormon Church receives in tithes … or for that matter, what any other church receives in tithes and donations? Unless you are member of the church involved, then it really isn’t any of your business … unless, of course, you are looking to stir the kettle of resentment against a particular faith. You think this is silly? Just look at the Jews who have been the targets of pogroms and discrimination because they are perceived to be “wealthy.” It matters not if they are or not, the resentment makes a good diversion from other issues that those stirring the pot would rather the masses don’t notice.

I am sorry, but I was hoping that we in America had gotten past that type of behavior. Obviously, I am wrong, but I guess I could continue to want to hope that we are better than that.

It angers me, not because I am particularly religious (and I definitely am not Mormon nor Jewish), but because it is something that has to be pointed out at all. NBC, the silly professor in Florida who apparently did the study and any other hangers on really deserve to be shunned. You know the good Amish tradition when someone does something that violates community standards, the community just stops talking to them, stops all associations with them. We need to start invoking it against some of these instigators.

It seems that no matter what religion you are these days, you are going to stand condemned for being a believer. I wish those who profess to want to be our leaders would be lashing out verbally against these kinds of attacks. I don’t mean the leaders under direct assault. I mean the other leaders in our communities, our civic groups and organizations, our churches, our synagogues, our temples, our mosques, our city halls, our county seats, our state capitols and, yes, even in the our national government who should be out there saying: This type of attack is wrong. We call on it to be stopped.

Ok, I am a raving lunatic. I know that this is not going to happen, nor does the realist in me ever expect it would ever happen, but I can at least be a lonely voice in the wilderness. Hell, I know I am, but at least I am saying something. I only wish more people would say something.

You know the old saying: If you convince two people to do the right thing and they each convince two people in turn, and you keep that chain going with each individual convincing two more people, it is amazing what you can accomplish.

Anyway, it is a random thought.

This is journalism?

"Palin lukewarm to Ryan" - Headline on CNN

"Axlerod calls Ryan ideological" – Yahoo

I want to take a moment to examine what passes for journalism on what I suppose we are to consider mainstream news sites on the web. The first is from CNN and the second is from Yahoo.

Now, I understand the new media “blogs” apparently have different rules than traditional journalism, but I think that is a mistake. What I write and say as a commentator is, and should be different, from what I write and say as a reporter. When I am reporting, it should be who, what where, when, how, and if an explanation is needed why. Assessing that information should come in a separate article, or so I was taught way back when when I was studying journalism in college. Well, we all know now that such a standard has changed, but it doesn’t mean that this old editor can’t rail against it.

In the first article, the reporter(s) are reporting a news release from Sarah Palin (who the heck cares what she has to say anyway) in which she praised presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for selecting U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate (he will be nominated as the party’s vice-presidential nominee) and then, apparently, launches into her standard tirade why the current administration of Barack Obama needs to be unseated in the November election.

Now, a relatively objective reporter would have reported the news release in just about those words but, apparently, in today’s journalistic climate that is not sufficient. Instead, the reporters have to apply their own perspective to the news. Let’s see, she only used Romney’s name four times and Ryan’s name three times in a 1,100-word release. Obviously, according to the reporters, Palin is not enthused about Romney or Ryan. (Is she supposed to be doing cartwheels in the street – I am definitely sure that is something I would not like to see a picture of) Oh, and we need to point out that in the Alaskan primary (months ago) she said she voted for Newt Gingrich (like that has anything to do with the story). The point of the spin is to make it look like Palin doesn’t want the Romney/Ryan ticket to win. She is just going through the motions.

You want to know something you silly reporters? I will make you a small wager that come November, about 50 percent of the people in the U.S. who are going to vote basically will be just “going through the motions.” They will not be voting enthusiastically for anybody, but wearily voting, merely glad the whole election campaign is over. They will be very tired of the overheated rhetoric, the claims that if the other side wins the world is going to come to a calamitous end immediately (which is entirely and utterly bovine scatology … it might wait until December 21 when the Mayan calendar ends it current cycle). That will be my bet.

