Go! Kittycats! Go!

KSU 24, Oklahoma 19 (at Norman)
Happy dance time. PAR-TEE!! PAR-TEE!!
Nah-nah-na-nah-nah … My Kittycats did better than score one touchdown in Norman; they beat the Sooners.
Back in my day as a college student (last two years), My Kittycats (the Wildcats of Kansas State University in Manhattan (THE Little Apple), Kansas) were pretty much known as the rugmats of the then BIG-EIGHT. And it was a Big 8 back then, but Oklahoma and Nebraska were the perennial alpha dogs of that pack.
The Kitty fans, well, if Willie the Wildcat and his football team was able to score at least one touchdown against the Sooners or the Cornhuskers, it was a good season. And if we beat those stinking birds down the Republican River, then it was a GREAT season.
Then Coach Snyder came along and the Kitties had some awesome seasons, even going to a few bowls (which would have been a pipe dream in my day). He retired, but they lured him back and guess what, the Kitties are on the prowl.
GO! Kittycats! Go!

Assault on the Electoral College

Electoral votes not equal

How the Electoral “College” system works

It seems, of late, we go through this spasm – mainly by progressives – over the U.S. Constitution’s specifications for electing a president. You see, according to them, it is not “democratic” (it was never designed to be that way) and not everyone’s vote is equal (which is true).

You see, when you vote president in November, you really are not voting for one of the candidates but, in 48 states and the District of Columbia, you really are voting for a slate of “electors” who are pledged to vote for the candidate who gets the plurality of votes in your state. Two states apportion their electors by congressional district with two going to the candidate who receives the plurality of votes in the state.

Note: I said plurality and not majority. There is a major difference. A majority would be 50 percent of the votes cast plus 1, while a plurality merely means the candidate got more than any of the other candidates on the ballot (and remember you will see more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney among your presidential selection choices when you step into that voting booth. Not that you would know it from what you see and read in the most of the media. The other candidates have been deemed by said gatekeepers of the news to be “unwinnable” and hence not worthy of coverage. Ain’t that a hoot and a self-fulfilling prophecy? Also note that at least one candidate, Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states and possibly all 50, if the Libertarian Party’s court challenges keeping them off the ballot are successful).

Now, there is a movement afoot to have states agree to allocate all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, but then what would be the point of having states? Note that this is being pushed in states where the Democratic Party has control of the legislatures.

Now, why do we have an “Electoral College”? Surprise, it is a compromise. You see there were those who wanted the president to be elected by popular vote, but enough of the wise people who wrote the constitution were too wary of “the Mob” and the vagaries of popular emotions to go that route. Others wanted the president to be selected by Congress, but then that would leave the president beholden like a prime minister to the congressional faction that elected him, which most likely would be from the Big States to the detriment of the Small States. So, like the Congress, which represents both the states and the people (before popular election of Senators, but they still represent their states at-large), a compromise was struck that each state would get the number of representatives and senators it had in Congress. Since the minimum number is three (two senators and one house member) and the maximum number of House representatives is 435, then some votes carry more weight in terms of popular support than others. Consider that the District of Columbia, which is not a state, also gets three, you can see why the Small States like the current setup.

Now, it was left to the states to decide how to select their “electors” and most choose to do it by allocating all of them to the winner by a plurality in a statewide ballot of qualified voters. Unfortunately, when you do that, sometimes (as in 1876, 1888 and 2000) someone who didn’t win the nationwide popular vote ends up being president. Note that is not unusual for a president to be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, in fact, that really is the norm.

However, there has been one instance, where a president won the popular vote and led in the Electoral College (but did not have a majority and in the Electoral College vote you have to have a majority) but ended up not being president. That’s ok, he got his revenge and was elected four years later and basically revamped how the executive branch was run.

Now, if it was just left to the popular vote, candidates basically could write off most of the states and the nation and focus merely on a few big cities. Sweep those, and you got the popular vote in the bag. But that is not what this country is about. It is a federal republic and not a democracy … despite what academic political scientists and progressives will want you to believe.

So, while the current system, which will remain in effect for the current election, may not be the best way – my vote would be to allocate electors by congressional district with two at-large and staying with the plurality rather demanding a majority (unless you wanted to have runoffs a few weeks later between the top two candidates in those states where nobody got a majority – which would be such a big hassle it is not worth the bother).

What is bothersome about the current spate of complaints is that once again it seems designed to throw the results into question and rather than accept it as it is designed, it seems to want to promote the idea that your vote doesn’t count. It does count.

Each and every vote counts and rather than put the election up in question, let’s support our candidates and quit worrying about what goes on in other states. That is what it means to live in a federal republic and is why we have sovereign states. You don’t like that, then go live somewhere else.

Falling on one’s sword

DNI Chief takes blame for wrong narrative about Benghazi
There is an ancient military tradition that loyal subordinates should be willing to fall on their own blades – thus killing themselves – rather than let their leader take the fall when the news is bad, or something disgraceful has happened.
It seems that President Barack Obama inspires such loyalty among his appointed minions. First it was Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius who was willing to be sacrificed to the alleged dictates of the Hatch Act in order to protect her president, who probably ordered his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to find somewhere far away to keep herself from this year’s Democratic National Convention so as to not overshadow him. Her husband was bad enough, but two Clintons would have been too much.
Now, it seems that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, is willing to take the fall for the president and his coterie of advisors and associates who spent the better part of two weeks trying to explain away the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three others as merely an accident of fate due to a spontaneous protest to an obscure YouTube video that happened to take place outside the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
No way was it to be an act planned and executed by Islamic terrorists associated with Al Qaeda … it has been destroyed with the death of Osama bin Laden 15 months ago.
Beep, wrong answer! Bin Laden may indeed be dead, but Al Qaeda, like the mythological Greek Hydra, seems to grow new heads, arms, tails and other appendages when struck – as any good asymmetrical warfare organization is prepared to do.
Rather than do the Trumanesque thing, where the buck truly did stop in the Oval Office, it seems that our president is capable of inspiring others to deflect the slings and arrows of dismay when his policies seem to go awry. Never, it should be said, let another opportunity go by not to let his minions take the blame whenever possible.
That is not only bad management, but it also is bad leadership. It also shows a lack of character that one would hope to see in such a high office.
The importance of character
I suggest the preceding article for review, written by George Friedman at StratFor Global Intelligence – a foreign policy think tank, in which it stresses the need to look at the nation’s potential leaders in terms of what we think of their characters and less on what we may think of their articulated policies. Such policies may change, as we have seen ample demonstration with the current administration, but character rarely does.
For me, the jury is still out on the non-incumbents for the office of President of the United States, but, unfortunately, it has pretty much returned a guilty verdict on the incumbent for dereliction of duty and other actions bordering on malfeasance in office.
I hope that somehow, and I have no idea whether any of the alternatives are any better, that the American people are to pull the lever that helps lead us from this morass and we find ourselves with a leader who leads, rather than does sidesteps (oh, how Obama reminds me of the Charles Durning character in Best Little Whorehouse in Texas doing his song and dance), and is willing to stand up and say: Hey, it was my bad and be straightforward and honest with the American people.
However, I am not so sanguine  that will happen.

