Monday, February 12, 2007
This Makes Me Giggle... TeHeHeHe...
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, yesterday, became my idol with this remark:
"If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
I couldn't have said it better myself Mr. Howard. Bravo!
So Obama retorts:
"Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates. Maybe he has better ones?" Obama said.
No BaRACK, he has the same intelligence estimates, it's just that he READS them. If you haven't noticed, we're at war with islamofascists, not the country of Uraaaq. That just happens to be where this war is taking place... luckily it's not here. Oh, speaking of war:
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now. And my understanding is that Mr. Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest, he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq," he continued.
Goodness, what a wuss. A suggestion from a Democrat about war is like a suggestion from a child about retirement homes. Last I checked, the terrorists attacked US. When was that again? September 11th? Oh yeah, that's right. Thanks Australia for having our back. 1,400 is more than France has over there. In fact, why doesn't Obama run for office in France... He'd fit in well there.
"If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
I couldn't have said it better myself Mr. Howard. Bravo!
So Obama retorts:
"Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates. Maybe he has better ones?" Obama said.
No BaRACK, he has the same intelligence estimates, it's just that he READS them. If you haven't noticed, we're at war with islamofascists, not the country of Uraaaq. That just happens to be where this war is taking place... luckily it's not here. Oh, speaking of war:
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now. And my understanding is that Mr. Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest, he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq," he continued.
Goodness, what a wuss. A suggestion from a Democrat about war is like a suggestion from a child about retirement homes. Last I checked, the terrorists attacked US. When was that again? September 11th? Oh yeah, that's right. Thanks Australia for having our back. 1,400 is more than France has over there. In fact, why doesn't Obama run for office in France... He'd fit in well there.
Labels: Politics
Monday, January 29, 2007
Quick History Lesson:
I laughed my ass off when I read this:
Quick History Lesson:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters & gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of Beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "Girliemen".
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get "More For Nothing".
This ends today's lesson in world history.
Quick History Lesson:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters & gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of Beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "Girliemen".
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get "More For Nothing".
This ends today's lesson in world history.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
SOTU? Yeah... STFU:
The blogsphere has said it right... And the consensus is the same everywhere. This was a bunch of crap. We know it. (I'm Sure) They know it. So why doesn't anything get done?
My question is this: If the President's plan is such crap, then why don't YOU Nancy/Webb, come up with a better one?
After all, you're educated and sooo much better than us "idiots".
Where's the friggin plan from the Dem's? That's all I wanna know.
Links are here:
Ace of Spades Take on it: Comments are great.
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive:
Here is the Transcript Via LGF:
LiveBlogging from the Vodkapundit:
My question is this: If the President's plan is such crap, then why don't YOU Nancy/Webb, come up with a better one?
After all, you're educated and sooo much better than us "idiots".
Where's the friggin plan from the Dem's? That's all I wanna know.
Links are here:
Ace of Spades Take on it: Comments are great.
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive:
Here is the Transcript Via LGF:
LiveBlogging from the Vodkapundit:
Labels: Politics
Thursday, January 18, 2007
This is definitely a must read:
John Krenson writes a gem titled"The speech I'd like to hear" over at One Hand Clapping. It's long, but I suggest reading the entire thing. He really puts America's problems on the forefront. For the most part I agree with what he has to say and I too hope a leader steps up to lead America to victory once more. We've got the troops, we've got the equipment, and we've got the attitude. Now we need the authorization to bust heads. Defeat is not a word we're used to, but without adequate leadership in the fight against terrorism, I'm afraid this is one fight we might not win.
A favorite quote of mine: "There perchance may come a time when a good man must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Let's hope the "sleeping giant" truly awakens.
A favorite quote of mine: "There perchance may come a time when a good man must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Let's hope the "sleeping giant" truly awakens.
Labels: Politics
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Great example of politics...
You GOTTA read this... It's classic.
* A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like
so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal
Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
**
**She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.
**
**One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to
higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare
programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors
had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by
asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather
haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to
maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like
other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and
didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time
studying.
