A)Crazies on the right what to ban it: Alcohol
B)Loons on the left want to tax it: Bottled Water
These quotes sum up the nuttiness quite nicely:
"If it can be voted out anywhere, it will be here because so many Christians are against it," -Teresa Thomas (works in a Christian book store)
"We believe that God will honor and bless our city,"-Rev. Eddie Gooch
(Gee, dosn't that sound familiar?)
“People enjoy jogging or driving with a bottle of water. There’s a cost associated with this behavior. You have to pay for it,”
-George Cardenas
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Where’s the fence?
I am not entirely sure why, but this commercial really amuses me. Perhaps it is the thought of three old ladies cruising along the United States/Mexico boarder looking for a fence. All I know is that it has me asking “Where’s the fence?”
Who needs the first amendment anyways?
John Gibson of FOX News has the best take on the proposed reissuing of the fairness doctrine I have read to date. I am a firm believer in the United States constitution and to me the first amendment is the mother of all amendments. It is what keeps us from becoming communist China, Cuba, or Venezuela. Any attempt to limit it by anyone, conservative or liberal, is just plane grotesque. This is why I am extremely annoyed at the many democrats, and yes even a few republicans, who are trying to silence their critics by reissuing the fairness doctrine.
If your policies cannot hold up to public debate, then how good of a policy do you honestly think it is?
If you still decide to implement this doctrine, then you best be prepared to apply it to all media and to all opinions. If you do not, then you are no better than Mao, Castro, Stalin, and Chavez, just to name a few.
Let us keep free speech free. I may not enjoy everything I hear people say, but I will always defend their right to say it. It is the American way, it is my way.
If your policies cannot hold up to public debate, then how good of a policy do you honestly think it is?
If you still decide to implement this doctrine, then you best be prepared to apply it to all media and to all opinions. If you do not, then you are no better than Mao, Castro, Stalin, and Chavez, just to name a few.
Let us keep free speech free. I may not enjoy everything I hear people say, but I will always defend their right to say it. It is the American way, it is my way.
Another right-wing conspiracy?
Damn you Halliburton! Damn you greedy oil companies! Damn you Bush! Damn you evil conservatives. There you go gouging the consumer again. First it was gas prices, now you are after milk! Is there no end to your evil capitalist scheming?
Geesh! Do you think the whiny sector of our society is going to demand congress investigate the soaring prices of milk? Do you think they are going to demand we tax the profits of the dairy farmers? Do you think they are going to demand more subsidies for alternative dairy sources? Do you think they will demand we cut back on milk consumption?
Somehow I do not see any of that happening.
Geesh! Do you think the whiny sector of our society is going to demand congress investigate the soaring prices of milk? Do you think they are going to demand we tax the profits of the dairy farmers? Do you think they are going to demand more subsidies for alternative dairy sources? Do you think they will demand we cut back on milk consumption?
Somehow I do not see any of that happening.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Iraq: What went wrong?
I have had this post in rough draft form for some time now and I have decided to just post it. I could spend days editing this post as there is a lot in it and I have a lot to say about the subject. So in the interest of just getting this post off my chest, I am going to post it as is. So I am sorry if parts are a little jumbled or oddly worded. Anyways, here goes:
Welcome back to the Sensible Logic analysis of the war in Iraq. I hope you have sufficiently digested the first blog post and are ready for more.
I concluded the last post essentially saying I could not fault President Bush on getting us into Iraq. However, I do find many faults on how this war was conducted. It is worth admitting that I am not an expert on military strategy or counter terrorism, but after listening to hours of analyses and reading page after page about this subject, I have many opinions on the subject.
I will start off by giving my main thesis as to what went wrong. I believe that, coupled with the complete lack of cooperation of the Iraqi people and government, we were under prepared, under staffed, and over confident to handle what came after the fall of Saddam.
To start to dissect my thesis, we need to start at the beginning. The start of the war showcased the best of the American military. No military in the entire world is as advanced, well trained and proficient as ours and the ease to which we took Bagdad proves that. If the war ended then, no one would be second guessing the reasons for going into Iraq, President Bush would be a hero, and the Democrats would not be in charge of congress. Sadly this is not the case, the war did not end there and people have every right to expect better from their elected leaders, especially of the President. He failed to have a “what next” plan for after the fall of Bagdad. This has lead to a series of catastrophic mistakes that has caused us to be in this war 4 years later.
The evolution of the U.S. military is where I think our problem begins. Being the most dominant military force, there has evolved this sense of not wanting to be “too tough” on the enemy as it will certainly make us look like bullies. Imagine if you will the Boston Red Sox playing a baseball games against my 8-year old nephew’s little league team. Do you expect the Sox to bring their “A-game” and play at a major league level? What would you say if Curt Schilling threw a brush back pitch because an 8-year old was crowding the plate? Why I assume you would be little disturbed. With respect to war, since we know we could easily crush a much weaker Iraqi army, what would be the world perception if we just went in there and mowed them all down? There would be outrage, even though I think being super aggressive in the beginning would have significantly reduced future causalities. Unfortunately we will never know if this is true.
Since, in my opinion, Vietnam, this trend of not wanting to be too “mean” has only gotten worse. In the first gulf war, we only fought just enough to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Had we pressed Saddam further, perhaps we would not be in this mess at all. It is the Sensible Logic position that if you make the decision to go to war, you go with the full resources you possesses and use whatever amount of force it takes to guarantee a complete victory. It is important for me to also say, that what force we do take comply with the rules of warfare set by the Geneva Convention and punish those within our ranks that break these rules.
This first mistake leads to the second mistake of being under prepared. Since the United States felt this would be a swift victory we did not bring enough troops and supplies to secure the country or be able to endure a prolonged war such as it has become. This coupled with our absurd desire to be “politically correct” in conducting this war has created the mess we are in.
Because modern warfare has become more of a gorilla type style of fighting, our attitudes need to change as well. This is where the cold hand of reason and logic needs to brush aside the warm feelings of peace and love. Remember we are not the ones who decided to fight street by street in downtown Bagdad. We are not the ones hiding behind innocent civilians. We would have been more than happy to meet in the middle of the desert, but the bad guys are much smarter than that. They know of our reluctance to use brut force when innocent lives may be lost and they exploit this to their advantage. It is a sad reality of modern warfare that civilian causalities are to be expected. If we were to only accept this in the beginning and use the full force of the American military and deal with the fallout of world opinion after, I honestly believe that fewer civilians would have been killed and displaced in the long run. Again, there is simply no way to know this, but I believe it to be true. If you go back to my December 5th post, I tell how Iraqis actually see our reluctance to risk the lives of civilians as a weakness, and these are the Iraqis on our side. You can imagine how the bad one feels.
The third mistake was the complete disbanding of the Baath Party. The Baath party was the ruling party under Saddam and consisted of several levels with Saddam being the highest level member. It is also known that not all levels were equally as evil. It would have been beneficial to remove the upper level members such as Saddam and his family and advisors and work to reform the lower level members. However, we removed all the members, and got rid of all the people who knew how to govern and all that was left was chaos.
When you remove a dictator from power it is inevitable that there is going to be a power vacuum that someone is going to full. We were not prepared to fill it so chaos instrued. As we saw with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Muslim extremist poured into Iraq to fight the “occupiers”. Once this happened, Iraq did become the central front of the war on terror. This is what I mean when I say that President Bush “accidentally” got this right. So while we wait for Iraq to form a completely new governing body, we have people pouring in from all across the region to blow us up.
Our fourth mistake was our ill placed faith in the people of Iraq to embrace democracy and welcome us into Iraq as heroes. We were fooled. We actually thought that the Iraqis wanted to be free, to live together in peace. But we forgot one key aspect to Iraqi culture, which is the thousands of years of distrust between rival sects, not to mention the whole Sunnis exterminating the Shia under Saddam. We weren’t expecting them to forget about that were we? I guess we did. The now Shia majority in the government do not trust the Sunnis and thus have been unwilling to bring them fully into the decision making process. This has led to resentment by the Sunnis which have fueled sectarian attacks. It is a vicious cycle. The suicide attacks on Iraqi civilians by Muslim extremist only serve to fuel the sectarian rift and keep the cycle of violence going. Until the people of Iraq end this cycle, nothing we can do will have any positive effect. You can lead horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. As I said in an earlier post, you can lead people to democracy, but it is up to them to decide if they want to take a sip.