Time to hit the streets

Egyptian Imam burns Bible pages

Everybody, man your battlestations! It is time to hit the streets and hold riots. Mobs need to burn Egyptian flags and to besiege the Egyptian Embassy or consulates nearest you.

It seems that some conservative, right-wing fanatic Egyptian imam (Islamic cleric like a Christian pastor) tore up a New Testament outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Eqypt, and burned the pages. Of course, his government has had him arrested and charged with insulting Christianity, but are we satisfied?

NEVER!

It is not enough; we need to hold our own riots here over the burning of the American flag and other insults to our national pride.

Insulting Christianity, indeed … although I do wonder if he was taking on the Baptists or the Catholics, or was it the Church of God, or the Methodists, the Lutherans or the Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox or the Mormons. Heck, how do I know?

Anyway, let’s see today is Friday, 9/28/12, the Islamic holy day, so I guess it is time for large masses of us Americans who are just really ticked off over the way this fall’s presidential election campaign is going with all those idiotic  television ads and robocalls to your house all day, that we need to find the nearest Egyptian consulate and sack it. Not that our election has anything to do with it, but it will give us a chance to vent and divert our attention from the candidates running for various offices.

Obviously, our government will understand. I mean President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized for that idiot out in California who put up that video mocking the Islamic prophet (pboh), Mohammed, and said how they understood Muslims killing an American ambassador in response … it was senseless they said, but they understood how the Muslims could feel insulted and so it was the Americans’ fault.

Now, where was my directory of diplomatic facilities in the U.S.? Where did I put it? Dang, it must be around here somewhere. Maybe I can find it in the Yellow Pages … does the phone company even put out a Yellow Pages book anymore? My phone company doesn’t.

Oh, well, I guess I will just have to stay home then. (Y’all might do so too … it wouldn’t be nice to sack embassies and consulates anyway.)

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

A hypothetical situation

I am not going to source this one, like I do, because it is merely speculation on my part and not necessarily based on what I expect or what I think is true (at least I hope not).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, it seems that the Democrats are going to great lengths to level the charge that the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of their supporters. Whether it is attempts to remove illegals, dead people, people in prison, people no longer living in a district (we are a republic, remember) from voter rolls or the whole discourse over how unfair it is to require someone to have a valid photo identification in order to vote, it seems that Democrats are really flogging the voter suppression issue, or at least it seems that way in the online national news media web sites.

Another thing, there is a huge debate on the accuracy of various media polls that are published it seems daily on how much support the Democratic and Republican party candidates have. Conservative sites trumpet how close the race seems, while progressive and what I used to call liberal (apparently the term is passé) sites trumpet how far ahead President Obama is and how seemingly unpopular former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is.

Given this drumbeat, I pose some what-ifs:

What if, despite the polls, Romney wins not only the Electoral College vote, but also the popular vote, by a substantially clear margin?

What if, Romney wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote?

What if, Romney actually wins the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote? (Ok, that is not likely but it could happen)

Given the polarization being advanced by the new media as well as the old media, what is going to happen?

What if, God forbid, there is a Republican surge and the party sweeps a whole bunch of Senate races unexpectedly?

On the flip side:

Will the right really revolt if Obama wins re-election, especially by a sizeable margin?

In either case, will Americans accept the results of Nov. 6 or will they reject them?

That is what is concerning me. It almost seems as if someone wants to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make the Mayan calendar “prediction” of the “end time” come true.

I don’t know what will happen in any of the above scenarios. I do know enough, however, to ask questions and seek answers.

I also have considerable hope that all the hyperbole that is being spouted in the new media, internet and traditional media is merely information overload and not really reflective of reality.

I may be wrong, but I have this belief in our ability to face reality and cope with it, however harsh it may be. The next six weeks will be ugly in a political sense in the United States … and maybe throughout the world, the way things are looking. It may get even uglier as Dec. 21 comes (the end of the Mayan Calendar) but I fully expect that this time next year, we will all look back and say:

“WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING BACK THEN?”

