Get real, Hagel tells nation in proposing military cuts – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
The US Secretary of Defense is proposing to cut the Army back to levels it hasn't seen since before World War II and if that doesn't say something about what role this administration wants the US to play in the future around the world, nothing does.
Understand, I have nothing against downsizing the Army as we disengage from Afghanistan. It is quite traditional for the U.S. to gut its military capabilities in the wake of conflicts. It is something we do after every war, which of course makes the next one (and there will be one, make no doubt of that) all that the more costly as we rebuild our capabilities.
About 20 years ago, I wrote an opinion piece which got inserted into the Congressional Record (I have a copy suitable for framing around here somewhere signed by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) who inserted it in the official journal of the federal Congress). The thesis was that while it probably was good to downsize the active components of the Defense Department, it really should be beefing up the reserve components. Unfortunately, now, as 20 years ago, the yahoos in the Pentagon want cut back on the National Guard and the Reserve while eviscerating the active side as well.
But then various and sundry governors already are in dither because the drones in the
five-sided puzzle palace on the banks of the Potomac have decided, once again, that is better to
chop those pesky National Guardsmen than even more Active Component
types ... even though they get a far better bang for the buck with the
Reserves than they do with the Regulars.
I could go into all the political and social benefits of enlarging
the "militia" of the country, but who would be listening ... not the
people in Washington, that is for sure.
For example, the Air Force will try - yet again - to divest itself of the venerable A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support attack jet that ground pounders like the infantry have come to love so much. The Air Force has been trying to get rid of this ugly but useful - and very survivable - Warthog of a plane for about 35 years. It doesn't fly fast enough, or look sexy enough, or nor is stealthy enough, for the jet drivers who run the Air Force.
I suppose the Air Force could give them all to the Air National Guard, but I think they already have done that, so now it is time just to throw it in the ash bin of aircraft; just like the C-27 cargo planes they just bought for the Guard.
Understand, I am not knocking the Regulars. Especially, since over the last decade they really have been rode hard and put up wet. It doesn't matter which branch of the service they serve in, all of those volunteers have had to put up with a lot of fecal material that they shouldn't have to ... and their families have to go through even more.
Of course, the
last decade and a half have not been all that kind to the National Guard
and the Reserves either, because they truly have become a part of the total
force and have spent a lot more time than they used to on active service
in combat zones. (Which is one of the reasons it should be a whole heck
of a lot larger than it is now, and is proposed to be in the future).
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel promises that the force of future will be more tactically proficient as the military faces the realities of the fiscal difficulties faced by the federal government, once again trying to trade troops for technology, ala Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, Secretary Hagel, as Gen. Eric Sinseki once warned Rumsfeld before going into Iraq: Quantity has a quality that can't be overlooked. (Note that Sinseki was sacked for telling Congress that little fact)
However, I think the secretary is overlooking a couple of things. First, it appears the cuts will be coming on the warfighting side of the house, leaving the civilian bureaucracy (which is unionized - although in my experience with it, that union really sucks) relatively intact. Secondly, all that new stuff costs a bunch.
In addition, technology is great, it really is. But as soldiers probably will point out to you, it only works as long as the batteries do. Then it is back to basics, the basics of being a soldier. Of course, we could just automate all the tasks and run all the robots out of some conexes in Nevada or somewhere (but they run on batteries too). That is what this president likes to do: You know, death from above (and I don't mean the good old airborne) but I digress.
Still, I should take note that the progressives are getting what they have been advocating for most of my life now ... but then they have been in control for going nigh on eight years now. I just hope all their kumbayhya stuff works out for them, because - unfortunately - I am a bit too old, and definitely too battered and beaten - to be taking up arms for them again. I am not all that hopeful, mind you, but that is because I look at the world right now and don't see much to be hopeful about.
Still, we are living in a relatively peaceful lagoon here in North America (well, at least north of the Rio Grande - or is that the Medina River valley these days ... heck for all I know it may be the Red River Valley) and maybe it will stay that way. I hope so, but as I said, my reservoir of hope in this age of hope and change is getting mighty low ... you almost would think I was back in California and farming in the Central Valley.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Saturday, February 8, 2014
It is all about the language
Calling immigrants criminals is insulting
Simple definition of illegal immigration
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently said calling those people who have immigrated to the United States without the proper documentation criminals was insulting.
I am not sure I agree. I mean in more ways than one, immigrants without documentation have broken the law in the United States.
First, they failed to get the appropriate documentation at the border. That is in violation of federal law.
Now, if they got a job without a work permit, then they violated another law and subjected their employer to possible fines and legal sanctions.
If they gave a Social Security number to anyone, then that would have been fraud and another crime.
If they drove a car without a valid driver’s license, then that is a violation of state law.
I mean you really can go on and on, making such a list. The question then becomes at what point does such a person become a “criminal”?
I suppose you have to find them, arrest them, try them, find them guilty of violating whatever laws they have broken and then you can call them a criminal. I suppose if you do it before such a determination then you are defaming them … which is insulting them.
But the real issue here is about the language. You see if you call a person a criminal – even if they have done something criminal – then you putting them in a lower status then those people who don’t break the law.
Unfortunately, we all break the law, probably daily. Of course it is little laws like speed limits, jaywalking and improper lane changes, but it still is breaking the law. Most of us just wink at people who do such things and just rack it up to their not getting caught.
My take from what Justice Sotameyer is saying is that we should just “wink” at those people who are violating US immigration law.