**
**Her father listened and then asked, "How is you friend Audrey
doing?"** **She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes
are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She
is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always
invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up
for classes because she's too hung over."
**
**Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the
Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to
your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA
and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
**
**The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my
grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey
has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked
my tail off!"
**
**The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican Party."*
* A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like
so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal
Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
**
**She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.
**
**One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to
higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare
programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors
had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by
asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather
haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to
maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like
other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and
didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time
studying.
**
**Her father listened and then asked, "How is you friend Audrey
doing?"** **She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes
are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She
is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always
invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up
for classes because she's too hung over."
**
**Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the
Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to
your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA
and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
**
**The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my
grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey
has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked
my tail off!"
**
**The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican Party."*
Labels: Politics
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Lose Control Of The Senate???
Could the Dems lose control of the Senate? It's a possibility now that Democratic Senator Tim Johnson is in critical condition following brain surgery at the George Washington University Hospital. Johnson, who is already a cancer survivor, was admitted for "stroke-like symptoms" last night.
If he is unable to continue his duty as Senator, it would be up to Republican Governor Mike Rounds to appoint a replacement. That would probably mean that the Democrats would inadvertantly be giving up their control of the Senate. Things could get interesting and this is definitely an issue worth keeping an eye on.
If he is unable to continue his duty as Senator, it would be up to Republican Governor Mike Rounds to appoint a replacement. That would probably mean that the Democrats would inadvertantly be giving up their control of the Senate. Things could get interesting and this is definitely an issue worth keeping an eye on.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Senate Bill 4042
*****************Update!************************
This bill has passed through the house and is now on the Presidents desk. Soon to become law. Hooah!
*******************************************************
It appears that something worthwhile has come out of the senate. Let me introduce you to Senate Bill 4042.
The article is a few days old, but was published in our local newspaper. Here is a snipet:
Published Friday, December 08, 2006
The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill Thursday sponsored by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., that prohibits protesters at the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers.
The legislation was largely in response to the funeral protests led by the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Church members have been picketing the funerals under the belief that U.S. soldiers are dying because of America's acceptance of homosexuality.
I have encountered these people personally and they are serious as sin. The things they say are ridiculous and not worth repeating here. I lined up with the Patriot Guard Riders in Fargo, ND at a NDARNG soldier's funeral to block the processions view of these whackos. I have never been so enraged in my life. To the credit of ND citizens though, about 250 people showed up just to encircle the church and block the view of the picketers. It was a great scene, there were flags a-plenty.
A quote from the story...
“It sickens me to see our fallen soldiers being dishonored by protesters,” Conrad said in a release. “No one deserves this. It must stop, and it must stop now.”
Although I despise Sen. Conrad, he makes a good point. Nobody deserves this. Especially not our brave soldiers. I hope this is the end of the Kansas Psycho's...
The bill is on it's way to the House for consideration.
This bill has passed through the house and is now on the Presidents desk. Soon to become law. Hooah!
*******************************************************
It appears that something worthwhile has come out of the senate. Let me introduce you to Senate Bill 4042.
The article is a few days old, but was published in our local newspaper. Here is a snipet:
Published Friday, December 08, 2006
The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill Thursday sponsored by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., that prohibits protesters at the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers.
The legislation was largely in response to the funeral protests led by the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Church members have been picketing the funerals under the belief that U.S. soldiers are dying because of America's acceptance of homosexuality.
I have encountered these people personally and they are serious as sin. The things they say are ridiculous and not worth repeating here. I lined up with the Patriot Guard Riders in Fargo, ND at a NDARNG soldier's funeral to block the processions view of these whackos. I have never been so enraged in my life. To the credit of ND citizens though, about 250 people showed up just to encircle the church and block the view of the picketers. It was a great scene, there were flags a-plenty.
A quote from the story...
“It sickens me to see our fallen soldiers being dishonored by protesters,” Conrad said in a release. “No one deserves this. It must stop, and it must stop now.”