Ernie Pyle for the 21st Century

21st Century war correspondent
I am a history buff and have read a lot about World War II (I wasn’t even born yet, so I have no personal memories). I also spent my life as a journalist and a part-time soldier. You can’t be those things and not have read about Ernie Pyle.
Ernie Pyle was a singular American and a singular journalist. He wrote a newspaper column that was read by millions back in the states and told the story of the war from the dog-faced soldier’s point of view. He was very popular with the troops and a little less popular with the brass hats because he tended to take the side of the troops rather than their bosses.
There was a character in the Errol Flynn movie “Objective Burma” (1945) that was patterned after Pyle, I suspect. Pyle, who had followed the American GIs through the entire European campaign, from North Africa to Sicily to Italy to Normandy to VE-Day, was killed by a Japanese sniper covering the invasion of Okinawa in 1945.
Pyle probably is the epitome of what an American journalist, covering American troops, should be. There are very few like Pyle.
Today, however, there is a war correspondent by the name of Michael Yon, who I have been following for a number of years. During most of Iraq and a good part of Afghanistan, Yon has been embedded with American as well as allied troops. Unfortunately, his Pyle-like reportage has got him disinvited by the American military leadership from future embeds. It seems his experience as a former soldier and years of covering combat compel him to tell uncomfortable truths about the wars, which tend to recognize the worst of the enemy, the failures in leadership of American commanders and often the heroism of the unheralded foot-soldier.
He currently is “fighting” a campaign of his own to get the U.S. military to arm its medical evacuation helicopters so they can fight their way into hot landing zones to carry out wounded troops in the “golden hour” rather than often wait for Air Force planes or Army attack helicopters to provide cover for them. He has told several stories of young soldiers, good soldiers, who died unnecessarily because their evacuation was delayed because the landing zone for the Dustoff helicopter was hot and higher authorities wouldn’t let it land.
This is not a ding on the crews of those helicopters. More often than not they plunge right in, because they know the importance of their mission.
Anyway, if you really want to see the face of modern war and get a good perspective of what it is like for the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan … even though he is not there at the moment, he has a lot of really good sources … I would encourage you to follow his posts on his website, on twitter and on Facebook.
His name is Michael You. His website is www.michaelyon-online.com.
Not to puff up his ego any, but this old scribe thinks he stands up there with Ernie Pyle and Bill Mauldin.

Thank you, Libyans … stand up and be counted

Benghazi counter protest

Libyans storm Ansar-Al-Sharia compound

Libyan protesters overrun militant compound

Libyans attack militants

Libyan counter-demonstrations

These demonstrations being reported where Libyans protesting the death of the U.S. ambassador and the destruction of the American consulate in Benghazi show something that needs to be shown in the Muslim/Arab world. It shows Muslims/local residents standing up and taking back their communities.

I, for one, want to salute these people and commend their bravery.

One of the principles of asymmetrical warfare is that the fighters have to be able as Mao Tse-Tung put it “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”

In this case, it seems that the sea maybe getting hostile to some of the “fishes” and that is a welcome sight. If we hope to see any end to the Islamicists violence, this is what it going to take, just as it would take in any urban neighborhood here in our country that wanted to take back the streets from the gangs and hoodlums of today … or anytime in our past.

This shows that there may yet be hope in the Middle East.

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Outstanding idea

Publish a Muhammad cartoon a day
Who is Daniel Pipes?
Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, has an excellent  idea.
Those of us in the West who think those Islamicists protesting the stupid “Innocence of Muslims” movie and other parodies of their prophet and their faith should “get a life” as some of the younger generation might say probably to pay heed.
We should inundate the media with parodies, satires, cartoons and continue to do so until the Muslims get tired of rampaging through the streets and getting heads bloodied by their own political powers.
Excellent suggestion, Mr. Pipes. I heartily endorse it. It is our way of protesting their protests.

“Manufactured” Outrage

Rushdie on Islamic protests

Salman Rushdie, the author who wrote the controversial (in the Islamic world) “Satanic Verses” published in 1989 and who still lives under a fatwa of death from Islamic religious leaders with a bounty on his head, says the recent demonstrations about the silly video “Innocence of Muslims” are “manufactured” by people who want to increase their political power.

I have a one-word reaction: DUH!

This is not news, but should be repeated over and over and over again until not only the American people (and just about everybody else), but its media, elites and government leaders get the message.

What is happening is not so much about what is wrong with us, or what we did or didn’t do; it is about how religious and political leaders in countries with significant Muslim populations can increase their control over the people they lead and deflect criticism and anger from their own policies.

George Bernard Shaw, you were so prescient when you wrote Animal Farm … or maybe you were just very perceptive about the human condition.

Welcome to our world, Japanese

Japanese react to Chinese protests

It seems that the Chinese are having rather tumultuous demonstrations about the Japanese defending their claim to a small group of basically deserted islands at the southern end of the island nation against claims by China that the islands belong to them.

At the root of this disagreement in the East China Sea, as in the South China Sea, is that beneath them thar waves lies a potential wealth of riches in energy in the form of petroleum and natural gas deposits (which both nations desperately need to power their economies).

It is interesting that the Japanese are sort of shaking their heads and going, “Why is this happening to us? Why are these people holding demonstrations/riots outside our embassy and at places where we have invested in their country?”

The Japanese admit that their ancestors (mostly anyway, very few of the World War II and before generation are still alive) did very bad things and things that they would never do now. They also know that the Chinese, more than once, have tried to invade their islands in the past.

Right now, they seem to be echoing Rodney King (Los Angeles race riots in the 1990s) “Can’t we just get along?”

Well, my friends: “Welcome to our world.”

The Japanese are learning what it is like to be Americans in many countries. It is not so much that you are doing wrong, but the other side is portraying you as the foreign devil to unite their people instead of having them question their own leadership.

As we have seen across the Muslim world in the recent weeks, it is not that the United States actually did anything wrong, especially by its own laws, but the national, community and religious leaders are using some obscure event to whip up their people into an emotional state that allows the leaders to be ignored over their own malfeasance.

Don’t worry, my Japanese friends. This is the normal state of international, political and human relations.