However, I don’t agree, but then I have a different perspective. I am married to a non-citizen. We had to get the proper documentation and then go through the process to get first a work permit and then a permanent residence card … which took more time than I hoped and cost more than I expected, but we paid both prices in order to stay within the law – before all the post-9/11 changes that went into effect in the the latter half of the Oughts.
I read these stories, truly sad stories, about families torn apart when parents are deported but their anchor children remain behind and I don’t have a solution.
I really don’t think we need to ignore our law, because if we ignore it, what other laws should we just start ignoring? And if we as “men” (meaning individual people) decide what laws we will obey, then we truly become a nation of men and not of law.
Being a nation of law is what sets the US apart from most other countries. It is one of the good things about the country, although views like Justice Sotameyer’s tend to push the envelope toward less equality before the law and more injustice in name of the law.
What people like Justice Sotameyer and others associated with the progressive view of this issue are doing is seizing control of the language and warping it to hide the fact that undocumented immigrants are in fact illegal aliens. In many countries, if it doesn’t get you quickly escorted to the border, it does get you locked up in jail (with the latter more often than not the consequence).
Once they control the language used to describe those individuals who anywhere else would be called criminals or illegals, then they control the debate and can shape the issue any way they want to do.
The key is that if you control the words, then you control the people. I think George Orwell wrote a book on that called 1984. Well, it may be three decades or so late, but I am beginning to suspect that “newspeak” is become the lingua franca of 21st America.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Media Rant time
I really wish I wasn’t a journalist sometimes, because what I am seeing for passing for news reporting these just about makes me want to puke.
The blame game in this coverage is bovine scatology of the first order.
Now, understand folks, I spent about 30 years working in the news rooms of newspapers. Some of it I was reporting, some of it I was editing … but I will say this: the crap, and that is being generous, that was put up by CNN about the storm in the South was about the poorest example I have seen coming out of that once respected cable news outlet.
First of all, I lived in the Atlanta area for six years, and in the South generally for the better part of 25 years, and so I am quite familiar with what is paralyzing the region … as the saying goes, been there, done that … got the T-shirt, and lost it – a number of times. I doubt, honestly, that any folks up in Yankeedom (that is anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line or the Ohio River) probably would have done much better on the first big blizzard of the year, but then they do get a lot more practice.
I can tell you that on a good day that the traffic jams in Atlanta are epic, and the drivers worse (I had a Jaguar coupe try to swap paint with my old Ford pickup truck at 75 mph on an Atlanta freeway one day – and only because I grew up driving the Southern California freeways, we didn’t).
No, Southerners do not know how to drive on snow and ice, and for most years they don’t have to. On those few occasions that it happens, well, you are seeing the results.
For that reason, which my Canadian wife got real hoots out of, at the first snowflake, towns, schools and just about everything else closes up shop – and people all run to the grocery store to stock up on milk and bread. Don’t ask me why, but it is a Southern thing.
I have no doubt that the state, counties, cities and towns affected by this storm had emergency plans in place to deal with it … but when the rubber hits the road, the plans go in the bit buck about as fast as you can say snow flake or especially ice crystal.
Add to that the track record for meteorologists is nothing to write home about. For example, I now reside on the coast of Maine and the weather forecast has called for snow or some other type of frozen precipitation for just about every other day for the past week and I ain’t seen nary a flake yet … oh, there were a few drops of mist on the windshield when I went to the doctor’s on Monday, but not enough even to make the pavement damp.
So, between weather forecasters who can’t get their act together and a storm that comes along maybe once a decade – if not once a generation – and you expect things to go normally?
Now, if you are journalist, you report what is happening, and you don’t go pillorying every government official you can put your microphone and camera in front of for failing to get everybody home.
Reminds me of Hurricane Floyd in 1999. (Background on Floyd) As Floyd skirted up the East Coast, the governor of South Carolina, as a precaution, ordered all the people in the counties east of I-95 to evacuate. It turned into a royal mess with it taking people 10-12 hours to cover normally is a 90 minute to two hour drive.
And then … Floyd didn’t even come ashore in South Carolina and just brushed the North Carolina Cape Hatteras area before finally slamming in the Virginia and Maryland.
Now, what do you think people thought of evacuations then?
So, all you people who are pointing fingers at the folks down South: Bless your pea-picking little hearts, but you weren’t there and I have heard from folks from up North of the Border who were there and were saying that they doubted it would have been handled any better.
Actually, rather than try to blame somebody, CNN could have been going out and reporting actually what was happening, which probably was some really great human interest stories about people pitching in and helping one another when the going was tough and at its worst.
Like the teachers and school administrators who made the brave choice to hunker down in their schools with their students and do their best to make them feel safe and comfortable.
Or those police officers and firefighters going out and doing their jobs, despite the conditions. And yes, even those much maligned state and county road crews who had to put that strange and little used equipment to use out there on highways not even a snowshoe hare would dare to travel.
I have lived through a slew of those ice storms, and believe me, I will take the 30 inch snowfall we had here in Maine over them anytime.
Anyway, suffice it to say, I think CNN’s coverage sucked the big green weenie and what little respect I had for the institution slipped even further into the john.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The minimum wage isn't a living wage
The minimum wage I make isn't a living wage - Jan. 22, 2014 - CNN
OK, folks, get ready for a rant.
I am sorry, but nobody, but nobody, can be guaranteed a "living wage" - period.