I will blog soon as to how I think we can get out with a victory. But the way it is looking, I am no longer sure there is anything we can do. The Iraqi people just do not want to stop killing each other.
Welcome back to the Sensible Logic analysis of the war in Iraq. I hope you have sufficiently digested the first blog post and are ready for more.
I concluded the last post essentially saying I could not fault President Bush on getting us into Iraq. However, I do find many faults on how this war was conducted. It is worth admitting that I am not an expert on military strategy or counter terrorism, but after listening to hours of analyses and reading page after page about this subject, I have many opinions on the subject.
I will start off by giving my main thesis as to what went wrong. I believe that, coupled with the complete lack of cooperation of the Iraqi people and government, we were under prepared, under staffed, and over confident to handle what came after the fall of Saddam.
To start to dissect my thesis, we need to start at the beginning. The start of the war showcased the best of the American military. No military in the entire world is as advanced, well trained and proficient as ours and the ease to which we took Bagdad proves that. If the war ended then, no one would be second guessing the reasons for going into Iraq, President Bush would be a hero, and the Democrats would not be in charge of congress. Sadly this is not the case, the war did not end there and people have every right to expect better from their elected leaders, especially of the President. He failed to have a “what next” plan for after the fall of Bagdad. This has lead to a series of catastrophic mistakes that has caused us to be in this war 4 years later.
The evolution of the U.S. military is where I think our problem begins. Being the most dominant military force, there has evolved this sense of not wanting to be “too tough” on the enemy as it will certainly make us look like bullies. Imagine if you will the Boston Red Sox playing a baseball games against my 8-year old nephew’s little league team. Do you expect the Sox to bring their “A-game” and play at a major league level? What would you say if Curt Schilling threw a brush back pitch because an 8-year old was crowding the plate? Why I assume you would be little disturbed. With respect to war, since we know we could easily crush a much weaker Iraqi army, what would be the world perception if we just went in there and mowed them all down? There would be outrage, even though I think being super aggressive in the beginning would have significantly reduced future causalities. Unfortunately we will never know if this is true.
Since, in my opinion, Vietnam, this trend of not wanting to be too “mean” has only gotten worse. In the first gulf war, we only fought just enough to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Had we pressed Saddam further, perhaps we would not be in this mess at all. It is the Sensible Logic position that if you make the decision to go to war, you go with the full resources you possesses and use whatever amount of force it takes to guarantee a complete victory. It is important for me to also say, that what force we do take comply with the rules of warfare set by the Geneva Convention and punish those within our ranks that break these rules.
This first mistake leads to the second mistake of being under prepared. Since the United States felt this would be a swift victory we did not bring enough troops and supplies to secure the country or be able to endure a prolonged war such as it has become. This coupled with our absurd desire to be “politically correct” in conducting this war has created the mess we are in.
Because modern warfare has become more of a gorilla type style of fighting, our attitudes need to change as well. This is where the cold hand of reason and logic needs to brush aside the warm feelings of peace and love. Remember we are not the ones who decided to fight street by street in downtown Bagdad. We are not the ones hiding behind innocent civilians. We would have been more than happy to meet in the middle of the desert, but the bad guys are much smarter than that. They know of our reluctance to use brut force when innocent lives may be lost and they exploit this to their advantage. It is a sad reality of modern warfare that civilian causalities are to be expected. If we were to only accept this in the beginning and use the full force of the American military and deal with the fallout of world opinion after, I honestly believe that fewer civilians would have been killed and displaced in the long run. Again, there is simply no way to know this, but I believe it to be true. If you go back to my December 5th post, I tell how Iraqis actually see our reluctance to risk the lives of civilians as a weakness, and these are the Iraqis on our side. You can imagine how the bad one feels.
The third mistake was the complete disbanding of the Baath Party. The Baath party was the ruling party under Saddam and consisted of several levels with Saddam being the highest level member. It is also known that not all levels were equally as evil. It would have been beneficial to remove the upper level members such as Saddam and his family and advisors and work to reform the lower level members. However, we removed all the members, and got rid of all the people who knew how to govern and all that was left was chaos.
When you remove a dictator from power it is inevitable that there is going to be a power vacuum that someone is going to full. We were not prepared to fill it so chaos instrued. As we saw with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Muslim extremist poured into Iraq to fight the “occupiers”. Once this happened, Iraq did become the central front of the war on terror. This is what I mean when I say that President Bush “accidentally” got this right. So while we wait for Iraq to form a completely new governing body, we have people pouring in from all across the region to blow us up.
Our fourth mistake was our ill placed faith in the people of Iraq to embrace democracy and welcome us into Iraq as heroes. We were fooled. We actually thought that the Iraqis wanted to be free, to live together in peace. But we forgot one key aspect to Iraqi culture, which is the thousands of years of distrust between rival sects, not to mention the whole Sunnis exterminating the Shia under Saddam. We weren’t expecting them to forget about that were we? I guess we did. The now Shia majority in the government do not trust the Sunnis and thus have been unwilling to bring them fully into the decision making process. This has led to resentment by the Sunnis which have fueled sectarian attacks. It is a vicious cycle. The suicide attacks on Iraqi civilians by Muslim extremist only serve to fuel the sectarian rift and keep the cycle of violence going. Until the people of Iraq end this cycle, nothing we can do will have any positive effect. You can lead horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. As I said in an earlier post, you can lead people to democracy, but it is up to them to decide if they want to take a sip.
I will blog soon as to how I think we can get out with a victory. But the way it is looking, I am no longer sure there is anything we can do. The Iraqi people just do not want to stop killing each other.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The war in Iraq: The sensible logic analysis
I have been meaning for sometime to offer my views on the Iraq war. Since the overall war on terrorism is of great interest to me, I have a lot of views to offer. Being too much for one blog post, I have decided to make this a multi-blog series. First up, how we got into Iraq in the first place. I apologize for the length of this post.
Sensible logic takes on Iraq (part 1): How the heck did we get into this mess?
The simple answer is September 11, 2001. Now before you scream at me and say that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq, let me just say you are right, there wasn’t. The link between the two is much more complicated than that. While there was no direct link between Iraq and 9-11, the terrorist attack of that September morning did get the ball rolling.
Despite what some think, 9-11 was a significant event in American history. For only the second time, the United States was attacked on its own soil. And even though only 3000 died, and many more die each year due to other causes, it was still a heartbreaking event. We were caught off guard and unprepared and people died. Now put yourself in the Presidents shoes. Nine months into your first term your fellow countryman are murdered. The innate desire to defend must have been strong. To not feel that way would be inhuman. Ask any parent how they would react if their child were harmed. The desire to protect them, even over protect them, must be strong. Inaction is simply not an option.
The million dollar question now is who does the President need to protect America from? Who attacked us? Al Qaida did, we know that. Ok then, where is Al Qaida? What is the capital of Al Qaida? What does the uniform of Al Qaida look like? Here in lies the problem, there is no country of Al Qaida we can attack, no flag they fight under, no uniform they wear, and certainly no rules of engagement they follow. So how do we respond?
Our first response was to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. Does anyone think this was a bad idea? You heard very little opposition to the take down of the Taliban, but did the Taliban plan the events of 9-11? What if I told you they didn’t? What if I told you they opposed the attack? Would that change your opinion of the war with Afghanistan? In reading “The Osama Bin Laden I know”, Peter Bergen states that the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, warned Osama bin Laden AGAINST attacking the United States directly. He thought, correctly, that any major attack against the United States would certainly bring about the end of the Taliban. He was right. So, if the Taliban had nothing to do with planning 9-11 and in fact, was against it, why then was it ok for the United States to attack them in response to 9-11?
This is a grey area we encounter with the new war on terrorism. We are fighting an ideology, not a country. The Taliban certainly aided, funded, and harbored Al Qaida. In addition, the Taliban were committing vicious acts of violence against the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban needed to be stopped and I for one fully support the fight against them.
Given the vast superiority of the U.S military, the Taliban was easily removed from power. Even though the Taliban still pose a problem, their influence has been reduced and there is a new, democratically elected government in power. I know there are issues still relating to the war in Afghanistan, but that is beyond the scope if this post.
With the Taliban threat removed, Al Qaida strong holds within the country destroyed, and Osama on the run, the next logical question for those in government to ask is: “Are we now safe from future attacks? Did we do enough?”