Setting dangerous foundations

Reich warns Romney still can be elected
Robert Reich, the secretary of labor under President Clinton, is a prolific proponent of all things progressive and liberal … and he always has been.
Above, Mr. Reich appeals to his fellow followers not to get complacent about the re-election of President Barack Obama. That is good news. No one should be complacent about the election or re-election of any candidate. And everyone should be encouraged to participate in the elections scheduled for Nov. 6. (Although the old slogan “Vote early and vote often” is not such a good idea.)
What bothers me about that article is, whether he means it or not, he sets the foundation for claiming the election is a fraud. That disturbs me considerably.
It is his final point that bothers me so much:
“… the Republican Party will do whatever it can to win -- even if it means disenfranchising certain voters. To date, 11 states have enacted voter identification laws, all designed by Republican legislatures and governors to dampen Democratic turnout.
“The GOP is also encouraging what can only be termed "voter vigilante" groups to "monitor polling stations to prevent fraud" -- which means intimidating minorities who have every right to vote. We can't know at this point how successful these efforts may be but it's a dangerous wildcard. And what about those Diebold voting machines?”
Ok, folks, enough with the conspiracy theories. In the first paragraph, it seems to me that both parties have ample evidence (actually the Democratic Party has a lot more historical evidence, especially in the Southern states) of disenfranchising certain voters, as well as having ineligible voters (especially dead people) vote in elections in numbers of enough to swing elections. So, if one wants to be cynical enough, you could say that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, there are those cases where supporters of the Democratic Party have been videotaped intimidating voters at the polls in at least one city.
As for the issue of voter identification: I already am  on record as saying I see absolutely no problem with requiring people to show photo IDs when they vote. It seems that just about everywhere else you go you have to do it.
Now, if it is a problem for some people, that is where the party can and should intervene (it will make a supporter of the voter) to make sure that those people they want to vote have such photo IDs. They are not hard to get and as much as the party spends on advertising and registering voters, it seems to me a small price to pay to make sure that those supporters who can’t afford the pittance that is required, in most states (some are free), to get a state-issued photo ID.
Besides, it is not just “minorities” who would be affected by such a requirement, but that is a good job of putting in the race card.
Lastly, Mr. Reich takes a slam at computerized polling stations, particularly those made by the Diebold corporation. Granted, all computer driven vote counting systems are subject to possible tampering and manipulation, but, unless you have specific proof (not anecdotes or conjecture) that a specific manufacturer has illegally tampered with the vote totals with the machines that it makes, then Mr. Reich is on very dangerous ground. Not only is he libeling the corporation (yes, you can libel a corporation) but he also is attempting to call the validity of the election into question without justification.
There is a major problem with that and it stems partly back to the election of 2000 and the images of election board members examining punch-card ballots in a effort to verify the intent of the voter in each case (remember the issue of the “hanging chads” and the “indented chads”?). It is a Democratic Party mantra that the U.S. Supreme Court, by calling a halt to the Democrats charade, “stole” the election for George W. Bush.
However, what people tend to forget in the narrative of that election is two things:
1. It was the Gore Campaign that took the case to court trying to alter the count before it was even finished – contrary to the law. Court challenges are supposed to come after the count has been canvassed and not before. So, it was not the Bush campaign that was using the court system to overturn the Florida election result, but the Gore campaign.
2. There was a consortium of newspapers, news services and broadcast networks that was able to go back in in 2001 and examined all the ballots and interestingly enough in just about every case, by differing margins, President Bush actually won. That would seem to have vindicated the initial results that had him winning by something like 543 votes.
Granted, Gore won the “popular” nationwide vote, but that is not what counts in our REPUBLIC. You also have to win a majority of the “electoral” votes that are divided among the states by their representation in Congress.
So, what we have here, is Mr. Reich laying the groundwork for his party and its supporters to cry “foul” if their candidate loses a close race … which my dear wife (who is Canadian) predicts it will be, a veritable cliffhanger.
So, my advice to Mr. Reich: On your final point, shut up, because it serves no purpose but to invalidate the election, apparently in sour grapes if your guy loses again.

Yet another example
GOP uses voter ID laws to block college students

Libertarian view

Libertarian candidate proposes withdrawal from the Middle East
John Stossel likes Libertarian candidate
Neal Boortz likes Johnson but is going to vote for Romney
Ok, surprise, surprise, my admittedly progressive friend out west likes the Libertarian Party candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Hey, I guess, what’s not to like? … He is a libertarian.
All right, I admittedly call myself a libertarian at times, but that is because I really can’t categorize myself as much else. The thing I do like about Libertarians is the philosophy that the government should, basically, just butt out of people’s lives and let them get on by themselves. Unfortunately, that sounds awfully hard-hearted to the progressives and what used to be known as liberals, but what the heck? What do I care? I’ve run my race, did my bit for God, King (or is that “President”) and Country, paid into the system like a good troll and whatever. Unfortunately, I do care.
However, I part company with the Libertarians when they start spouting what, for the lack of a better term, is isolationism. Sorry, guys, but that ain’t gonna work, no matter how we try. We tried that back in the 1930s and we got burned big time.
Now, I am not a big fan of the current binges toward nation building either. Americans, ala the Ugly American book from the 1950s, have a long track record of mucking that up. Nor am I big on intervening in every little conflict that comes along … at least not with American troops. I guess we could pay some mercenaries, but the progressives would have a hissy fit on that (I just finished a sci-fi book on just such a concept, well sort of … it was nakedly based on the past 10 years, but transferred to another world for literary license … it was not kind to liberals and progressives … and definitely not Islamic jihadists).
Still, one does have to face reality and that reality is that the U.S., regardless of whether you like it or not, has the most capable military in the world as well as the military that is most capable of functioning efficiently forward deployed. While that is great, in one sense, it also has a downside and that downside is that other nations look to all that power and ask, nay beg, for help with the pirates, bandits, thieves and other assorted tyrants and bad guys out there.
Unfortunately, something that Mr. Johnson and other Libertarians rarely recognize is that in our interdependent global marketplace, it is in our own enlightened self-interest to quell certain disturbances and restrain some parties from acting on their darker designs. In other words, the U.S. is repeatedly called upon and needs to use its strength to act as global constable and fire brigade.
Not that we asked for the job, per se, but unless we want to hand the world over to those who want to have total chaos so they can prey on others, or turn the reins over to Chinese, who at the moment seem to be waiting in the wings – although they have a way to go on their capabilities of projecting power, given another 10 or 15 years, they probably will get there, then the “we are going to pull out of everywhere and tend to our own knitting here in North America” attitude really isn’t going to work.
I suppose that it could work, for a little while, assuming that we could find the resources we need inside our borders (like that is going to happen) and borrow enough money to reestablish the industrial base that would keep our military at the pinnacle of today’s war-fighting food chain. However, I doubt that either of those conditions could ever be met. AND our standard of living would take a major hit without imports.
However, it is a very seductive fantasy, but – I hate to even draw this parallel – but the world economy is a bit like a row of dominoes. Knock one or two over and you get a cascade effect. You don’t think so? Then you need to really take a much better look at the events of the past four or five years.
The question, of course, is how you keep those dominoes from falling? Unfortunately, withdrawing back into your castle is not the answer nor is trying to please everybody and yayhoo in the neighborhood. Maybe someday, the world will be like that, but I doubt even my grandchildren will see a world like that.
Which brings me back to my usual solution: We have to find ways to convince very self-centered, greedy and power-hungry individuals and nations how it is in their own enlightened self-interest to act like civilized people, rather than raving maniacs.
Anybody got any good ideas? Nobody seems to like mine.
Oh, and my current view on the current presidential race: Definitely undecided.
Obama is a walking disaster in so many ways.
Romney can’t seem to get his act together, so he is not much better.
Johnson, ain’t no way on God’s green earth that he will win … whether you like him or love him … and a vote for him probably will help get the disaster re-elected.