Why do I say that? Because you have to define what a "Living Wage" is and that varies from individual to individual to begin with.
The problem is what "standard" determines what "living" is? The basic standard could be three hots and a cot, as I say, which is three meals a day that can sustain a body and a cot under shelter from the elements to sleep in. Anything after that is gravy and up to the personal preference and expectation of the individual.
Obvious, in the situation described in the CNN story, the man is expecting far more than that, but then whose responsibility is it to see that he, and his family - wife and three kids, are given all the things that meet his expectations? Is it society's job? The government's job? (if so at what level of government: the local village or the United Nations?)
I don't know where people are coming from when they seem to think that people are owed a certain standard of living. I am sorry but it flies in the face of reality to expect that any social structure involving millions of individuals can provide for the expectations of all. It just ain't gonna happen folks.
Once again, I will point out that a) that life is not fair and b) we are not equal in skills, talents and capabilities. If you think either of that life is fair or that we are equal in what we contribute to society, then you are living in an entirely different universe than the one that planet I have come to know and love occupies. And if you have learned nothing from the last two centuries, I would have hoped that your review of history would have taught you that the utopian concept of "to each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities" not only is totally unworkable but it is the rankest folly to try to make it work.
But it isn't fair that some people have all they want and then some, while others go without. No. Fairness is not a part of this equation.
But it is not right that some people go without while others have a surplus. Says who? Religion? Be careful when citing religious texts, because you can "prove" and support anything you want from them.
Granted, I would say that it is the best interest of those who can to help those in need, but that is different than those in need expecting that others will provide for them. Unfortunately, what we see in stories like the one run by CNN is that we have raised people in this country to expect that someone else will provide the means for them to achieve their expectations.
The sad thing, to me it seems, that the level our expectations have risen so far that we have lost sight of what really is needed. We have, in many instances, become consumed with the need to fulfill our material expectations that far exceed what we need to survive and possibly thrive. No, we take for granted that all the little luxuries that we enjoy - from food to clothing to transportation to housing to entertainment, without realizing the true value of these things.
Folks, we in the US have it so good ... even our poor ... that it almost is obscene, if you compare it to the standard of living for probably the vast majority of the world's population.We have maybe 5 percent of the world's population but say 25 percent of its material goods, if not more. All those things we take for granted - cars, cellphones, computers, television sets - well, you get the drift.
No, I am not trying to keep others down ... hell, folks, I don't think I made over the median income level until I was four years from being forced to quit working because my heart gave out ... and then it was at the median level. And I never felt disadvantaged during all those years, but that was because I wasn't taught to expect anyone else to give me anything.
Yes, I expected a return for my labors, and I pretty much got that everywhere I went. But then again, I know, times have changed ... and attitudes have changed ... and we are the worse for it.
Just remember, the minimum wage is not, can not, could never be, was never intended to be able to provide subsistence for more than one person ... and that person absolutely devoid of any skills, training or more than basic education.
This "living wage" mantra is bovine scatology of the highest order ... and we should recognize it as such when we start turning to government to guarantee that everybody is provided it (like what if you don't have a wife and two kids?)
Ok, I am through for the moment ... but you need to think about what you wish for ... you just might get it and it may turn out not to be what you expect.
OK, folks, get ready for a rant.
I am sorry, but nobody, but nobody, can be guaranteed a "living wage" - period.
Why do I say that? Because you have to define what a "Living Wage" is and that varies from individual to individual to begin with.
The problem is what "standard" determines what "living" is? The basic standard could be three hots and a cot, as I say, which is three meals a day that can sustain a body and a cot under shelter from the elements to sleep in. Anything after that is gravy and up to the personal preference and expectation of the individual.
Obvious, in the situation described in the CNN story, the man is expecting far more than that, but then whose responsibility is it to see that he, and his family - wife and three kids, are given all the things that meet his expectations? Is it society's job? The government's job? (if so at what level of government: the local village or the United Nations?)
I don't know where people are coming from when they seem to think that people are owed a certain standard of living. I am sorry but it flies in the face of reality to expect that any social structure involving millions of individuals can provide for the expectations of all. It just ain't gonna happen folks.
Once again, I will point out that a) that life is not fair and b) we are not equal in skills, talents and capabilities. If you think either of that life is fair or that we are equal in what we contribute to society, then you are living in an entirely different universe than the one that planet I have come to know and love occupies. And if you have learned nothing from the last two centuries, I would have hoped that your review of history would have taught you that the utopian concept of "to each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities" not only is totally unworkable but it is the rankest folly to try to make it work.
But it isn't fair that some people have all they want and then some, while others go without. No. Fairness is not a part of this equation.
But it is not right that some people go without while others have a surplus. Says who? Religion? Be careful when citing religious texts, because you can "prove" and support anything you want from them.
Granted, I would say that it is the best interest of those who can to help those in need, but that is different than those in need expecting that others will provide for them. Unfortunately, what we see in stories like the one run by CNN is that we have raised people in this country to expect that someone else will provide the means for them to achieve their expectations.
The sad thing, to me it seems, that the level our expectations have risen so far that we have lost sight of what really is needed. We have, in many instances, become consumed with the need to fulfill our material expectations that far exceed what we need to survive and possibly thrive. No, we take for granted that all the little luxuries that we enjoy - from food to clothing to transportation to housing to entertainment, without realizing the true value of these things.