To me the answer was no. We were by no means completely safe. Islamic extremism did not end with the fall of the Taliban, as the Taliban were not the single source of terror. So who do we go after next? This is where the politics of opportunity and the psychology of having been as viscously attacked as we were, lead us into Iraq.
I do not proclaim to know what was going through the Presidents mind after 9-11 (no jokes please), so this is mere speculation on my part. But I do assume he must have been feeling a need to further protect from other threats. I will admit it is a more than viable of an argument to make that he ended up over protecting us, perhaps unnecessarily protecting us. But at this time (pre-Iraq invasion) can you honestly say that? I do not think so. After what we experienced on 9-11, it was more than reasonable to want to “over protect”. To not do so and wind up with another 9-11 would be inexcusable. So then the next logical step in this process was to look for other potential threats.
In examining potential threats in the region, who comes to mind? First and foremost, it should be Iraq given our recent history. However, let us for a movement look at other threats. Saudi Arabia (SA) comes to mind. Certainly there are radical clerics preaching “death to America” within SA. Terror cells operate with in its boarders and there was most certainly Islamic extremism being taught in some, if not most of the schools. So why not attack SA? Unfortunately they are an ally. They have a moderate government which we have a peace agreement with and it was just not an option to attack Al Qaida within SA. Pakistan posed the same issue as SA, a “friendly”, moderate government despite the fact terror cells were operating with in the boarders but again attack was not an option. Iran at this time was little more than an annoyance as was Syria. The only immediate threat to the United States at this time was Iraq. Sure, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN 9-11 AND IRAQ, but Iraq was still a dangerous regime that did pose a threat to stability in the Middle East. There is just no question Saddam was a dangerous man who killed, or was responsible for ordering the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.
This fact, coupled with a deep-seeded psychological need to protect America from further harm is what I believe lead us into Iraq. Perhaps this was rushed, a big leap in logic, or what ever you want to call it, but again, given the psychological impact of 9-11, I simply refuse to fault the President on this one. I honestly believe, for better or worse, that he did have the nation’s best interest in mind. Now I feel I need to preface this, for my liberal readers, that what comes after the initial invasion, I do fault the President on and I will address that later.
Finally, I would like to debunk the “Bush lied”, “illegal war” line of thinking. First off, there is a huge difference between someone lying deliberately and someone being wrong about a particular piece of information. All credible evidence at that time did suggest Iraq was attempting to obtain WMD. Congress read the same material and reached the same conclusion, as did France, Israel, and a whole host of other countries. So when the President stood up and proclaimed Iraq was attempting to obtain WMD’s, all evidence suggested he was telling the truth. Unfortunately it did turn out the evidence was not as strong as thought. Sure Iraq was trying to obtain “yellow cake” from Niger, despite Joe Wilson turning a 180 after the fact, but it turned out that there was no WMD’s inside Iraq. However, there are no mulligans in battle, no do-over’s, no “opps, my bad!” We got into Iraq, deposed its leader and it became our responsibility to see the campaign through. I will address what I think went wrong in section two of this series.
As far as this being an “illegal” war, per the U.S. constitution, the President cannot declare war, nor keep troops engaged in battle over a certain period of time. Only congress can authorize a war, which is what that congress did. So right there this war becomes a legal one. Sorry folks, we do not need UN approval to carry through U.S. foreign policy. The second, and more convincing, case for this being a legal war has to do with the treaty that ended the first gulf war. I have been trying to find the actual treaty online, but have been unsuccessful, if anyone should find it, please send me a copy. Despite not have the text in front of me, I have read a lot of articles that talked about it. One of the provisions in said treaty was that Saddam was to allow UN weapon inspectors complete and unrestricted access to potential WMD sites. It is very clear that between the time the first gulf war ended and the second began, Iraq violated these terms repeatedly. If I am not mistaken, there were about a dozen UN resolutions passed on this matter, and every time Saddam violated them. Hence Saddam was in violation of the original treaty and thus was subject to the military option the U.S. eventually used. I repeat, Saddam violated the original peace treaty, making war a very legal option.
In conclusion I want to say that while mistakes were made as a result of rushing into war, we do not have the luxury of hindsight. What would have happened if we had taken our time, let Saddam violate several more UN resolutions and it turned out Iraq had a nuke, sold it to a terror cell who set if off in the middle of a major American city? Would we be saying: “Sure that sucked, but hey, at least we did not rush to judgment”? Think about it, there is a reason why we always know what a football team should have done the day after we lose a game, what poker hand we should or should not have played after we lost all our chips, but when it comes to people’s lives, Monday morning quarterbacking is simply not an option!
Sensible logic takes on Iraq (part 1): How the heck did we get into this mess?
The simple answer is September 11, 2001. Now before you scream at me and say that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq, let me just say you are right, there wasn’t. The link between the two is much more complicated than that. While there was no direct link between Iraq and 9-11, the terrorist attack of that September morning did get the ball rolling.
Despite what some think, 9-11 was a significant event in American history. For only the second time, the United States was attacked on its own soil. And even though only 3000 died, and many more die each year due to other causes, it was still a heartbreaking event. We were caught off guard and unprepared and people died. Now put yourself in the Presidents shoes. Nine months into your first term your fellow countryman are murdered. The innate desire to defend must have been strong. To not feel that way would be inhuman. Ask any parent how they would react if their child were harmed. The desire to protect them, even over protect them, must be strong. Inaction is simply not an option.
The million dollar question now is who does the President need to protect America from? Who attacked us? Al Qaida did, we know that. Ok then, where is Al Qaida? What is the capital of Al Qaida? What does the uniform of Al Qaida look like? Here in lies the problem, there is no country of Al Qaida we can attack, no flag they fight under, no uniform they wear, and certainly no rules of engagement they follow. So how do we respond?
Our first response was to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. Does anyone think this was a bad idea? You heard very little opposition to the take down of the Taliban, but did the Taliban plan the events of 9-11? What if I told you they didn’t? What if I told you they opposed the attack? Would that change your opinion of the war with Afghanistan? In reading “The Osama Bin Laden I know”, Peter Bergen states that the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, warned Osama bin Laden AGAINST attacking the United States directly. He thought, correctly, that any major attack against the United States would certainly bring about the end of the Taliban. He was right. So, if the Taliban had nothing to do with planning 9-11 and in fact, was against it, why then was it ok for the United States to attack them in response to 9-11?
This is a grey area we encounter with the new war on terrorism. We are fighting an ideology, not a country. The Taliban certainly aided, funded, and harbored Al Qaida. In addition, the Taliban were committing vicious acts of violence against the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban needed to be stopped and I for one fully support the fight against them.
Given the vast superiority of the U.S military, the Taliban was easily removed from power. Even though the Taliban still pose a problem, their influence has been reduced and there is a new, democratically elected government in power. I know there are issues still relating to the war in Afghanistan, but that is beyond the scope if this post.
With the Taliban threat removed, Al Qaida strong holds within the country destroyed, and Osama on the run, the next logical question for those in government to ask is: “Are we now safe from future attacks? Did we do enough?”
To me the answer was no. We were by no means completely safe. Islamic extremism did not end with the fall of the Taliban, as the Taliban were not the single source of terror. So who do we go after next? This is where the politics of opportunity and the psychology of having been as viscously attacked as we were, lead us into Iraq.
I do not proclaim to know what was going through the Presidents mind after 9-11 (no jokes please), so this is mere speculation on my part. But I do assume he must have been feeling a need to further protect from other threats. I will admit it is a more than viable of an argument to make that he ended up over protecting us, perhaps unnecessarily protecting us. But at this time (pre-Iraq invasion) can you honestly say that? I do not think so. After what we experienced on 9-11, it was more than reasonable to want to “over protect”. To not do so and wind up with another 9-11 would be inexcusable. So then the next logical step in this process was to look for other potential threats.