Although I despise Sen. Conrad, he makes a good point. Nobody deserves this. Especially not our brave soldiers. I hope this is the end of the Kansas Psycho's...
The bill is on it's way to the House for consideration.
Labels: Politics
Friday, December 08, 2006
I am a staunch advocate of free enterprise
----- Sorry, this really turned into a rant -----
NYC bans science! What the hell?
The Junk Science master Steven Milloy has the topic covered...
"The New York City Board of Health this week banned the use of trans fats by restaurants. The decision is directly traceable back to the “research” of Harvard University’s Alberto Ascherio and Walter Willett, the promoters-in-chief of trans fats hysteria."
Now I don't care one bit about the health of trans fats or why someone whould choose to either consume them or not. What worries me is our government! Since when does the government know best? Fact is, ideologically speaking, I'm a Libertarian. Yes, I know that I live in a two party system and yes, I vote Republican. But freedom really excites me. And when my Google homepage links to a story like this, I can't sleep until I've vented...
"The Board’s notice of its decision to ban trans fats tries to bolster its case by playing on popular misconceptions about saturated fat. The notice states that, “trans fat appears even worse than saturated fat.” The Board apparently isn’t familiar with the several Ascherio-Willett studies that fail to link saturated fat with heart disease and stroke."
Are you kidding me? Wait, so now the infinitely wise NYC Board of Health can control the kind of food available to people based on a popular misconception?!
Hmmmm... And, since I'm such a fan of hypocricy:
"Regular (sugar-sweetened) soft drinks ought to be history as well. Willett linked them with weight gain and diabetes in women (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 25, 2004). It didn’t even matter that the same study also inexplicably linked diet soft drinks with a similar risk of diabetes."
By now I'm laughing out loud.
If trans fats are so bad, why should you be able to purchase food in a store that is too dangerous to be served in a restaurant?
Good question. Because obviously the Board is only looking out for the safety and well-being of it's residents. And if trans fats are bad enough that the city government is forced to ban them from restaurants, then surely it should be ILLEGAL and not to mention, dangerous, to consume trans fats regardless of when or where. Unless I'm missing something.
This is the same kind of attitude we've been exposed to regarding the war on terror. It's the whole "people should listen to me because I know what's best for them" attitude of the Liberal elite. And frankly, I'm tired of it. So... combat operations and policies in foreign countries should be decided on by washed up desk jockeys who've wasted their life spending someone else's money in an attempt to get ahead in politics? The people who feel it neccessary to make decisions for everyone else have problems. My theory is it's the same people who were picked on in gym class 20 years ago for wearing black socks.
Is this how the schoolyard "weenie" gets back at the bully? By rising to power in politics and dictating the day to day life of everyone around them? The normal people went out and got jobs. They did something worthwhile. There are plenty of people in our country who would be amazing politicians. It's too bad that they are out doing other things... like leading military troops, or fighting fires, or running successful businesses. I can't imagine how many CEO's in our country would be over qualified to run for the Presidency. As Ronald Reagan once said:
"The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."
I am an advocate of free enterprise because it allows those of us with "will", to succeed in whatever we do. I believe in survival of the fittest. If I want something, I am able to go get it. It doesn't matter what it is, all I have to do is work hard enough to achieve it and it's mine. That is what makes this country great. You don't like your boss? Start your own business. That's freedom.
And so I get pretty distraught when that kid I used to beat up on the playground now heads the Democratic Policy Committee and is trying to tell men such as myself how to fight a war. It just doesn't make sense.
NYC bans science! What the hell?
The Junk Science master Steven Milloy has the topic covered...
"The New York City Board of Health this week banned the use of trans fats by restaurants. The decision is directly traceable back to the “research” of Harvard University’s Alberto Ascherio and Walter Willett, the promoters-in-chief of trans fats hysteria."
Now I don't care one bit about the health of trans fats or why someone whould choose to either consume them or not. What worries me is our government! Since when does the government know best? Fact is, ideologically speaking, I'm a Libertarian. Yes, I know that I live in a two party system and yes, I vote Republican. But freedom really excites me. And when my Google homepage links to a story like this, I can't sleep until I've vented...