Folks, we in the US have it so good ... even our poor ... that it almost is obscene, if you compare it to the standard of living for probably the vast majority of the world's population.We have maybe 5 percent of the world's population but say 25 percent of its material goods, if not more. All those things we take for granted - cars, cellphones, computers, television sets - well, you get the drift.
No, I am not trying to keep others down ... hell, folks, I don't think I made over the median income level until I was four years from being forced to quit working because my heart gave out ... and then it was at the median level. And I never felt disadvantaged during all those years, but that was because I wasn't taught to expect anyone else to give me anything.
Yes, I expected a return for my labors, and I pretty much got that everywhere I went. But then again, I know, times have changed ... and attitudes have changed ... and we are the worse for it.
Just remember, the minimum wage is not, can not, could never be, was never intended to be able to provide subsistence for more than one person ... and that person absolutely devoid of any skills, training or more than basic education.
This "living wage" mantra is bovine scatology of the highest order ... and we should recognize it as such when we start turning to government to guarantee that everybody is provided it (like what if you don't have a wife and two kids?)
Ok, I am through for the moment ... but you need to think about what you wish for ... you just might get it and it may turn out not to be what you expect.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Cuomo: ‘Extreme conservatives … have no place in the state of New York’
Capitol Confidential » Cuomo: ‘Extreme conservatives … have no place in the state of New York’
This is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's position in a nutshell:
"Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
OK, with all due respect, but if that doesn't sound like a very bigoted thing to say, then I think you need to take your blinders off. Exchange any of those descriptions with some other protected group and put those words in the mouth of some Republican and I think you would see the media in the United States in full-meltdown and feeding frenzy mode.
Let me get this straight, Mister Governor: If a person is pro-life, or thinks people have the right to own semi-automatic rifles or believes that homosexuality is a religious sin, then they have no place in the State of New York? And you are going to do what to them? Are you going to make life so difficult for them that they have to move to another state? Are you going to start jailing them? How about shooting them?
Now, I am not advocating any of the positions that seem to have Gov. Cuomo in such a dither, because that is not the point of this essay. My point is how we in America let such demagogues get into leadership positions in our governments. You want to see what is wrong with the political dialogue, you need only to look no further than his comments.
Granted, there are conservatives who are just rhetorically flamboyant, but they get hammered in the media when they open their mouths. But, so far, I have seen nary a peep about Gov. Cuomo's rant in any of the major news dissemination sites. Since it is OK for him, then I suppose that conservatives and Republicans are now justified in their positions that all progressives have no place in the United States, because "that is not who Americans are."
While I may think progressives and liberals like Gov. Cuomo have a totally screwed up worldview and vision of what America should be, but I wouldn't say that they have no place anywhere in the US. That would be wrong. For them to say it about others is just as wrong.
And what if Gov. Cuomo said Muslims have no place in New York, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Asians, or African-Americans. He already has said that Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormans and Catholics are not welcome. Who else gets the rhetorical heave-ho in New York.
He says that people who take the Second Amendment at its word and believe (as the 1794 Militia Act, which was the law for more than 110 years, said) that the people - that is individual citizens making up the unenrolled militia - are to arm themselves with military caliber firearms and other things needed to rally to the defense of the community are a threat. A threat to whom? Study after study shows that the things gun control advocates don't work, while arming people seems to reduce crime and protect life and property
Of course, we can't have that.We are people, in our enlightened humanity, who see no need for violence in the world (except for those who resist the government) and if everyone would just lay down their arms their would be peace on Earth and all men would treat each other with good will. We are a 21st Century country with cellphones, tablet computers, big screen televisions, and more material goods than we can shake a stick at. We just need to understand that we are governed by angels (if they are Democrats, liberals or progressives) who never will succumb to their lesser natures and who merely want to take care of us from cradle to grave if we would just listen to their wisdom and surrender our lives to their benign direction. These experts and technocrats know all the solutions and if we want to enter the paradise on Earth, we merely need to bow them.
Now, let us all link arms and sing Kumbayah.
Ding, dong. Obviously Gov. Cuomo is going to exclude some people from that circle because they don't happen to agree with his worldview. That doesn't surprise me, and I hope it doesn't surprise you.
People, wake up and smell the roses.
First of all, the government cannot and will not be able to take care of all of us.We have to be able to take care of ourselves. Yes, we can work together to help each other, and that is well and good and proper, but government or "the state" - whether it is municipal, county, state or federal - does not have the capability to provide for all of us. If you learned nothing from the last 100 years, one would think that a cursory review of the history of the 20th Century would have show that to be the case.
Second, tyranny can only exist when good people stand aside, rather than stand up to it. To disarm yourself is to place yourself aside unwilling to defend, protect and preserve the community-state-nation that some of us have given at least sweat and tears, if not blood, pieces of our bodies and minds or our lives, that was bequeathed to us by those who came before us.
Third, a dependent person is not a free person, but merely a slave, a captive, a prisoner in mind or body. I would hope that we would choose not to be dependent, and to stand as individuals, willing to respect and tolerate those who do us no harm but merely view the world through a different prism; and that we would ferociously defend those who stand beside us in respect and dignity against all those who would cast us aside.
Gov. Cuomo is an ass. Unfortunately, I don't look for a media storm to break upon his head. But I would hope the people of New York, as well as the rest of America will be able to see the danger in his words and react accordingly.