Random thoughts again

Innocence of Muslims controversy

Egypt indicts 8 in movie flap

Good backgrounder on the movie

It seems the new Egyptian government wants to pander to the mob. Ok, I can understand that … even if pandering to the mob usually is wrong.

Granted, the movie “Innocence of Muslims” is a piece of trash and insulting to almost anyone with active brain cells, and it almost a criminal assault on one’s intellect, it does not rise to the level of a capital offense. Not in reality, however, in Egypt, people who face such charges are indeed facing a possible death sentence.

This is how so stupid, and I use that word advisedly, in the Muslim world – especially in the Muslim Arab countries – things have become. We Americans wonder what is with these people? Well, folks, there are two things going down here.

1. Is third parties are stirring the pot to increase their personal power and influence.

2. Some people, some cultures, some social systems, just have no tolerance for differences opinion. They have no tolerance for satire or parody. In short, they have not sense of tolerance at all.

I don’t say that because I think these people are evil or essentially bad people. No, in their world, what they think and do is entirely correct and proper. Unfortunately, from many of us in the West, it is totally incorrect and improper. Ironically, many people from this end of the world who applaud or approve the actions like these of the Egyptian government probably fail to realize that with their views, they probably would be among the first to go to the guillotine.

Prosecute the promoters

Unfortunately, we have those in the U.S. who fail to see the point that freedom does not mean they or anybody else gets to trump up charges to suppress views, however fallacious, however wrong, however bad they may seem. The people who hold those views, in this case, are the victims and not the criminals.

A good argument against prosecution

 

Rumors of war

Israel v. Iran

Azerbaijan v. Armenia (or Russia v. Turkey)

China v. Japan

China v. its neighbors in the South China Sea

Syria v. Syria

I guess if you look at it, it really is a pretty bleak world out there. Whether it is the ongoing war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) or the threatened or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or the ones threatening in Central Asia or with Iran versus whomever, or the Chinese versus whomever, it seems that the news is full of warnings and rumblings that would lead some people to think war is right around the corner. Well, maybe I am an optimist, but I don’t think so.

Yes, the low intensity (to the rest of us) conflict in Syria will continue as will the ethnic clashes elsewhere between Shia and Sunni, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, Christian and Animists, Catholics and Protestants (although that has cooled down a log in recent years).

I know the Israeli-Palestinian/Iran confrontation has my friend out west up in arms. He seems to think that the next two weeks will see Israel attack Iran, or so he told me about a week ago. I told him that it could happen but I wasn’t of the opinion that it was all that likely.

Just like in the East or South China Seas, some sort of naval clash could happen at any time, but I am doubtful that it would degenerate into a full-blown war.

Why am I so optimistic: Because at the moment, none of the involved parties really have all that to gain by sparking large scale armed conflicts. Granted, I am not in the heads of any of the leaders anywhere but most leaders are not suicidal and unless you have a much better than even chance of prevailing in whatever level of combat you are willing to gamble will result from your initial move, then you aren’t about to make that initial move.

Of course, unfortunately, that does not factor in the individuals on the ground (or sea) at the point of conflict who just might make those stupid decisions that usually trigger a major conflict.

Still, before we head for the bunkers, I think we all should just take a deep breath and consider that war often is just a rumor and we can wait to verify it before jumping off any cliffs.

Domestic terror v. Islamic: Moral Equivalence

US “terrorist” incidents

Islamic “terrorist” incidents

Domestic “terrorism” in the U.S.

It seems interesting to me that some people try to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Islamic terrorist and U.S. “terrorists”; to draw a similarity between U.S. religious fundamentalists/evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists/evangelists/jihadiis.

One of my daughters is one; my progressive friend out west is another. To me, there seems to be at least an order of magnitude, if not two, three or four or more, between the two.

Take the “domestic” terrorist incidents that actually caused casualties in the United States. You can add it in the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the Virginia Tech campus shooting spree. What the heck we will also add in the DC sniper attacks from a few years back. I, for one, say: Let’s add in the Occupy protests of the last year.

Compare that to the casualties caused by Islamic terrorists and Islamic violence related to demonstrations. Please, start counting the casualties. Count the number of incidents.

Please, tell me where the moral equivalence is there now. There isn’t. There can’t be, unless you say causing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, is equal to the number of deaths caused by the Unibomber, or the guy who bombed Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics, or even Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick Terry Nichols who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Ok, the “experts” will tell you that terrorism on the “right” is as big a threat or more to the US than those from Islamic fundamentalists and Jihadists.

CNN story on domestic terrorism threat from back in July 2012

After watching the events of the past week, I am not so sure. Sure, we have our share of idiots in the U.S., left and right, who are crackpot enough to kill people, damage or destroy property or just cause chaos because they can. But, my point is, that those efforts pale in comparison to the violence and chaos we see and read about coming out of countries where Islamic – you can’t deny these people are not Muslims, but with 1.6 billion Muslims, they obviously are not in the majority (I think) – mobs, terrorists, etc. have resulted in the deaths of tens of people, so far, hundreds more injured and an untold amount of property damaged or destroyed. And to what end?

Note, that the violence against a stupid YouTube video has spread halfway around the world, with accompanying bloodied heads and burning and smashed vehicles.

Give me a break. There is no moral equivalence here. It is not even close.