"The Board’s notice of its decision to ban trans fats tries to bolster its case by playing on popular misconceptions about saturated fat. The notice states that, “trans fat appears even worse than saturated fat.” The Board apparently isn’t familiar with the several Ascherio-Willett studies that fail to link saturated fat with heart disease and stroke."
Are you kidding me? Wait, so now the infinitely wise NYC Board of Health can control the kind of food available to people based on a popular misconception?!
Hmmmm... And, since I'm such a fan of hypocricy:
"Regular (sugar-sweetened) soft drinks ought to be history as well. Willett linked them with weight gain and diabetes in women (Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 25, 2004). It didn’t even matter that the same study also inexplicably linked diet soft drinks with a similar risk of diabetes."
By now I'm laughing out loud.
If trans fats are so bad, why should you be able to purchase food in a store that is too dangerous to be served in a restaurant?
Good question. Because obviously the Board is only looking out for the safety and well-being of it's residents. And if trans fats are bad enough that the city government is forced to ban them from restaurants, then surely it should be ILLEGAL and not to mention, dangerous, to consume trans fats regardless of when or where. Unless I'm missing something.
This is the same kind of attitude we've been exposed to regarding the war on terror. It's the whole "people should listen to me because I know what's best for them" attitude of the Liberal elite. And frankly, I'm tired of it. So... combat operations and policies in foreign countries should be decided on by washed up desk jockeys who've wasted their life spending someone else's money in an attempt to get ahead in politics? The people who feel it neccessary to make decisions for everyone else have problems. My theory is it's the same people who were picked on in gym class 20 years ago for wearing black socks.
Is this how the schoolyard "weenie" gets back at the bully? By rising to power in politics and dictating the day to day life of everyone around them? The normal people went out and got jobs. They did something worthwhile. There are plenty of people in our country who would be amazing politicians. It's too bad that they are out doing other things... like leading military troops, or fighting fires, or running successful businesses. I can't imagine how many CEO's in our country would be over qualified to run for the Presidency. As Ronald Reagan once said:
"The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."
I am an advocate of free enterprise because it allows those of us with "will", to succeed in whatever we do. I believe in survival of the fittest. If I want something, I am able to go get it. It doesn't matter what it is, all I have to do is work hard enough to achieve it and it's mine. That is what makes this country great. You don't like your boss? Start your own business. That's freedom.
And so I get pretty distraught when that kid I used to beat up on the playground now heads the Democratic Policy Committee and is trying to tell men such as myself how to fight a war. It just doesn't make sense.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
So I've had it...
This draft thing got me thinking... And with my incredible ingenuity, I tied an assignment from one of my political science classes into an outlet for my blog... sorta. I wrote a letter to one of my Senators, telling him that: The draft is wrong, Why it's wrong, and What we should do about it. As I look back on the finished masterpiece, I realize just how glorious it is. Well, at least to me. Feel free to critique if you'd like. If the critique is good, I may change it before I send it off. Well, in all it's glory, here it is:
The Honorable U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RE: Reinstatement of the draft
Dear Senator Dorgan:
I am writing to you today because I am concerned about New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel’s policy suggestion of reinstating the military draft. As an American soldier and Political Science major at the University of North Dakota, this issue affects me greatly. I am a member of the US military because I want to serve my country. Much like you serve the country in the political spectrum, I am a patriot and want to serve my country by fighting for the freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis. For the most part, citizens who oppose the draft are avoiding military service. I oppose the draft for an entirely different reason: We, as military servicemen, don’t need draftees to fight the war on terrorism. I am not comfortable with the idea of putting my life in the hands of someone who was unwilling to volunteer and had to be forced into the fight. I would not want to be the head of the Democratic Policy Committee if some of my members were unmotivated citizens with no knowledge of politics forced into the position. It would make the job a lot more difficult. The only difference is, my life would not be on the line.