This is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's position in a nutshell:
"Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
OK, with all due respect, but if that doesn't sound like a very bigoted thing to say, then I think you need to take your blinders off. Exchange any of those descriptions with some other protected group and put those words in the mouth of some Republican and I think you would see the media in the United States in full-meltdown and feeding frenzy mode.
Let me get this straight, Mister Governor: If a person is pro-life, or thinks people have the right to own semi-automatic rifles or believes that homosexuality is a religious sin, then they have no place in the State of New York? And you are going to do what to them? Are you going to make life so difficult for them that they have to move to another state? Are you going to start jailing them? How about shooting them?
Now, I am not advocating any of the positions that seem to have Gov. Cuomo in such a dither, because that is not the point of this essay. My point is how we in America let such demagogues get into leadership positions in our governments. You want to see what is wrong with the political dialogue, you need only to look no further than his comments.
Granted, there are conservatives who are just rhetorically flamboyant, but they get hammered in the media when they open their mouths. But, so far, I have seen nary a peep about Gov. Cuomo's rant in any of the major news dissemination sites. Since it is OK for him, then I suppose that conservatives and Republicans are now justified in their positions that all progressives have no place in the United States, because "that is not who Americans are."
While I may think progressives and liberals like Gov. Cuomo have a totally screwed up worldview and vision of what America should be, but I wouldn't say that they have no place anywhere in the US. That would be wrong. For them to say it about others is just as wrong.
And what if Gov. Cuomo said Muslims have no place in New York, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Asians, or African-Americans. He already has said that Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormans and Catholics are not welcome. Who else gets the rhetorical heave-ho in New York.
He says that people who take the Second Amendment at its word and believe (as the 1794 Militia Act, which was the law for more than 110 years, said) that the people - that is individual citizens making up the unenrolled militia - are to arm themselves with military caliber firearms and other things needed to rally to the defense of the community are a threat. A threat to whom? Study after study shows that the things gun control advocates don't work, while arming people seems to reduce crime and protect life and property
Of course, we can't have that.We are people, in our enlightened humanity, who see no need for violence in the world (except for those who resist the government) and if everyone would just lay down their arms their would be peace on Earth and all men would treat each other with good will. We are a 21st Century country with cellphones, tablet computers, big screen televisions, and more material goods than we can shake a stick at. We just need to understand that we are governed by angels (if they are Democrats, liberals or progressives) who never will succumb to their lesser natures and who merely want to take care of us from cradle to grave if we would just listen to their wisdom and surrender our lives to their benign direction. These experts and technocrats know all the solutions and if we want to enter the paradise on Earth, we merely need to bow them.
Now, let us all link arms and sing Kumbayah.
Ding, dong. Obviously Gov. Cuomo is going to exclude some people from that circle because they don't happen to agree with his worldview. That doesn't surprise me, and I hope it doesn't surprise you.
People, wake up and smell the roses.
First of all, the government cannot and will not be able to take care of all of us.We have to be able to take care of ourselves. Yes, we can work together to help each other, and that is well and good and proper, but government or "the state" - whether it is municipal, county, state or federal - does not have the capability to provide for all of us. If you learned nothing from the last 100 years, one would think that a cursory review of the history of the 20th Century would have show that to be the case.
Second, tyranny can only exist when good people stand aside, rather than stand up to it. To disarm yourself is to place yourself aside unwilling to defend, protect and preserve the community-state-nation that some of us have given at least sweat and tears, if not blood, pieces of our bodies and minds or our lives, that was bequeathed to us by those who came before us.
Third, a dependent person is not a free person, but merely a slave, a captive, a prisoner in mind or body. I would hope that we would choose not to be dependent, and to stand as individuals, willing to respect and tolerate those who do us no harm but merely view the world through a different prism; and that we would ferociously defend those who stand beside us in respect and dignity against all those who would cast us aside.
Gov. Cuomo is an ass. Unfortunately, I don't look for a media storm to break upon his head. But I would hope the people of New York, as well as the rest of America will be able to see the danger in his words and react accordingly.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections - AP News 1/17/2014 8:40 PM
Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections - AP News 1/17/2014 8:40 PM
Amen and amen!
I have argued this for years and years, much to the dismay of others in my chosen profession. I kept telling them that the first amendment does not just protect news gathering and disseminating businesses and organizations, but is a protection that is extended to every one.
It is like my argument about "shield" laws. They are not based in the Constitution nor can they ever rest on the First Amendment. If you want to have a "journalist" privilege, like that of doctors, priests and lawyers, it can't happen in the Constitution or really based in common law. You can base in statutory law, that passed by legislatures, but you have to remember that what the legislature can giveth, it taketh away ... plus it gets to define who or what is in the protected class, not the Constitution.
I hope the Supremes uphold this ruling on appeal.
Amen and amen!
I have argued this for years and years, much to the dismay of others in my chosen profession. I kept telling them that the first amendment does not just protect news gathering and disseminating businesses and organizations, but is a protection that is extended to every one.
It is like my argument about "shield" laws. They are not based in the Constitution nor can they ever rest on the First Amendment. If you want to have a "journalist" privilege, like that of doctors, priests and lawyers, it can't happen in the Constitution or really based in common law. You can base in statutory law, that passed by legislatures, but you have to remember that what the legislature can giveth, it taketh away ... plus it gets to define who or what is in the protected class, not the Constitution.
I hope the Supremes uphold this ruling on appeal.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Elections Don't Matter, Institutions Do
RealClearWorld - Elections Don't Matter, Institutions Do
There is much to be said for Mr. Kaplan's thesis here.