In examining potential threats in the region, who comes to mind? First and foremost, it should be Iraq given our recent history. However, let us for a movement look at other threats. Saudi Arabia (SA) comes to mind. Certainly there are radical clerics preaching “death to America” within SA. Terror cells operate with in its boarders and there was most certainly Islamic extremism being taught in some, if not most of the schools. So why not attack SA? Unfortunately they are an ally. They have a moderate government which we have a peace agreement with and it was just not an option to attack Al Qaida within SA. Pakistan posed the same issue as SA, a “friendly”, moderate government despite the fact terror cells were operating with in the boarders but again attack was not an option. Iran at this time was little more than an annoyance as was Syria. The only immediate threat to the United States at this time was Iraq. Sure, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN 9-11 AND IRAQ, but Iraq was still a dangerous regime that did pose a threat to stability in the Middle East. There is just no question Saddam was a dangerous man who killed, or was responsible for ordering the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.
This fact, coupled with a deep-seeded psychological need to protect America from further harm is what I believe lead us into Iraq. Perhaps this was rushed, a big leap in logic, or what ever you want to call it, but again, given the psychological impact of 9-11, I simply refuse to fault the President on this one. I honestly believe, for better or worse, that he did have the nation’s best interest in mind. Now I feel I need to preface this, for my liberal readers, that what comes after the initial invasion, I do fault the President on and I will address that later.
Finally, I would like to debunk the “Bush lied”, “illegal war” line of thinking. First off, there is a huge difference between someone lying deliberately and someone being wrong about a particular piece of information. All credible evidence at that time did suggest Iraq was attempting to obtain WMD. Congress read the same material and reached the same conclusion, as did France, Israel, and a whole host of other countries. So when the President stood up and proclaimed Iraq was attempting to obtain WMD’s, all evidence suggested he was telling the truth. Unfortunately it did turn out the evidence was not as strong as thought. Sure Iraq was trying to obtain “yellow cake” from Niger, despite Joe Wilson turning a 180 after the fact, but it turned out that there was no WMD’s inside Iraq. However, there are no mulligans in battle, no do-over’s, no “opps, my bad!” We got into Iraq, deposed its leader and it became our responsibility to see the campaign through. I will address what I think went wrong in section two of this series.
As far as this being an “illegal” war, per the U.S. constitution, the President cannot declare war, nor keep troops engaged in battle over a certain period of time. Only congress can authorize a war, which is what that congress did. So right there this war becomes a legal one. Sorry folks, we do not need UN approval to carry through U.S. foreign policy. The second, and more convincing, case for this being a legal war has to do with the treaty that ended the first gulf war. I have been trying to find the actual treaty online, but have been unsuccessful, if anyone should find it, please send me a copy. Despite not have the text in front of me, I have read a lot of articles that talked about it. One of the provisions in said treaty was that Saddam was to allow UN weapon inspectors complete and unrestricted access to potential WMD sites. It is very clear that between the time the first gulf war ended and the second began, Iraq violated these terms repeatedly. If I am not mistaken, there were about a dozen UN resolutions passed on this matter, and every time Saddam violated them. Hence Saddam was in violation of the original treaty and thus was subject to the military option the U.S. eventually used. I repeat, Saddam violated the original peace treaty, making war a very legal option.
In conclusion I want to say that while mistakes were made as a result of rushing into war, we do not have the luxury of hindsight. What would have happened if we had taken our time, let Saddam violate several more UN resolutions and it turned out Iraq had a nuke, sold it to a terror cell who set if off in the middle of a major American city? Would we be saying: “Sure that sucked, but hey, at least we did not rush to judgment”? Think about it, there is a reason why we always know what a football team should have done the day after we lose a game, what poker hand we should or should not have played after we lost all our chips, but when it comes to people’s lives, Monday morning quarterbacking is simply not an option!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A long hiatus
After a month long hiatus, Sensible logic is returning. To be honest, I was getting a little burnt out on following and commenting on what is going on in the world. Between the on going mess in and over Iraq and the Virginia Tech murders it just got to be over whelming. But after a 10 day long overdo honeymoon in Costa Rica, I am ready to get back to business. First up, I intend on finally giving you my opinion on the entire Iraq mess. How/why we got in, what went wrong, and what we should be doing now. I hope to have this post soon.
In addition, I plan on giving the site a new look and adding some more sections. All I need to do is learn how to write code. No biggie, right?
Check back soon!
In addition, I plan on giving the site a new look and adding some more sections. All I need to do is learn how to write code. No biggie, right?
Check back soon!
Monday, April 09, 2007
The pendulum swings…
UPDATE(4/12/07): Upon reflecting on this posting, I realized that my interpretation of the physics of a pendulum is completely wrong. Therefore my analogy is a bit off. As you can tell, a poet I am not. Sorry.
Its kinetic energy increasing then decreasing as it swings from left to right. Life is a lot like that these days. It seems like people subscribe to one philosophy or its antithesis, all the while getting caught up in the kinetic energy from each side. However, as a pendulum only stops when it reaches the middle, it is only when we as a society reach the middle that we can truly address our issues. Hence the theme of this blog.
What the heck am I talking about? Whenever I debate an issue with a friend or family member, it seems that if I do not agree with them, I must therefore agree with the exact opposite. For the life of me, I cannot figure out the logic behind this. Here are a couple of examples:
Global warming: It seems that if I do not subscribe to the “We are all going to die” theory, then I must have my head in the sand or be in bed with big oil. The truth is I am some where in the middle. I do acknowledge the earth is getting warmer and that we do have a negative effect. However, I am smart enough to realize that other factors like THE SUN also play a role. In addition the fact that I do not think we are all doomed does not means I think we ought not to take precautions like recycling among others.
Iraq: If you do not think President Bush lied or that the United States is evil, then you must be a warmonger. Again, I am somewhere in the middle. I think we had noble intentions, but seriously underestimated the resistance we were to face. I think it is important to win this war, but realize we should not have to baby sit a civil war.
Now I could go on and on with both topics, but that is for another time. My only intent here is to try and pull people to the middle and get away from the absolutely insane logic that is you either believe A or B, and nothing else. There is a middle ground folks, let’s meet there.
Its kinetic energy increasing then decreasing as it swings from left to right. Life is a lot like that these days. It seems like people subscribe to one philosophy or its antithesis, all the while getting caught up in the kinetic energy from each side. However, as a pendulum only stops when it reaches the middle, it is only when we as a society reach the middle that we can truly address our issues. Hence the theme of this blog.
What the heck am I talking about? Whenever I debate an issue with a friend or family member, it seems that if I do not agree with them, I must therefore agree with the exact opposite. For the life of me, I cannot figure out the logic behind this. Here are a couple of examples:
Global warming: It seems that if I do not subscribe to the “We are all going to die” theory, then I must have my head in the sand or be in bed with big oil. The truth is I am some where in the middle. I do acknowledge the earth is getting warmer and that we do have a negative effect. However, I am smart enough to realize that other factors like THE SUN also play a role. In addition the fact that I do not think we are all doomed does not means I think we ought not to take precautions like recycling among others.
Iraq: If you do not think President Bush lied or that the United States is evil, then you must be a warmonger. Again, I am somewhere in the middle. I think we had noble intentions, but seriously underestimated the resistance we were to face. I think it is important to win this war, but realize we should not have to baby sit a civil war.
Now I could go on and on with both topics, but that is for another time. My only intent here is to try and pull people to the middle and get away from the absolutely insane logic that is you either believe A or B, and nothing else. There is a middle ground folks, let’s meet there.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Special dual title:
For conservatives: Stickin it to the Dems
For liberals: There goes Bush again
Forgive me for being partisan here, but I can hear all my liberal friends now: “Look at what Bush did”, “Bush is again abusing his power by disregarding congress and giving his friends a job”, “Bush is evil!!!” Me, I am laughing my butt off. Let’s face it; the liberals in congress are bitter. They’re mad Gore lost, they’re mad Kerry lost, they’re mad they cannot get their way, so they are trying to take their toys and run home crying to their mommies. They complain when the Bush administration fires 8 political appointees for (gasp!) political reasons, despite the Clinton administration firing 93 for similar political reasons. So they run to the media and cry that Bush is making them feel bad. And of course, the media is more than happy to supply the comfort: “There there, we will make sure everyone sees how much of a bully Bush is by blowing every infinitesimal detail out of proportion.”
Let’s get real. Let’s act like adults. Sam Fox donated money to an advertising campaign that made Senator Kerry look bad, and that hurt their feelings. Now they are bitter and wish to make sure Fox/Bush do not get what they want, so they attempt to block his nomination for the position of ambassador to Belgium. Their protest has nothing to do with his qualifications, or how he would even perform at the position, but rather because he donated money that in turn made John Kerry look bad. Not that the junior senator has any trouble making his own self look bad.