In addition, we have leaders of countries and religious groups blaming not the mobs for their excesses, or the terrorists for their attacks, but the victims for not punishing someone whose speech happens to be protected by law.

Again, we might not like this film … heck, like a lot of people, I don’t like very many films – big budget or low budget – these days … but like those big budget movie makers and those makers of the porn movies – soft core and otherwise, they have a right to do that in the United States. Sorry, you don’t like that, then get over it. Don’t look at the crap, or at least don’t buy it or rent it from a video store.

It really amazes me sometimes that there are those in the U.S. that go into hyperdrive over our lunatic fringe. I may be blind, and probably am, but I am sorry, but I don’t see them as much as a threat as people who have sworn their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to crush the United States. I believe them. I wonder about those who don’t believe that among 1.6 billion people, that a substantial minority (far larger than any of the fringe groups in the U.S.) don’t pose a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.

Not until I see the leading ayatollahs, and the leaders of Islamic countries, using their bully pulpits to denounce the violence and chaos – ala the Pope currently in Lebanon – and calling on their followers to reject it, to contest it, to resist it, will I believe that the Islamic faith has turned a corner and is willing to coexist with people who don’t agree with them.

May be life yet in the War Powers Act

President sends letter to Congress

Hallelujah! President Obama this week sent a letter to Congress, as required by the 1970s War Powers Act, to inform it that he had dispatched troops to Libya who might face combat.

The President at least is observing the letter of the law this time. Last year, when U.S. Special Operations troops were on the ground in Libya and in planes either over or near the embattled country, he thought it was not necessary to follow the law.

Of course, given the nature of the current crisis in the Muslim world, he probably should crank up the copy machine and just change the country to announce where he is sending the next group of Marines, since another two such fleet security teams reportedly have been dispatched to different embassies.

It might be that it is election season, but I am glad to see the President at least telling Congress what is going on. Now, if his administration would be a little more open about what happened in Libya, and other countries where U.S. embassies have been under siege. Hiding behind the supposed FBI investigation into the deaths illustrates a law-enforcement mindset and not a combat mindset. That, unfortunately, is unfortunate because it seems to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have declared global war on America.

Too bad Congress can’t just declare war on the Islamic terrorists, only they don’t have a state, per se; they don’t have a government; they don’t really claim sovereign control over any land. They do, however, have a flag … I wonder if that is enough?

Anyway, kudos to President Obama. You did the right thing.

Pistol (actually all firearms) safety and idiots

Ex-West Pointer shoots self in head

It seems a former West Point cadet was showing off a pistol he had and accidently blew his brains out.

I can’t tell you how tragic that is, especially because as a former cadet at the U.S. Military Academy I would have thought that his firearms instructors would have taught him the first rule of firearms:

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS ASSUME IT IS LOADED!!!!!

Yes. If it is a magazine-fed weapon, like automatic pistols like my good old favorite the M-1911, you don’t assume that just because the magazine is out that there is no bullet in the chamber. WRONG ANSWER!

Look, I spent years around military pistols, primarily the M-1911A1 .45 caliber Army Colt Pistol. I have spent lord knows how many hours trying to teach people the safe handling of said weapons. One of the first things I always taught was to ensure when you picked up the weapon that not only was the magazine out but that the firing chamber was empty.

I used to say, “That is why God gave you a little finger, so you can it stick up through the ejection port into the breech to make sure there isn’t a cartridge hiding back up in there.”

I can still almost recite the standard lecture I would give each person.

“You pick up the M-1911 with your left hand (assuming you are right handed), keeping your fingers outside the trigger guard, and you drop the magazine by pushing this button with your finger and catch it in your right hand. Place the magazine down. Then with your right hand you pull the slide back until it locks. Then put your pinkie in the chamber – just to make sure there is not bullet hiding there. Now, the weapon is safe to handle.”

Next, I would explain that the .45 automatic had three safeties and a safety feature that they should be aware of.

First, it has the thumb safety that physically keeps the hammer from falling when it is in place.

Second, it has a grip safety that must be depressed by the web between your thumb and your fingers when you grip the handle. Don’t grip it tightly, then you won’t depress the safety.

Third, the .45 has a safety known as half-cock, which theoretically keeps the hammer from falling and if it does, it doesn’t hit the firing pin with enough force to hit the primer on the back of the cartridge. This is a throw-back to the old horse cavalry days when a trooper needed one hand on the reins and had to shoot his pistol with the other. This way he could have a charged round in the chamber (so he didn’t have to pull the slide back, which is a two-handed operation) and just had to cock the hammer and start firing. This is great if you are a cavalry trooper on a horse, but you aren’t, so don’t trust it.

Fourth, there is a safety feature on the .45 that supposedly will keep it from firing if the slide and the barrel are not fully forward. If they are not, then an “interlock” is supposed to keep the hammer from falling. This is why you never jam the barrel into somebody and expect to be able to pull the trigger. The force against the body shoves the barrel and slide back enough to engage the interlock.

At this point I usually would demonstrate using my hand. I would press the pistol against my palm, hard enough to shift the barrel back, and try to pull the trigger. Now, 99 percent of the time, the hammer wouldn’t fall.

Sometimes it would.

In that case I would thank myself for making sure the pistol was empty and explain why I said this feature was not a “safety” but a “safety feature” because it didn’t always work.

Unfortunately, I now know of several cases that individuals handling a pistol like the M-1911 either forgot or disregarded those instructions. Interestingly, it usually happens to officers (there must be a link there somewhere) in my experience. They are the ones who put the pistol to their temple and say “Watch, it won’t fall,” and then proceed to blow part of their skull and a good part of their brains all over the side of the nearest wall.

The reason I use my palm? Because my brain ain't there. If I blow a hole in my palm, I will survive. It may hurt like hell, but it won’t kill me.

People who put firearms to their heads should expect bad things to happen and my opinion of them is that they are idiots. They also are the subject of subsequent firearms safety classes as illustrations of what NOT to do.

I am sad the young man is dead. It truly is tragic. However, it has given me another teaching moment as I call them, and an opportunity to explain to anyone that reads my rambling random thoughts my main thought about firearms.