Now, if the reporters were sympathetic to Romney and Ryan, the mere fact that Palin even mentioned them in the same release and said kind words about them would be being trumpeted as word from on high. Nope, that is not going to happen, except over the back fence between people who happen to like Sarah Palin (GASP! You mean there really are such Neanderthals? You mean there are people so clueless that don’t know she is now the third greatest threat to modern mankind?)

Now, the second article: I guess it serves a purpose, just like the talking heads that appeared the Sunday morning news talk shows on television. The Republicans said what they were going to say and the Democrats said what they were going to say … and any semblance to reality ends right there. For those who support Romney/Ryan, it was all pretty much how great the selection was. For those who support Obama/Biden, it was how evil and terrible and catastrophic the Republican ticket was going to be.

Guess what? Neither side is right. For those who are watching the U.S. elections from the outside, let me say this: This catfighting is normal for Americans. It goes back to the dawn of the republic. If you think it is bad now, you should have seen what passed for campaign rhetoric in say 1800, 1832, 1860, and any number of other elections.

Not that it is all that becoming, because it isn’t. But it is the way politics are played. I almost coming to the conclusion that the line I quoted my Pappy saying in an earlier post is most appropriate to apply to what is passing for journalism and political rhetoric today.

“Methinks the lady doth protest her innocence too much.”

Dr. O, Mr. B., Mr. M. and all my other mentors and professors in college: Where did we go wrong?

Bumper cars at sea

USS DDG collides with civilian tanker in Hormuz Strait

The MV Otoswasan

The USS Porter

Burke-class DDGs

Oopsie! The latest news from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea region is that an American guided-missile destroyer apparently bumped into a Panamanian-flagged oil tanker in the middle of the night while in the Strait of Hormuz.

Not good.

Understand that the Porter is about half the length of the M/V (Motor Vessel) Otowasan and displaces about 1/16^th as much water. It also is faster and more maneuverable. Which leads to the question: Why were they playing bumper cars at 1 a.m. in the morning?

Having served on a warship, it makes me wonder who did what and why. I can remember my destroyer (roughly half the size of the Porter) getting really close to some ships, but usually not close enough to bump into them.

The closest we did probably was during routine refueling exercises when we would be about 50 to 100 yards apart. We did come pretty close to an old Soviet Union trawler one time, when it was occupying the part of the sea we wanted to occupy. We were bigger, so the Russian decided that discretion was the better part of valor and got out of our way.

Then there was the time we toyed with being a hood ornament on the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt. It missed us, by about 400 yards, which was good because we would have been toast if we hadn’t scooted out of the way. Our captain had a little explaining to do to the admiral why the close-in plane-guard destroyer disappeared for a few seconds under the bow of the carrier moving at 30+ knots.

So, my mind has been busy trying to come up with a scenario that would put the tincan in such proximity to the lumbering oil tanker. We don’t know right now, but I have an idea that might be the answer. And it is nothing nefarious. Not necessarily smart, but nothing nefarious.

My speculation is that the Porter was training its junior officers on how to make an approach to a refueling tanker. This is a routine exercise for a warship, although they usually do it while escorting the real thing, rather than using a civilian ship as the target.

I remember, way back when, when my ship, the Merry-D, spent most of a day making passes at the oiler we were escorting across the Atlantic. Sometimes we would slide right into the right relative position (with a little bit more space than if we were actually coming alongside to refuel) and sometimes to officer conning the ship would have us just go romping by much faster than we needed to be going.

Now, I suspect, possibly, that the Porter was doing something similar, except at night (which is when destroyers usually seem to refuel. Don’t ask me why, but on my ship it seemed to be the unwritten rule that we had to refuel between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. so nobody could get a decent night’s sleep). Night approaches, obviously, are trickier than ones during daylight because it is harder to judge distances in the dark and anticipate sea state changes.

No matter what happened, the senior leadership of the Porter is in for a rough go ahead. The Navy does not take kindly to officers who play bumper cars at sea.