Blocking Sam Fox’s nomination has nothing to do with making America better which, I remind both parties, is what we actually elect you to do. By blocking the nomination they are in a sense saying “You made us feel bad, and now we are going to make your life miserable”.
So how does President Bush respond? He waited until congress was in recess and made the appointment anyways. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I admit it is a very dirty trick. But politics is a messy business, and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty. I would prefer that all my elected officials did things honest and open, but that is asking for a lot. So since the Democrats in congress wish to play petty politics (and yes the Republicans are equally as guilty), I respect the President for playing right back at them. I have a feeling my two readers are not going to agree with me.
So I say to you, relax, take a deep breath, it is only 19 months until the general election.
Until then, here are some data I have found concerning recess appointments:
Carter- 68 (1 term)
Regan- 243 (2 terms)
H.W. Bush- 77 (1 term)
Clinton- 143 (2 terms)
W. Bush- 167 (1.5 terms)
Let’s get real. Let’s act like adults. Sam Fox donated money to an advertising campaign that made Senator Kerry look bad, and that hurt their feelings. Now they are bitter and wish to make sure Fox/Bush do not get what they want, so they attempt to block his nomination for the position of ambassador to Belgium. Their protest has nothing to do with his qualifications, or how he would even perform at the position, but rather because he donated money that in turn made John Kerry look bad. Not that the junior senator has any trouble making his own self look bad.
Blocking Sam Fox’s nomination has nothing to do with making America better which, I remind both parties, is what we actually elect you to do. By blocking the nomination they are in a sense saying “You made us feel bad, and now we are going to make your life miserable”.
So how does President Bush respond? He waited until congress was in recess and made the appointment anyways. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I admit it is a very dirty trick. But politics is a messy business, and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty. I would prefer that all my elected officials did things honest and open, but that is asking for a lot. So since the Democrats in congress wish to play petty politics (and yes the Republicans are equally as guilty), I respect the President for playing right back at them. I have a feeling my two readers are not going to agree with me.
So I say to you, relax, take a deep breath, it is only 19 months until the general election.
Until then, here are some data I have found concerning recess appointments:
Carter- 68 (1 term)
Regan- 243 (2 terms)
H.W. Bush- 77 (1 term)
Clinton- 143 (2 terms)
W. Bush- 167 (1.5 terms)
Monday, April 02, 2007
The war in Iraq gets personal
Those who know me know that I have supported the war in Iraq since the beginning. I support it because I honestly feel Islamic extremism is going to be the greatest challenge my generation will face and that removing evil regimes in that area is one of the many steps we need to take.
However, not much has gone right in conducting this war. Not only did we underestimate the resistance we would encounter, we severely underestimated the amount of casualties and wounded we would incur. This has lead not only to a war lasting over four years, but to inadequate care our veterans received when they returned. Our military is over extended, exhausted, and over taxed. This has led to a virtual loss in confidence and lack of will to continue by the American people. To be honest, I do not fault anyone for feeling this way.
Despite all this I remain, for lack of a better term, cautiously optimistic that something good can come out of this. Exactly what, I do not know.
Throughout this entire ordeal, my viewpoints have come from not having any personal connections to the war. Yeah, people I knew in college are serving, but no one I considered a close friend, and I had no family members until now.
My sister’s future husband is a U.S. Marine and has already been to Iraq, I think twice. He had served four years and has been out for a year or two. He is a great guy, wonderful to my sister and a terrific father figure for her son. Recently he found out that the military is considering reactivating him and send him back to Iraq. He is proud to have served his country and never spoke ill of his previous tours, but since his last tour ended, he purposed to my sister, bought a condo, and is planning their wedding. Needless to say, this news has not been well received. That’s all I will say, as the rest goes too far into the personal realm.
So I am left wondering what to do now. On the one hand, if I continue to support the war, one that I acknowledge is not going well, I do so knowing my future brother-in-law is putting his life on the line. On the other hand, if I suddenly change positions, simply because the war has become personal, I become a hypocrite.
I just do not know what to do anymore. Life is hard and all the only thing I can say is that I wish all our military a safe return, and continue to express my gratitude for all they have sacrificed on my behalf.
However, not much has gone right in conducting this war. Not only did we underestimate the resistance we would encounter, we severely underestimated the amount of casualties and wounded we would incur. This has lead not only to a war lasting over four years, but to inadequate care our veterans received when they returned. Our military is over extended, exhausted, and over taxed. This has led to a virtual loss in confidence and lack of will to continue by the American people. To be honest, I do not fault anyone for feeling this way.
Despite all this I remain, for lack of a better term, cautiously optimistic that something good can come out of this. Exactly what, I do not know.
Throughout this entire ordeal, my viewpoints have come from not having any personal connections to the war. Yeah, people I knew in college are serving, but no one I considered a close friend, and I had no family members until now.
My sister’s future husband is a U.S. Marine and has already been to Iraq, I think twice. He had served four years and has been out for a year or two. He is a great guy, wonderful to my sister and a terrific father figure for her son. Recently he found out that the military is considering reactivating him and send him back to Iraq. He is proud to have served his country and never spoke ill of his previous tours, but since his last tour ended, he purposed to my sister, bought a condo, and is planning their wedding. Needless to say, this news has not been well received. That’s all I will say, as the rest goes too far into the personal realm.
So I am left wondering what to do now. On the one hand, if I continue to support the war, one that I acknowledge is not going well, I do so knowing my future brother-in-law is putting his life on the line. On the other hand, if I suddenly change positions, simply because the war has become personal, I become a hypocrite.
I just do not know what to do anymore. Life is hard and all the only thing I can say is that I wish all our military a safe return, and continue to express my gratitude for all they have sacrificed on my behalf.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
How do you start a world war?
Recently Iran has detained 15 British sailors and is accusing them of spying. They claim the sailors were in Iranian waters, while England claims there were in Iraqi waters. A witness, an Iraqi fishermen, supports England’s claim. Now Iran is using this situation as leverage to force England to release 50 Iranians captured by British forces in Iraq.
What does this mean? If it is in fact true that Iran entered Iraqi territory in order to capture British solders, well then that is a significant act of war. England surely is not going to allow these sailors to be part of an Iranian show trial against the west, which is what I think Iran really wants. I think that if this situation does not resolve itself in the next few days, then England will have to launch some sort of attack on Iran, which no doubt will get us involved. It was a real stupid move on Iran’s part capturing these sailors.
If the sailors were actually in Iranian waters, then that is a whole another issue and we will have a huge diplomatic mess on our hands. Iran could legitimately use this as support for their case against western imperialism.
This to me is a potentially scary string of events. Sometime I think Iran is looking for a fight with the west. It would no doubt incite more Islamic fascism, give Iran a legitimate (in their minds) use for a nuclear program, and would (again in their minds) prove the west is against the Muslim faith. Other times I think Iran is just trying to put on a diplomatic show, trying desperately to look like a powerful force in world politics.
Either way we ought to take this incident very seriously. In 1979 a group of radical Islamic students took the American embassy hostage in Iran with the intention of showing the world “The great Satan”. What started as a planned 3-day “peaceful protest” turned into a 444 day hostage crisis. Almost 30 years later, little has changed within Iran. If anything, Iran has become more defiant and more violent.
Let us hope this situation resolves itself peacefully, if not, expect to be at war with Iran by years end. My prediction: Iran will release the hostages after a few more days of grumbling and baseless demands.
What does this mean? If it is in fact true that Iran entered Iraqi territory in order to capture British solders, well then that is a significant act of war. England surely is not going to allow these sailors to be part of an Iranian show trial against the west, which is what I think Iran really wants. I think that if this situation does not resolve itself in the next few days, then England will have to launch some sort of attack on Iran, which no doubt will get us involved. It was a real stupid move on Iran’s part capturing these sailors.
If the sailors were actually in Iranian waters, then that is a whole another issue and we will have a huge diplomatic mess on our hands. Iran could legitimately use this as support for their case against western imperialism.
This to me is a potentially scary string of events. Sometime I think Iran is looking for a fight with the west. It would no doubt incite more Islamic fascism, give Iran a legitimate (in their minds) use for a nuclear program, and would (again in their minds) prove the west is against the Muslim faith. Other times I think Iran is just trying to put on a diplomatic show, trying desperately to look like a powerful force in world politics.