ALWAYS ASSUME THE DAMN THING IS LOADED and then make personally sure that it isn’t. Don’t accept someone else’s word. Check it yourself. Your damn life may depend on it.

To my Muslim readers: Why the violence?

Short history of Muslim intolerance
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)

I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?

Again, someone much more articulate than I

This article I am linking to expresses so well the point I have been trying to make.
Arab Spring nations don’t yet grasp freedom of dissent
If there is going to be a clash of cultures, then this will be at its root. Where there is no freedom of dissent; then there is no freedom. Either you are willing to accept and tolerate others who disagree with you or there inevitably will be conflict.
It doesn’t matter where you live, or what culture you live in, or society or anything. At the bottom of it all is that if you are unwilling to accept that other individuals are different than you are and are going to be, no matter what you think, then there will be no freedom, no liberty for anyone. Someone will always be trying to impose the tyranny of conformity on you and everyone else.
This, more than anything else, is what we should take away as a lesson from the riots, carnage and chaos we are seeing igniting around the world by Muslim extremists. Muslim, as well as members of all faiths, should reject the message being sent by these demonstrations in no uncertain terms.

Political cover for Hillary

Sebelius won’t be punished for Hatch Act “violation”
Office of Special Counsel Advisory on Hatch Act.
Hatch Act of 1939
What part of the following does the Office of the Special Counsel in the Obama Administration not understand?
“(T)the law permits employees who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to widely engage in political activity while on duty and in government buildings, even these employees are prohibited from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”
Office of the Special Counsel – 2/14/2001
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and certain designated high-level employees of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity.
Wikipedia article
It provides that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
Fox News may be reporting the news correctly, but the Office of Special Counsel in the Obama Administration is putting out a line of equine manure.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, did not break any federal law when she spoke at a “Human Rights Campaign Event” back earlier in 2012. Sorry, but you idiots at the OSC need to go back and actually look at what the law says: “An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines polices to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws” is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.
The HHS secretary is, at least the last time I looked, an official member of a president’s cabinet and head of a specific executive department, subject to approval (advice and consent) of the Senate. If Sebelius does not fit that description, then why is she called the HHS secretary.
According to the Fox News report:  In her North Carolina remarks that prompted the report, Sebelius urged voters to make sure Obama "continues to be president for another four years." 
Sorry, but that doesn’t rise to the level of  “soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”  The only area that the Hatch Act does apply to cabinet officers.
No, folks, this is the OSC covering up for the State Department’s and the White House’s claim that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not legally attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte last week. I really wish someone in the national media would get their fricking act together and point out that this OSC statement that Sebelius violated the law, and the subsequent statement, apparently, that all was made good by her changing her status and the campaign paying for the trip, and she would not be prosecuted, is so full of bovine scatology that it isn’t even funny anymore.
Sorry, but the OSC is wrong … and I will continue to say it is wrong, until someone can come up with some specific language in the Hatch Act that unexempts cabinet secretaries from the law.
Doesn’t this tend to make you angry? It makes me angry because this country is supposed to be one of law and when you go about misrepresenting what the law says, then you are doing the country no favors. In fact, you are actively trying to hurt the country and that type of behavior I will oppose to my dying breath.
I may not agree with the law, but I will pledge my life, my wealth and my sacred honor in its defense, of that have no doubt.