The idea that a military draft will shatter class distinctions is demonstrably wrong. Not because it won’t work, but because there is no class distinction in the military. There already is unity. The idea that the military is made up of the poor and uneducated is ridiculous. In fact, more than 90 percent of recruits last year had high school diplomas, compared to 75 percent of the U.S. youth population. The military population is almost perfectly represented geographically, and recruits mirror the class levels of the U.S. population as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of recruits come from middle class families. Patterns in recent years reinforce this trend, showing a slight dip in recruits from lower socioeconomic groups and a slight increase from upper-class groups. As you can see, the need for a draft to shatter class distinctions in the military is unjustified.
I understand that troops are stretched thin. Instead of creating more troops for future conflicts, I think we should finish the fights we are in now. During my year in Iraq, I learned that the troops are not able to fully do their duty. The war has become political and we cannot fight a political war. Using war to gain political power hurts our mission. The troops are what are important because they are citizens of our great country. Decisions should be made on behalf of what the citizens want, not what is going to win the most votes. Using troops in mass to force policy issues and create democracy out of thin air is preposterous. Limiting a soldier’s freedom at war is detrimental to his ability to complete his mission. I was trained to fight. I was not trained to police an insurgency, especially with my hands tied behind my back in regards to rules of engagement and rights of self defense. The soldiers on the ground, patrolling every day, are wishing to make it back to the base without a firefight. That saddens me. We are a superior military force. When young men and women are scared to defend their lives because they are in fear of making a wrong decision, I begin to wonder why these rules of war exist. If the enemy does not have to obey the rules, why do we? Are we really better than the enemy? Is it worth the cost of American lives to be better than the enemy? Is it worth the cost of my life? I believe we should let our mighty military do what they do and crush the enemy. We could add troops until the world ends, but if they have to fight with their hands tied, the stalemate will continue. The draft will only add bodies to the problem at hand. There are more than enough troops in our vast military to take on any insurgency presented to us, so long as we hit the enemy head on. We should end this war the only way wars end, and that is with violence and speed of action. I urge you to finish the war on terrorism in Iraq by allowing us volunteer, motivated soldiers to do as we are trained and crush the insurgency. As you know, we as Americans can and will make a difference. It’s time to stand up and take care of business.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Smitty :-)
The Honorable U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RE: Reinstatement of the draft
Dear Senator Dorgan:
I am writing to you today because I am concerned about New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel’s policy suggestion of reinstating the military draft. As an American soldier and Political Science major at the University of North Dakota, this issue affects me greatly. I am a member of the US military because I want to serve my country. Much like you serve the country in the political spectrum, I am a patriot and want to serve my country by fighting for the freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis. For the most part, citizens who oppose the draft are avoiding military service. I oppose the draft for an entirely different reason: We, as military servicemen, don’t need draftees to fight the war on terrorism. I am not comfortable with the idea of putting my life in the hands of someone who was unwilling to volunteer and had to be forced into the fight. I would not want to be the head of the Democratic Policy Committee if some of my members were unmotivated citizens with no knowledge of politics forced into the position. It would make the job a lot more difficult. The only difference is, my life would not be on the line.
The idea that a military draft will shatter class distinctions is demonstrably wrong. Not because it won’t work, but because there is no class distinction in the military. There already is unity. The idea that the military is made up of the poor and uneducated is ridiculous. In fact, more than 90 percent of recruits last year had high school diplomas, compared to 75 percent of the U.S. youth population. The military population is almost perfectly represented geographically, and recruits mirror the class levels of the U.S. population as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of recruits come from middle class families. Patterns in recent years reinforce this trend, showing a slight dip in recruits from lower socioeconomic groups and a slight increase from upper-class groups. As you can see, the need for a draft to shatter class distinctions in the military is unjustified.