Either way we ought to take this incident very seriously. In 1979 a group of radical Islamic students took the American embassy hostage in Iran with the intention of showing the world “The great Satan”. What started as a planned 3-day “peaceful protest” turned into a 444 day hostage crisis. Almost 30 years later, little has changed within Iran. If anything, Iran has become more defiant and more violent.
Let us hope this situation resolves itself peacefully, if not, expect to be at war with Iran by years end. My prediction: Iran will release the hostages after a few more days of grumbling and baseless demands.
Monday, March 12, 2007
What’s up with Chuck?
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) recently announced that he will later announce his intentions to run or not to run for president. Why the vagueness? I think it has a lot to do with his position on the Iraq war and how the surge fairs. Senator Hagel has taken an interesting position by distancing himself from the Republican base. As far as I know, he is the only Republican to do so and the reason for this, in my opinion, has everything to do with the 2008 presidential election.
Here is why: The war is very unpopular. Let’s face it, no one likes where this thing is going. Sure some people, like me, see the importance of a successful outcome. However, I think most of America just wants out. So any person seeking the presidency, must, and I mean absolutely must want out of Iraq, have a way out of Iraq, or simply think this was a foolish idea in the first place.
This is where it gets tricky for a candidate. I believe who wins the white house depends mainly on how Iraq turns out. PREDICTION 1: Should the surge actually bring some much needed success, I think the Republicans take the office as well as take back the house and senate. PREDICTION 2: If Iraq completely spirals into chaos, I think it is pretty much a slam dunk the Democrats win.
However, this is where it gets interesting. Should Iraq fail, senator Hagel can tout himself as the only Republican to stand against the surge and thus make himself a viable alternative to the anti-war Democrats. By taking the position he has, senator Hagel and to some degree all the Democrat candidates have a vested interest in the United Stats losing Iraq. This is a very dangerous position to take and one that I believe influences their decisions. People seeking office should put their country ahead of their personal goals. Yet sadly, this is not so, for either party.
This leads back to Senator Hagel’s decision to announce his intention to announce later his intentions to run or not to run for the office of the President of the United States. PREDICTION 3: If Iraq has some signs of success, the senator will not run for office. If Iraq fails, he will seek, but lose, the office of the presidency. Either way, I do not see him even getting the Republican nomination.
Let us see in six-nine months how I did.
Here is why: The war is very unpopular. Let’s face it, no one likes where this thing is going. Sure some people, like me, see the importance of a successful outcome. However, I think most of America just wants out. So any person seeking the presidency, must, and I mean absolutely must want out of Iraq, have a way out of Iraq, or simply think this was a foolish idea in the first place.
This is where it gets tricky for a candidate. I believe who wins the white house depends mainly on how Iraq turns out. PREDICTION 1: Should the surge actually bring some much needed success, I think the Republicans take the office as well as take back the house and senate. PREDICTION 2: If Iraq completely spirals into chaos, I think it is pretty much a slam dunk the Democrats win.
However, this is where it gets interesting. Should Iraq fail, senator Hagel can tout himself as the only Republican to stand against the surge and thus make himself a viable alternative to the anti-war Democrats. By taking the position he has, senator Hagel and to some degree all the Democrat candidates have a vested interest in the United Stats losing Iraq. This is a very dangerous position to take and one that I believe influences their decisions. People seeking office should put their country ahead of their personal goals. Yet sadly, this is not so, for either party.
This leads back to Senator Hagel’s decision to announce his intention to announce later his intentions to run or not to run for the office of the President of the United States. PREDICTION 3: If Iraq has some signs of success, the senator will not run for office. If Iraq fails, he will seek, but lose, the office of the presidency. Either way, I do not see him even getting the Republican nomination.
Let us see in six-nine months how I did.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Will the real Ann Coulter please stand up?
Now this is the Ann Coulter I like. The Ann Coulter I admire. The Ann Coulter the general public seldom sees. She is bright, articulate (Can I say that about a woman?), and absolutely masterful at crafting an argument. However, she has a propensity for taking pleasure in the “shock factor” and that is where I disagree with her approach and do not excuse what she has recently said.
Before you completely demonize her, it is critical to remember what she is and isn’t. First and foremost, she is NOT a public servant, journalist, or even a political analyst. Her words should not and do not dictate political decision making. What she is is an author and political satirist. Ms. Coulter makes a living making fun of political figures and selling books. Is this wrong? No. Comedians throughout time have made a living poking fun at political figures, often using words far worse than the word Ms. Coulter used. So why was she raked through the coals (sorry I cannot come up with a more eco-friendly analogy)?
As Ms. Coulter correctly points out in her vulgarity free column, shooting elephants in a barrel, it is a crime to be a Republican. If there is one undeniable aspect of politics, it is that liberals and conservatives are treated very different both in the media and in the court room. Unfortunately for conservatives, we usually draw the short stick. I could go on and on and whine that this is unfair, but it won’t do any good. All we can do is do our best to point out the facts. Time after time, column after column, speech after speech Ann Coulter does a brilliant job at doing just this. However, as long as she focuses more on shocking and offending people into buying her books than on building a rock solid argument, her genius will be lost.
Before you completely demonize her, it is critical to remember what she is and isn’t. First and foremost, she is NOT a public servant, journalist, or even a political analyst. Her words should not and do not dictate political decision making. What she is is an author and political satirist. Ms. Coulter makes a living making fun of political figures and selling books. Is this wrong? No. Comedians throughout time have made a living poking fun at political figures, often using words far worse than the word Ms. Coulter used. So why was she raked through the coals (sorry I cannot come up with a more eco-friendly analogy)?
As Ms. Coulter correctly points out in her vulgarity free column, shooting elephants in a barrel, it is a crime to be a Republican. If there is one undeniable aspect of politics, it is that liberals and conservatives are treated very different both in the media and in the court room. Unfortunately for conservatives, we usually draw the short stick. I could go on and on and whine that this is unfair, but it won’t do any good. All we can do is do our best to point out the facts. Time after time, column after column, speech after speech Ann Coulter does a brilliant job at doing just this. However, as long as she focuses more on shocking and offending people into buying her books than on building a rock solid argument, her genius will be lost.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Recommended Reading
I have been meaning for some time to share with you some of the great books I have read over the last few months. Reading has become something I try to do more and more and have become so interested in learning about what ever I can. Since this the theme of this blog is current events and social issues, I will post books pertaining to those subjects. If you would like I have been also reading a lot about poker, dog psychology, and non-verbal communication. Like I said, I love to read.
The first book, by Larry Elder, has to do with many of the social issues we face today including: black racism, white condescension, the glass ceiling, gun control, and welfare. This book is written from, in my opinion, a libertarian point of view. For someone who is anti-conservative, this is still a great book to read as Larry Elder is by no means, a right-wing nut. In all honesty, this book has had the greatest impact on my personal beliefs of any book I have read. I highly recommend it.
“America Alone” tackles the issues we face in dealing with radical Islam. Mark Steyn does a great job in using demographics to hypothesize as to why we really are alone in this fight. I will admit, this is more “right-wing” that the first, but again, is by no means “out there”. It is a really well written book full of factual and easily verifiable information. If you take the time to look up what he talks about, you will be scared, or at least concerned.
“Who really cares” examines America’s charitable practices and used a wealth (no pun intended) of surveys to determine who gives and who does not. The results, I guarantee will surprise you. Again, this is a really great book, which includes many of the surveys in the appendix of the book. The results and conclusions are based on facts easily verifiable and not on speculation and rhetoric.
I already have generated a very long list of books I intend on reading in the near future, so look for more recommendations to come.
Happy Reading!
The first book, by Larry Elder, has to do with many of the social issues we face today including: black racism, white condescension, the glass ceiling, gun control, and welfare. This book is written from, in my opinion, a libertarian point of view. For someone who is anti-conservative, this is still a great book to read as Larry Elder is by no means, a right-wing nut. In all honesty, this book has had the greatest impact on my personal beliefs of any book I have read. I highly recommend it.
“America Alone” tackles the issues we face in dealing with radical Islam. Mark Steyn does a great job in using demographics to hypothesize as to why we really are alone in this fight. I will admit, this is more “right-wing” that the first, but again, is by no means “out there”. It is a really well written book full of factual and easily verifiable information. If you take the time to look up what he talks about, you will be scared, or at least concerned.