Global War on Terrorists revisited

As you read, keep this picture in your mind. It is Libyans trying to pull the U.S. Ambassador to safety.
US Ambassador to Libya killed
US suspects jihadists in Libyan attack
Strike in Libya suspected to have been coordinated
Not all agree that all are Anti-American
Some help evacuate ... but four die
For those who thought the Global War on Islamic Terrorists was over: Think again.
This war probably is just beginning. As Winston Churchill said after the climax of the Battle of Britain in 1940: This is not the beginning of the end, but it is probably the end of the beginning.
The Islamic terrorists basically won the prelims and round 1 (9/11), with the US basically winning on points round 2 (we got Osama Bin Laden and a few others of the top leaders of the Al Qaeda gangs), as well as knocked Saddam Hussein out of the box (yes, he was supporting Islamic terrorists, just not Al Qaeda Islamic terrorists, directly). However, that does not mean the fight is over.
The question, now, is where do we go from here? Well, as the latest 9/11 attacks on 9/11/12 indicate, the forces wanting to do harm to the United States are still organized and still capable of organized and well executed attacks. Anybody who thought differently needs to reevaluate their perspectives.
Having said that, it would be easy to go off the deep end and blame all Muslims for what transpired this week, when obviously that would be untrue. Just as those in the Islamic world blame all Americans and all Christians for all the evils that they perceive in the world also are mistaken.
Still, whatever percentage of the Muslim world it is, the number of jihadists and fanatics that see the world through a prism that allows only Islam to shine through is very large and very dangerous. Whether it was the demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, or the demonstration/attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, there are those in the Islamic world who are willing if not to use violence, then to threaten its use, to protest speech that is protected in other parts of the world and in a more perfect world would be protected in their own parts. However, the tolerance necessary for that to happen apparently is not available among these people.
So, how do you impose tolerance on people. Force rarely works. It just tends to piss off people who weren’t pissed off in the first place but got caught in the crossfire. The U.S. has plenty of experience with that racket and we never seem to learn from it.
Of course, the object is to make it in the enlightened self-interest of those who live in the area where it is unsafe to be an American or a Christian come around to the point of view that making life unsafe for Americans or Christians, or for that matter any minority, definitely is not only not in their own interest but also not in the best interest of those contemplating acts which make it unsafe for Americans or Christians.
We hope that the governments in Egypt and, especially, Libya have already gotten that message. All the things I said in my post “Something wrong here” hold very true. But it is time for the new regimes in Libya and Egypt to step up to the plate and demonstrate that they have gotten the message. Libya appears to be making the appropriate noises, while the new president of Egypt seems to be blaming the victims. That is not appropriate.
No, I feel our Arab Muslim friends need to get themselves out of the playpen or schoolyard mentality or they just might get treated like children.
I have said before and reiterate here, the Islamic world is in desperate need of a rapid period of reformation and enlightenment, much like the Christian west went through three to five centuries ago.
If modern Muslims can get past the violence that is in much of the Quran (just as there is much in the Christian bibles – mainly in the Old Testament, however), then possibly the impending clash of civilizations won’t happen. Still, if only 1 percent of the billion or so Muslims in the world hold to the ways of Islamic Jihadists, we are talking about 100 million people. That is an awful lot of people bent on making war.
The words you see now coming from Americans is merely frustration and exasperation. I would dare say that most Americans really don’t want to go to war with Islam or its radical jihadists. Nope, we would rather sit home and enjoy our family lives, just like most Muslims would like to do the same.
The problem, apparently (on the Muslim side of the equation), is that the religious and political leaders keep stirring the pot. There comes a point, unfortunately, when following people like that becomes counterproductive, if not downright unhealthy, particularly if you are messing with the 900-pound gorilla.
If the gorilla loses its temper (to really mix clichés) it is going to be like the bull in a china shop and a whole lot of things are going to get broken, hurt, killed, etc. that don’t have to get killed, hurt, broken or destroyed. It is not going to be a pretty sight.
The problem is with the Islamic jihadists, no matter how they try, they are not going to kill the 900-pound gorilla without a whole lot of the world suffering. It then behooves the rest of the world to choose sides.
Now, I am not saying this 900-pound gorilla is perfect, or ever will be a perfect gentleperson, but it can be reasoned with and it can willingly reach mutual accommodations. It is, however, not a pacifist. It will strike out when wounded or angered, just like any human or any other animal.
The question then becomes in this Global War on Islamic Terrorists, does the rest of the world want to sit on the sidelines and hope the big guy doesn’t get so mad that he starts doing things that he and they will regret. Remember, despite what you think, there are no Roger Rabbit bullets yet … they still are Dumb-Dumbs.
I don’t have the answer, other than to say to the rest of the world: I suspect that American patience and tolerance is wearing thin. Whether you want to admit it or not, but the Americans have been asked to play global constable and firefighter for the last 70 years and I suspect that a lot of Americans are about ready to hang up those badges.
Some of you might want to say “great, just want we want,” but be careful for what you wish for. Without the restraints of the badge, Americans might turn out to be just like you … only with a lot more firepower. Is that what you want? As much as I hate having to have had carried that badge, I would rather we operate under its restraints than without it. It could get awfully ugly and I hate that type of ugly even more.
We would really rather see all those people, Muslim and not, who don’t agree with the Islamic jihadists to stand up and take back their neighborhoods. It is their town. They have to live in it and if they don’t want to see it smashed flat because some big hammer came crashing down to smash some bad guys, then maybe they should take care of the bad guys.
Just some random thoughts here; I won’t venture to say they are coherent, but they are one American’s reaction to the world.

Post Script: You want a clue about what happened in Libya ... watch the movie "Rules of Engagement", it came out in 2000.

Something wrong here

Egyptians storm US Embassy compound in Cairo
Protesters scale wall of US Embassy in Egypt
Libyan protesters burn American consulate
Libyan protesters kill US Consular employee
US Embassy statement on events
OK, folks, something is seriously wrong with this picture and it ain’t the U.S.’s fault.
Sorry but Muslims are going to have to get a tougher skin and stop acting like idiots because it reflects badly on them and their religion. Tuesday, 9/11/12, Muslim protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic offices, killing one person, wounding a second and tearing down the U.S. flag while painting graffiti on the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo, Egypt.
Their reason: Because America allowed some unknown filmmaker in California to produce a movie that depicts the prophet Mohammed in a bad light … actually; it apparently depicts him as a sex-crazed murdering maniac.
This of course is insulting to any true-blue Islamicist and merits at least a riot or two, burning buildings and flags and possibly killing some people. What a bunch of bovine scatology or maybe I should say porcine scatology or porcine fecal material!
I am sorry Egyptians; I am sorry Libyans; but in this country you are allowed to insult religions, people, government institutions, businesses, hospitals, your neighbors, etc. and if you don’t like it, then you take them to court. You do not shoot people; you do not storm their property; and you do not destroy or deface their property. No, you don’t do those things because you respect the rights of others to be idiots.
And especially you don’t go blaming the government or some government agency of a nation that isn’t even yours for letting their citizens act like idiots. Obvious, the Americans are much more enlightened than you are, or at least more tolerant than you are, because we just nod our heads and say, “They are at it again” and go on about our lives.
We don’t storm the local mosque, or the Egyptian Embassy or whatever goes for the Libyan Embassy, every time a mob kills a bunch of tourists or Christians or whatever minority group is in disfavor in the Middle East. No, Americans look at the person who is insulting and say, “What an idiot” and let him go on being an idiot.
You see, we Americans are governed by the rule of law. Apparently that concept is alien where you live. You really ought to try it sometime. It lets all sorts of people with differing views and opinions coexist peacefully without destroying people or lives. I am beginning to understand that in Egypt and in Libya your people apparently don’t like the idea that an individual can be allowed the freedom to think for themselves. Apparently, if these latest actions are any indication, you think that everyone has to believe just as you do, or they should die or something worse.
And despite the rhetoric being spouted by our government and its leadership, we are starting to get just a tad bit exasperated with the screaming intolerance being exhibited by your so-called demonstrators.
We put up with you burning our flag, burning and destroying religious texts that we hold sacred, because a) you are not Americans and we don’t expect you to understand the concept of the law and tolerance and b) because you are not here. Otherwise we probably would be suing your pants off, in court where the law is the master and not your emotions because you were insulted.
I think I can speak for a lot of Americans. You all in the Middle East, and much of Muslim world, need to grow up real fast and understand that you can’t just throw temper tantrums when somebody offends you. You consider the source, call them ignorant if you want, and then move on.
But going down and defacing their property, shooting people, and basically showing your derrieres is so beneath what you could be as a person. It definitely shows a enormous lack of dignity and self-respect on your part.
One of these days, those with patience, well, you will see their patience tested, if not run out and though might does not make right … might does wield a pretty big hammer and you don’t want to be where it falls.