I understand that troops are stretched thin. Instead of creating more troops for future conflicts, I think we should finish the fights we are in now. During my year in Iraq, I learned that the troops are not able to fully do their duty. The war has become political and we cannot fight a political war. Using war to gain political power hurts our mission. The troops are what are important because they are citizens of our great country. Decisions should be made on behalf of what the citizens want, not what is going to win the most votes. Using troops in mass to force policy issues and create democracy out of thin air is preposterous. Limiting a soldier’s freedom at war is detrimental to his ability to complete his mission. I was trained to fight. I was not trained to police an insurgency, especially with my hands tied behind my back in regards to rules of engagement and rights of self defense. The soldiers on the ground, patrolling every day, are wishing to make it back to the base without a firefight. That saddens me. We are a superior military force. When young men and women are scared to defend their lives because they are in fear of making a wrong decision, I begin to wonder why these rules of war exist. If the enemy does not have to obey the rules, why do we? Are we really better than the enemy? Is it worth the cost of American lives to be better than the enemy? Is it worth the cost of my life? I believe we should let our mighty military do what they do and crush the enemy. We could add troops until the world ends, but if they have to fight with their hands tied, the stalemate will continue. The draft will only add bodies to the problem at hand. There are more than enough troops in our vast military to take on any insurgency presented to us, so long as we hit the enemy head on. We should end this war the only way wars end, and that is with violence and speed of action. I urge you to finish the war on terrorism in Iraq by allowing us volunteer, motivated soldiers to do as we are trained and crush the insurgency. As you know, we as Americans can and will make a difference. It’s time to stand up and take care of business.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Smitty :-)
Labels: Politics
Friday, November 10, 2006
Interesting spin...
Here is an interesting spin on the loss of the House and Senate by a pretty smart guy. David Post a professor of law at Temple who writes at The Volokh Conspiracy, had this to say:
"Happiness Is . . .
. . . divided government. I must say that I'm pretty happy about Tuesday's results, because it returns us to the state in which I think we function best: with Congress and the Presidency in the hands of different parties. It's more common than one might suppose; in 34 of the 54 years since Eisenhower was elected for his first term ('52), at least one branch of Congress was in hands different than the executive branch, and for my money the years in which that has not been the case (60-68, 76-80, 93-94, and 2001-06) have not been distinguished by great statesmanship or great policy-making. It's something of a cliche, I know, but it's also true -- when the government's divided, everybody is fighting for the Center, and the Center is the place, in my book, where solutions are most likely to be found to most problems (if they can be found at all).
[Welfare reform is probably the best illustration of the phenomenon; Clinton never gets that through a Democratic Congress, because it pisses off too many of the Democrats' core constituents. But they need the Center -- and now, 10 years on, it looks like they've got it -- temporarily, at least].
It is weird -- to me, anyway -- to contemplate that this result is precisely the one that parliamentary systems cannot ever reach (because by definition the executive and legislative branches must all be in the same hands)."
Interesting to say the least... I think I'd rather my party still have control, but that is an optimistic spin on a bad situation.
"Happiness Is . . .
. . . divided government. I must say that I'm pretty happy about Tuesday's results, because it returns us to the state in which I think we function best: with Congress and the Presidency in the hands of different parties. It's more common than one might suppose; in 34 of the 54 years since Eisenhower was elected for his first term ('52), at least one branch of Congress was in hands different than the executive branch, and for my money the years in which that has not been the case (60-68, 76-80, 93-94, and 2001-06) have not been distinguished by great statesmanship or great policy-making. It's something of a cliche, I know, but it's also true -- when the government's divided, everybody is fighting for the Center, and the Center is the place, in my book, where solutions are most likely to be found to most problems (if they can be found at all).
[Welfare reform is probably the best illustration of the phenomenon; Clinton never gets that through a Democratic Congress, because it pisses off too many of the Democrats' core constituents. But they need the Center -- and now, 10 years on, it looks like they've got it -- temporarily, at least].
It is weird -- to me, anyway -- to contemplate that this result is precisely the one that parliamentary systems cannot ever reach (because by definition the executive and legislative branches must all be in the same hands)."
Interesting to say the least... I think I'd rather my party still have control, but that is an optimistic spin on a bad situation.
Labels: Politics
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Cartoon Time!
Thank you Jim Huber...
His prediction has become a reality according to Yahoo news.