“Who really cares” examines America’s charitable practices and used a wealth (no pun intended) of surveys to determine who gives and who does not. The results, I guarantee will surprise you. Again, this is a really great book, which includes many of the surveys in the appendix of the book. The results and conclusions are based on facts easily verifiable and not on speculation and rhetoric.
I already have generated a very long list of books I intend on reading in the near future, so look for more recommendations to come.
Happy Reading!
Friday, February 16, 2007
A liberal nightmare
Caution: Do not watch this video if you are a liberal with a heart condition
FOXNEWS new satire show promo
And for the record, even I think this half-hour news satire show is probably going to tank. But this promo is just too awesome.
FOXNEWS new satire show promo
And for the record, even I think this half-hour news satire show is probably going to tank. But this promo is just too awesome.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Now this is just ridiculous!
Is there anything people won’t blame on climate change?
Climate change seen fanning conflict and terrorism
This added today Jan 25th
Global warming possibly linked to an enhanced risk of suicide
Climate change seen fanning conflict and terrorism
This added today Jan 25th
Global warming possibly linked to an enhanced risk of suicide
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Haven’t we been down this road before?
Tell me if this sounds familiar.
Iran has recently blocked several IAEA inspectors from entering the country as ordered by the United Nations. Iran repeatedly has rejected calls by the United Nations to halt its nuclear program. Iran has laughed at the threat of sanctions imposed by the United Nations, however watered down they are. Iran has time and time again spoken of the desire of wiping Israel off the map, much to the dismay of the United Nations.
Sounds a little like Iraq in the 1990’s to me.
What is the Democrat plan?
Do Nothing!
Now it really sounds like the 1990’s again.
Here we have a country that openly wants nuclear weapons, openly wants to use them against another country, and more importantly, does not care what the repercussions would be.
This is a really dangerous situation that has the potential of costing a lot of lives if it is not acted upon soon. I would prefer that the United States not have to get involved, but that would require someone else stepping up and taking charge. I do not see that happening anytime soon. The United Nations has become such a useless body that lacks the spine to confront anything. I may be mistaken, but I believe the UN passed a dozen or so resolutions on Iraq which Saddam ignored every time. Why are we to believe it is going to be any different this time?
Here is what I think could happen.
A) The UN does nothing. Iran gets nukes. Attacks Israel. We get involved. Many die.
B) The UN does nothing. Iran test fires a weapon. Not wanting to wait for an attack on them, Israel launches a preemptive attack wiping out Iran’s nuclear capability. Many die, but not as many as option A.
C) The UN does nothing. The United States launches an air/sea attack on Iran to wipe out its nuclear capability. The world starts wining how evil the United States is, but secretly appreciates that we did something. Many Iranians close to the targets will die, but not as many as options A or B.
My best guess at what is most likely to occur is option C. What do you think will happen or what should the U.S. or UN do?
Iran has recently blocked several IAEA inspectors from entering the country as ordered by the United Nations. Iran repeatedly has rejected calls by the United Nations to halt its nuclear program. Iran has laughed at the threat of sanctions imposed by the United Nations, however watered down they are. Iran has time and time again spoken of the desire of wiping Israel off the map, much to the dismay of the United Nations.
Sounds a little like Iraq in the 1990’s to me.
What is the Democrat plan?
Do Nothing!
Now it really sounds like the 1990’s again.
Here we have a country that openly wants nuclear weapons, openly wants to use them against another country, and more importantly, does not care what the repercussions would be.
This is a really dangerous situation that has the potential of costing a lot of lives if it is not acted upon soon. I would prefer that the United States not have to get involved, but that would require someone else stepping up and taking charge. I do not see that happening anytime soon. The United Nations has become such a useless body that lacks the spine to confront anything. I may be mistaken, but I believe the UN passed a dozen or so resolutions on Iraq which Saddam ignored every time. Why are we to believe it is going to be any different this time?
Here is what I think could happen.
A) The UN does nothing. Iran gets nukes. Attacks Israel. We get involved. Many die.
B) The UN does nothing. Iran test fires a weapon. Not wanting to wait for an attack on them, Israel launches a preemptive attack wiping out Iran’s nuclear capability. Many die, but not as many as option A.
C) The UN does nothing. The United States launches an air/sea attack on Iran to wipe out its nuclear capability. The world starts wining how evil the United States is, but secretly appreciates that we did something. Many Iranians close to the targets will die, but not as many as options A or B.
My best guess at what is most likely to occur is option C. What do you think will happen or what should the U.S. or UN do?
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Who are the people in your neighborhood?
Good question. Wouldn’t life be better if we all were just a little bit nicer to each other? After living in Texas for three years, one of the things I am having a lot of trouble re-adjusting back too is how standoffish and rude people are to each other here in Massachusetts. Say what you want about southerners, but they are so much more polite and easygoing that northerners.
So I was particularly excited when today I heard about a program started by a guy who feels similar to me. Actually this is really not a new idea as it was the subject of a Seinfeld episode, but I think it is a great way to get to know the people around you and help create a more positive social atmosphere. Enjoy!
Name Tag For A Year
So I was particularly excited when today I heard about a program started by a guy who feels similar to me. Actually this is really not a new idea as it was the subject of a Seinfeld episode, but I think it is a great way to get to know the people around you and help create a more positive social atmosphere. Enjoy!
Name Tag For A Year
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Switching Gears
Since my last few posts were about the shady behavior of Democrats, I figured it was time to switch gears. I do not want to typecast myself as someone who only complains about others and does not offer anything constructive. However, for the benefit of the people who do not know me very well, I want to offer an explanation on why my last few post were of the nature they were.
There is nothing in life that irritates me more than hypocrisy. For the last several years, all I have heard from the left has been how evil the right is and how if they were in power, things would be different. Well now the Democrats are in power and guess what? Things are pretty much the same. When it was decided that Nancy Pelosi would be the next speaker of the house she offered this gem of a quote: “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
I think my last few post, as well as the many other examples I did not post, strongly suggest she may have over spoken just a little. Am I wrong?
In discussing this very topic a good friend of mine said something to the fact that you could fill a football stadium with all the shady behavior of Republicans. I do not deny this one bit. Just because I think that most of the Democrats are useless and corrupt doesn’t mean I do not also think the same of most Republicans. Again it is just that when you say something like “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history”, I am going to look real close to what you are doing and comment appropriately.
So for my next few posts I plan on taking a more constructive approach to addressing what is going on in our world. Such as how we fight the war on terror, how we win in Iraq, and how we can address our domestic needs. I look forward to the discussions it will bring.
Take care!
There is nothing in life that irritates me more than hypocrisy. For the last several years, all I have heard from the left has been how evil the right is and how if they were in power, things would be different. Well now the Democrats are in power and guess what? Things are pretty much the same. When it was decided that Nancy Pelosi would be the next speaker of the house she offered this gem of a quote: “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
I think my last few post, as well as the many other examples I did not post, strongly suggest she may have over spoken just a little. Am I wrong?
In discussing this very topic a good friend of mine said something to the fact that you could fill a football stadium with all the shady behavior of Republicans. I do not deny this one bit. Just because I think that most of the Democrats are useless and corrupt doesn’t mean I do not also think the same of most Republicans. Again it is just that when you say something like “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history”, I am going to look real close to what you are doing and comment appropriately.
So for my next few posts I plan on taking a more constructive approach to addressing what is going on in our world. Such as how we fight the war on terror, how we win in Iraq, and how we can address our domestic needs. I look forward to the discussions it will bring.
Take care!
Friday, January 12, 2007
Democrats behaving badly?
This week the House of Representatives lead by Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) voted to increase the minimum wage. I am not, at this time, going to debate the pros and cons of this action, that is for a later date, but I do want to point out that this “First 100 Hours” agenda item is really only going to affect an estimated 0.6% of the US population. Rather I want to point out what I see as a corrupt action by the supposedly “more ethical congress”.
The issue I have is that there is an exemption relating to who actually has to comply with this new wage increase. All US state and territories, except American Samoa, have to increase their minimum wage. The reason for American Samoa being exempt is they argued an increase would cripple their economy and force companies to seek workers else where. Here is my first point of contention: Why would a minimum wage increase hurt one economy while helping another? Something is really beginning to stink.