Elections don't matter as much as institutions do when it comes to stability and progress, but one has to remember that it takes individuals who are willing to invest in those institutions for it to work as well.
You can have the framework of institutions, just as one has the framework of the democratic process and still you will find yourself awash in the problems of societies torn by religious, ethnic and tribal factionalism. However, if individuals within those societies are committed to seeing the institutions work, then it tends to be able to overcome those divides. It is why the US works as well as it does.
Americans by an large, at the moment, are deeply invested in the notion that we are a nation of laws and that there are institutions that can effectively administer those laws and rules that govern any society. Unfortunately, from my perspective, we are seeing assaults on those institutions in ways that will tear apart the nation, and unfortunately, those assaults are being mounted by our opinion leaders and elected leaders which makes it even worse.
We have come to very near a tipping point, in my estimation, where those in charge of protecting the institutions are so busy tearing them down by selectively enforcing them that they will collapse. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day ... or even year, but sooner than necessary or even desired.
Whether it is saying that selectively applying tax breaks to political fellow travelers is OK, or saying that race needs to be considered when enforcing school discipline, or this group or that group will be exempted from the law for this year or next, all of them are wrong.
The point Mr. Kaplan was making was that if there is not equality before the law - or in the waiting line of the institutions - then the whole system is going to break down.
We are so fortunate in the United States (and Canada, I think, so basically two-thirds of North America) that our institutions have developed and work as well as they do that we essentially take them for granted and assume that it is the natural order of things. Actually, it is not the natural order of things and the miracle of what is our society and culture (so far) is that it does work so seamlessly that we can take it all for granted.
Unfortunately, again from my perspective, we have those in our leadership who want to pit ourselves against ourselves; to set class against class, group against group, community against community. The endgame of this strategy to me is so obvious, it becomes almost a tragedy in slow-motion.
As the old song goes:
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
We are seeing the politics of division and we will pay the price. We have come to see our "government" as the source of all solutions and the great equalizer to make up for our individual differences. We want it to level the outcomes, regardless of reality.
Life is not a zero sum game, unfortunately not enough people can't see that. No, we have to blame someone else for our faults and shortcomings. We are never to blame.
Well, folks, it appears that we have chosen the path we want to take by the people we have elected to act in our name. We will have to accept the consequences of our choices. Individually, we may not have made these choices, but collectively we have. Those of us who oppose these choices that are made in our name have to accept that. I know this does not seem fair, or even right, to many, but life is not fair ... nor is it always right in our eyes.
I am religious enough to ask God for forgiveness, for we know not what we do. Maybe we will learn, but it will be a painfully slow process that will see setbacks.
You may not see it that way, and that is your choice, but I fear it is the way it is.
There is much to be said for Mr. Kaplan's thesis here.
Elections don't matter as much as institutions do when it comes to stability and progress, but one has to remember that it takes individuals who are willing to invest in those institutions for it to work as well.
You can have the framework of institutions, just as one has the framework of the democratic process and still you will find yourself awash in the problems of societies torn by religious, ethnic and tribal factionalism. However, if individuals within those societies are committed to seeing the institutions work, then it tends to be able to overcome those divides. It is why the US works as well as it does.
Americans by an large, at the moment, are deeply invested in the notion that we are a nation of laws and that there are institutions that can effectively administer those laws and rules that govern any society. Unfortunately, from my perspective, we are seeing assaults on those institutions in ways that will tear apart the nation, and unfortunately, those assaults are being mounted by our opinion leaders and elected leaders which makes it even worse.
We have come to very near a tipping point, in my estimation, where those in charge of protecting the institutions are so busy tearing them down by selectively enforcing them that they will collapse. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day ... or even year, but sooner than necessary or even desired.
Whether it is saying that selectively applying tax breaks to political fellow travelers is OK, or saying that race needs to be considered when enforcing school discipline, or this group or that group will be exempted from the law for this year or next, all of them are wrong.
The point Mr. Kaplan was making was that if there is not equality before the law - or in the waiting line of the institutions - then the whole system is going to break down.
We are so fortunate in the United States (and Canada, I think, so basically two-thirds of North America) that our institutions have developed and work as well as they do that we essentially take them for granted and assume that it is the natural order of things. Actually, it is not the natural order of things and the miracle of what is our society and culture (so far) is that it does work so seamlessly that we can take it all for granted.
Unfortunately, again from my perspective, we have those in our leadership who want to pit ourselves against ourselves; to set class against class, group against group, community against community. The endgame of this strategy to me is so obvious, it becomes almost a tragedy in slow-motion.
As the old song goes:
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
We are seeing the politics of division and we will pay the price. We have come to see our "government" as the source of all solutions and the great equalizer to make up for our individual differences. We want it to level the outcomes, regardless of reality.
Life is not a zero sum game, unfortunately not enough people can't see that. No, we have to blame someone else for our faults and shortcomings. We are never to blame.
Well, folks, it appears that we have chosen the path we want to take by the people we have elected to act in our name. We will have to accept the consequences of our choices. Individually, we may not have made these choices, but collectively we have. Those of us who oppose these choices that are made in our name have to accept that. I know this does not seem fair, or even right, to many, but life is not fair ... nor is it always right in our eyes.
I am religious enough to ask God for forgiveness, for we know not what we do. Maybe we will learn, but it will be a painfully slow process that will see setbacks.