If you look closer, you will see that the major industry of American Samoa is Tuna fishing and tuna processing plants. The industry employs approximately 33% of the islands workforce.
OK, so you’re thinking “Who cares?” American Samoa is such a small portion of the bigger picture of Democrats helping the poor, because we all know the rich would just trample them otherwise.
If you look even more closely you will see that StarKist tuna is one of the major tuna processors. StarKist is owned by Del Monte Foods. Shall we guess where their corporate office is located? Anybody? You guessed it: San Francisco!
While Speaker Pelosi denies any lobbying was done, you cannot help but see this as a little fishy (sorry for the pun).
Here is a story from the Washington Times
The issue I have is that there is an exemption relating to who actually has to comply with this new wage increase. All US state and territories, except American Samoa, have to increase their minimum wage. The reason for American Samoa being exempt is they argued an increase would cripple their economy and force companies to seek workers else where. Here is my first point of contention: Why would a minimum wage increase hurt one economy while helping another? Something is really beginning to stink.
If you look closer, you will see that the major industry of American Samoa is Tuna fishing and tuna processing plants. The industry employs approximately 33% of the islands workforce.
OK, so you’re thinking “Who cares?” American Samoa is such a small portion of the bigger picture of Democrats helping the poor, because we all know the rich would just trample them otherwise.
If you look even more closely you will see that StarKist tuna is one of the major tuna processors. StarKist is owned by Del Monte Foods. Shall we guess where their corporate office is located? Anybody? You guessed it: San Francisco!
While Speaker Pelosi denies any lobbying was done, you cannot help but see this as a little fishy (sorry for the pun).
Here is a story from the Washington Times
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Is there no end to the madness: Part 2
In San Francisco, CA, the hub of “American Enlightenment” and tolerance, a Yale University a cappella group was attacked by a mob after singing the Star Spangled Banner at a private party. I am sure the ACLU is going to be right on this, defending the civil rights of this group. Yeah Right! If this were a gay cross dressing a cappella group, singing “Give peace a chance” and were attacked by a mob, people would be screaming hate crimes.
So much for tolerance for all in San Fran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070110/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentus_070110163008
So much for tolerance for all in San Fran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070110/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentus_070110163008
Is there no end to the madness?
I know I pick on liberal or progressive values and policies a lot. I know I should be more balanced and watch the conservative or traditional values and policies as well, and I do. However, there seems to be a never ending stream of insanity coming from the left and it appears I have dedicated myself to pointing out the obvious flaws of such insanity.
Both of my rants today come from FOX NEWS’s Brit Hume’s political grapevine Fox News Political grapevine
First, Barney Frank (D-MA) accused the republican party of ethnic cleansing in its post hurricane Katrina reconstruction. He said: "What they (Republicans) recognize is they're in this happy position for them where if the federal government does nothing, Louisiana will become whiter and richer...they get the hurricane to do the ethnic cleansing and their hands are clean."
Where is the media outrage? Why can I only see this on FOX NEWS? I thought the mainstream media was, as it says, unbiased. HA! Practically every media sources characterizes FOX NEWS as right leaning, all the while denying their blatantly obviously own left leanings.
Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality correctly points out that: “that if a Republican had made a similar statement "it would have been on the front page of The New York Times... and Katie Couric would do a special segment on it."”
Mr. Innis, I totally agree. Republicans or conservatives do something bad and we talk about impeachment and scandal, and “there must be justice”. But when a democrat or liberal accuses a group of ethnic cleansing, he gets a free pass or even a standing ovation (hey, we can ignore the $90,000 of marked bills you had in your freezer). I just do not get it. Can someone explain to me what I am missing?
Second, if you know anything about me, you would know I really loath Europe’s entitlement society. Why? Because I feel it promotes selfishness and laziness. Here is a perfect example. A London man died as a result of not receiving medical attention promptly (hey, at least it would have been free, had he lived). Despite being only 5 minutes away, the ambulance took over 20 minutes to get there. What took so long? Traffic? Nope! Ambulance break down? Nope! They were out to lunch and EU law dictates that one is not to be disturb while at lunch, even if a man is dying. Someone please tell me how a society that will let a man die so they can eat a relaxing lunch can, in any way, be labeled a more enlightened or sophisticated one? How is this better?
Both of my rants today come from FOX NEWS’s Brit Hume’s political grapevine Fox News Political grapevine
First, Barney Frank (D-MA) accused the republican party of ethnic cleansing in its post hurricane Katrina reconstruction. He said: "What they (Republicans) recognize is they're in this happy position for them where if the federal government does nothing, Louisiana will become whiter and richer...they get the hurricane to do the ethnic cleansing and their hands are clean."
Where is the media outrage? Why can I only see this on FOX NEWS? I thought the mainstream media was, as it says, unbiased. HA! Practically every media sources characterizes FOX NEWS as right leaning, all the while denying their blatantly obviously own left leanings.
Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality correctly points out that: “that if a Republican had made a similar statement "it would have been on the front page of The New York Times... and Katie Couric would do a special segment on it."”
Mr. Innis, I totally agree. Republicans or conservatives do something bad and we talk about impeachment and scandal, and “there must be justice”. But when a democrat or liberal accuses a group of ethnic cleansing, he gets a free pass or even a standing ovation (hey, we can ignore the $90,000 of marked bills you had in your freezer). I just do not get it. Can someone explain to me what I am missing?
Second, if you know anything about me, you would know I really loath Europe’s entitlement society. Why? Because I feel it promotes selfishness and laziness. Here is a perfect example. A London man died as a result of not receiving medical attention promptly (hey, at least it would have been free, had he lived). Despite being only 5 minutes away, the ambulance took over 20 minutes to get there. What took so long? Traffic? Nope! Ambulance break down? Nope! They were out to lunch and EU law dictates that one is not to be disturb while at lunch, even if a man is dying. Someone please tell me how a society that will let a man die so they can eat a relaxing lunch can, in any way, be labeled a more enlightened or sophisticated one? How is this better?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
A new way in Iraq?
President Bush is expected to outline a new Iraq strategy to us sometime next week. I would like to make a prediction that whatever he says, some, and I repeat some in the media and in the government are going to viscously attack whatever he says. Bush haters are going to due what they are going to do and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. But like the President or not, agree with him or not, the vile filth that some put out towards him is both morally wrong and destructive to our efforts. For the record, I disagree with the way the war was run, however, I do want us to win and I think that those in our great country who are rooting for the US to lose, walk a dangerous line.
So I am extremely interested in what our new strategy is going to be. News reports suggest a temporary increase in the number of troops. I am for this if the key word is temporary. The situation needs to be stabilized and if it takes more troops to do it fine, but if more troops mean more targets for insurgents, then I say get them out. I also think economic incentives will be effective if you can provide people with jobs, as I believe they would be less likely to commit acts of violence. We also need to speed up the training if the Iraqi army and police. But most important, we need to put the maximum amount of pressure on the Iraq government to control their own destiny.
I am going to put myself out there and make a personal stance. I say, as many other people do, including FOX NEWS, that Iraq pretty much has six or so more months to get their act in order. If by the end of the summer, there is no progress in Iraq, I will take the position that we need to get out. However, I will never subscribe to the BUSH SUCKS! mantra or root for us to loose. But there does come a time when you have to say enough is enough.
There is an old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink”. We have lead Iraq to the prospects of democracy and peace, it is now up to them to decide if they want to take a sip.
So I am extremely interested in what our new strategy is going to be. News reports suggest a temporary increase in the number of troops. I am for this if the key word is temporary. The situation needs to be stabilized and if it takes more troops to do it fine, but if more troops mean more targets for insurgents, then I say get them out. I also think economic incentives will be effective if you can provide people with jobs, as I believe they would be less likely to commit acts of violence. We also need to speed up the training if the Iraqi army and police. But most important, we need to put the maximum amount of pressure on the Iraq government to control their own destiny.
I am going to put myself out there and make a personal stance. I say, as many other people do, including FOX NEWS, that Iraq pretty much has six or so more months to get their act in order. If by the end of the summer, there is no progress in Iraq, I will take the position that we need to get out. However, I will never subscribe to the BUSH SUCKS! mantra or root for us to loose. But there does come a time when you have to say enough is enough.
There is an old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink”. We have lead Iraq to the prospects of democracy and peace, it is now up to them to decide if they want to take a sip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)