You may not see it that way, and that is your choice, but I fear it is the way it is.
Overkill
FDA Warns Against Prescription Drugs With High Levels of Acetaminophen
When I first saw this story, it was the banner headline at the top of CNN''s web site (now, I can't even find the story).
I was alerted to the story later by my progressive former classmate out west who stridently called for anyone taking Tylenol or acetaminophen painkillers to stop immediately and seek out another pain medication.
I called him on that reaction in a comment on his Facebook page, and he proceeded to advise me that he was a Registered Nurse (who is not practicing nursing at the moment - he helps run a gaming software company) and started spouting some figures about the number of people treated for side effects.
Having laid that foundation for context, let me say: Has my old classmate lost his flipping wig?
First, his reaction is one that absolutely amazes me, especially coming from one who is supposed to have a modicum of medical knowledge. I don't profess to be an expert, but even I know that EVERY drug has potential side effects ... often serious if not fatal. All drugs, substances, etc., no matter what - period - potentially will produce an adverse reaction in the human body. That is the risk we take when we use the substance and if we are not aware of that, then we really are acting pretty silly and didn't listen to Momma when we little.
I am reminded of the little orphan's cry is some war movie I saw way back when: "No Momma. No. Poppa. No Uncle Sam." Only in this case, we always have Uncle Sam to fall back on or so it seems he believes.
You see, I am one of those people who realize that there is no "zero defect" solution to life (unless you are God and that I surely am not, nor do I suspect is anyone else in the human race who isn't crazy) and that everything comes with adverse effects of one order or another.
Granted, each individual is important and a valued person, but at the same time that individual also is expendable. I guess that is the old soldier in me coming out. Not everyone is going to live (in fact, if you really look at it - none of us are), so the point is that we not waste those who die or take away the dignity of their death. We do the best we can, and then we move on.
To deprive the 99.97 percent of adults in the United States (if I did my math right) of the benefit of something because .03 percent may get seriously ill (and .015 percent may end up in the hospital) seems to me to be a little out of whack, but then I will let you be the judge.
Secondly, my brother (the surgeon) once said at a symposium where I was sitting in the audience a very profound observation: The Enemy of Good is Better.
Now, that might seem a bit odd at first glance, but it actually makes a whole heck of a lot of sense after I thought about it ... and I had been applying the idea all my life (I guess we learned it from our Momma or sumptin')
The point being that if you don't use the good when you can, while you are in the quest for the better, then you are denying yourself, and others, the value of the good. Since there is never enough good to go around, we best not waste any of it and every little bit helps.
It is sort of like the pep talk I used to give my copy editors: What we do tonight is not engraved it stone. We will do the best we can, knowing that it not be perfect and hope that it will be good enough, because tomorrow night the paper we slave over tonight will be wrapping fish or lining Polly's cage. Keep it in perspective folks.
Or another point I made after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. There was some criticism that the Patriot missile was not a perfect defense against Iraqi SCUDs. I thought that criticism was extremely shortsighted and rather ignorant. There were some 85 SCUDs launched during the war, with about half landing in Israel and half in Saudi Arabia. I know that at least one warhead was destroyed, because I saw it happened, but the reports after the war ranged from 80 percent of the warheads were intercepted down to about 30 percent.
The criticism was that there were leakers, warheads that got through. Well, speaking as a grunt on the ground, if the Patriots intercepted one, and it was headed in my direction, then I am extremely grateful that Patriots worked even that limited amount because I could have been a casualty if it hadn't been there to do its job.
So, the missile defense was not perfect ... but it was better than no defense at all. It was the triumph of good over better.
Acetaminophen is not perfect ... but its good outweighs the bad in my estimation, but then I am not a progressive who expects perfection and that silly people can be protected against their own silliness by Uncle Sam and the FDA.
People, we can abandon the good things can do, in our quest of the perfect solution, or we can accept that some people won't be helped - in fact might get hurt - while we try to help as many as we can. It is what doctors and nurses do in triage and what generals and admirals do when they send their airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers in harms way.
We know that some will not make it, but we hope that the good will be worth the price. And sometimes waiting for the perfect solution or overkill is not worth the price.
Anyway, that is my view on the situation ... you are welcome to yours.
When I first saw this story, it was the banner headline at the top of CNN''s web site (now, I can't even find the story).
I was alerted to the story later by my progressive former classmate out west who stridently called for anyone taking Tylenol or acetaminophen painkillers to stop immediately and seek out another pain medication.
I called him on that reaction in a comment on his Facebook page, and he proceeded to advise me that he was a Registered Nurse (who is not practicing nursing at the moment - he helps run a gaming software company) and started spouting some figures about the number of people treated for side effects.
Having laid that foundation for context, let me say: Has my old classmate lost his flipping wig?
First, his reaction is one that absolutely amazes me, especially coming from one who is supposed to have a modicum of medical knowledge. I don't profess to be an expert, but even I know that EVERY drug has potential side effects ... often serious if not fatal. All drugs, substances, etc., no matter what - period - potentially will produce an adverse reaction in the human body. That is the risk we take when we use the substance and if we are not aware of that, then we really are acting pretty silly and didn't listen to Momma when we little.
I am reminded of the little orphan's cry is some war movie I saw way back when: "No Momma. No. Poppa. No Uncle Sam." Only in this case, we always have Uncle Sam to fall back on or so it seems he believes.
You see, I am one of those people who realize that there is no "zero defect" solution to life (unless you are God and that I surely am not, nor do I suspect is anyone else in the human race who isn't crazy) and that everything comes with adverse effects of one order or another.
Granted, each individual is important and a valued person, but at the same time that individual also is expendable. I guess that is the old soldier in me coming out. Not everyone is going to live (in fact, if you really look at it - none of us are), so the point is that we not waste those who die or take away the dignity of their death. We do the best we can, and then we move on.
To deprive the 99.97 percent of adults in the United States (if I did my math right) of the benefit of something because .03 percent may get seriously ill (and .015 percent may end up in the hospital) seems to me to be a little out of whack, but then I will let you be the judge.
Secondly, my brother (the surgeon) once said at a symposium where I was sitting in the audience a very profound observation: The Enemy of Good is Better.
Now, that might seem a bit odd at first glance, but it actually makes a whole heck of a lot of sense after I thought about it ... and I had been applying the idea all my life (I guess we learned it from our Momma or sumptin')
The point being that if you don't use the good when you can, while you are in the quest for the better, then you are denying yourself, and others, the value of the good. Since there is never enough good to go around, we best not waste any of it and every little bit helps.
It is sort of like the pep talk I used to give my copy editors: What we do tonight is not engraved it stone. We will do the best we can, knowing that it not be perfect and hope that it will be good enough, because tomorrow night the paper we slave over tonight will be wrapping fish or lining Polly's cage. Keep it in perspective folks.
Or another point I made after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. There was some criticism that the Patriot missile was not a perfect defense against Iraqi SCUDs. I thought that criticism was extremely shortsighted and rather ignorant. There were some 85 SCUDs launched during the war, with about half landing in Israel and half in Saudi Arabia. I know that at least one warhead was destroyed, because I saw it happened, but the reports after the war ranged from 80 percent of the warheads were intercepted down to about 30 percent.
The criticism was that there were leakers, warheads that got through. Well, speaking as a grunt on the ground, if the Patriots intercepted one, and it was headed in my direction, then I am extremely grateful that Patriots worked even that limited amount because I could have been a casualty if it hadn't been there to do its job.
So, the missile defense was not perfect ... but it was better than no defense at all. It was the triumph of good over better.
Acetaminophen is not perfect ... but its good outweighs the bad in my estimation, but then I am not a progressive who expects perfection and that silly people can be protected against their own silliness by Uncle Sam and the FDA.
People, we can abandon the good things can do, in our quest of the perfect solution, or we can accept that some people won't be helped - in fact might get hurt - while we try to help as many as we can. It is what doctors and nurses do in triage and what generals and admirals do when they send their airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers in harms way.
We know that some will not make it, but we hope that the good will be worth the price. And sometimes waiting for the perfect solution or overkill is not worth the price.
Anyway, that is my view on the situation ... you are welcome to yours.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
"They died for nothing?"
Jake Tapper's Interview with Lone Survivor Vet Marcus Luttrell: 'They Died for Nothing?' - YouTube
Having been a journalist (admittedly a print journalist and not a broadcast air head) and a soldier, I find Tapper's performance here not only arrogant and ignorant but obscene. They were never without out hope. It may seem to have been hopeless from the outside, but that is because you know what happens. And it was not senseless nor were these men sent to their deaths needlessly.
First, ops go bad. Sorry, but that happens.
Second, you never have enough good intel.
Third, the bad guys always have a vote in any plan.
Fourth, just because mistakes are made, you don't go lopping off heads ... mistakes are to be learned from, even ones costing human lives.
War is not a video game. It just about as unsanitary and ugly as it gets, and unless you have seen its true cost (not on a screen but up close and personal embedded in your skin and clothes close) then you really don't get to appreciate that reality. All losses are bad, but losses are necessary in combat because you have to take risks and sometimes those risks overwhelm you.
Tapper doesn't get it. Period.
People wonder why I don't like broadcast journalists ... Tapper, however genuine his sympathy and concern may be, is an example. He just doesn't get it.
To the SEALs: Godspeed, gentlemen, and may the grass be green in those Elysian Fields.
Having been a journalist (admittedly a print journalist and not a broadcast air head) and a soldier, I find Tapper's performance here not only arrogant and ignorant but obscene. They were never without out hope. It may seem to have been hopeless from the outside, but that is because you know what happens. And it was not senseless nor were these men sent to their deaths needlessly.
First, ops go bad. Sorry, but that happens.
Second, you never have enough good intel.
Third, the bad guys always have a vote in any plan.
Fourth, just because mistakes are made, you don't go lopping off heads ... mistakes are to be learned from, even ones costing human lives.
War is not a video game. It just about as unsanitary and ugly as it gets, and unless you have seen its true cost (not on a screen but up close and personal embedded in your skin and clothes close) then you really don't get to appreciate that reality. All losses are bad, but losses are necessary in combat because you have to take risks and sometimes those risks overwhelm you.
Tapper doesn't get it. Period.
People wonder why I don't like broadcast journalists ... Tapper, however genuine his sympathy and concern may be, is an example. He just doesn't get it.
To the SEALs: Godspeed, gentlemen, and may the grass be green in those Elysian Fields.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
In pictures: Niagara Falls freeze over on US side - Telegraph
In pictures: Niagara Falls freeze over on US side - Telegraph
When you are talking about how cold it has been ... this is it. NOW this is cold.
When you are talking about how cold it has been ... this is it. NOW this is cold.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)