"The president joked that he had given House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in line to become the first female speaker of the House, the name of a Republican interior decorator to help her pick out drapes for her new office. The comment was poke at the California Democrat's pre-election remark about having her pick of Capitol suites."
I'm spiraling downward into a deep depression as I wait for our Country to implode. Thank Goodness our Republican President still has Veto power.
His prediction has become a reality according to Yahoo news.
"The president joked that he had given House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in line to become the first female speaker of the House, the name of a Republican interior decorator to help her pick out drapes for her new office. The comment was poke at the California Democrat's pre-election remark about having her pick of Capitol suites."
I'm spiraling downward into a deep depression as I wait for our Country to implode. Thank Goodness our Republican President still has Veto power.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The Day After...
"I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords"
Kidding...
I'm actually sulking a bit right now. It's not official and for the most part we're in for weeks of squabbling, but it appears as if the Dems have gained control of the House, and possibly the Senate. Do I think we're in for worlds of change? No. I really don't. The country is running efficiently and effectively, and I don't foresee any way that Democrat control in the House and Senate can change that. There will be alot of talking, whining and finger pointing, I'm sure.
I still don't get it though... What issues did the Democrats run on this year? Well, besides opposing everything the Republican party does.... That's right, nothing. In the long run, that's not good for the parties future. But it also makes me feel as if the Republicans lost this election as much as the Democrats won it.
Will this "loss" make it easier for Republicans to prevail in the "real" election in 2008? Hopefully Conservatives can spin their unhappiness over the next two years into a "need for change" and put up a good fight in the next elections.
I guess we'll wait and see. And so starts the 2008 race. Go.
Here is a roundup of what everyone else is saying:
This from Michelle Malkin about how Conservatism did not lose...
The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. "San Francisco values" may control the gavels in Congress, but they do not control America.
Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure, passed resoundingly.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP's leading warrior against illegal immigration-- opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open- borders White House-- won a fifth term handily.
Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87-- backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.
John Kerry's late-campaign troop smear galvanized bloggers and talk radio hosts, but it was not strong enough to overcome wider bipartisan voter doubts about Iraq.
And here is a GREAT roundup from Pajamas Media: Links galore that will have you stuck at your desk all day.
... And with all that said I head back to class. Back to Liberal professors and how horribleHitler Bush is. Sometimes I really hate college.
---UPDATE---
I just came across this wonderful piece by Bill Whittle at Eject! Eject! Eject!
He hasn't had much to say as of late, but today he has decided that:
"As for me, I pledge to re-enter the fight with more energy, not less, and to continue to try to make the case I think needs to be made. I'll start on that tomorrow."
And he ends with:
"Welcome to the process of exhausting all other possibilities. This is where we separate the men from the boys. Pick a line and stand in it."
Amen.
Kidding...
I'm actually sulking a bit right now. It's not official and for the most part we're in for weeks of squabbling, but it appears as if the Dems have gained control of the House, and possibly the Senate. Do I think we're in for worlds of change? No. I really don't. The country is running efficiently and effectively, and I don't foresee any way that Democrat control in the House and Senate can change that. There will be alot of talking, whining and finger pointing, I'm sure.
I still don't get it though... What issues did the Democrats run on this year? Well, besides opposing everything the Republican party does.... That's right, nothing. In the long run, that's not good for the parties future. But it also makes me feel as if the Republicans lost this election as much as the Democrats won it.
Will this "loss" make it easier for Republicans to prevail in the "real" election in 2008? Hopefully Conservatives can spin their unhappiness over the next two years into a "need for change" and put up a good fight in the next elections.
I guess we'll wait and see. And so starts the 2008 race. Go.
Here is a roundup of what everyone else is saying:
This from Michelle Malkin about how Conservatism did not lose...
The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. "San Francisco values" may control the gavels in Congress, but they do not control America.
Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure, passed resoundingly.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP's leading warrior against illegal immigration-- opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open- borders White House-- won a fifth term handily.
Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87-- backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.
John Kerry's late-campaign troop smear galvanized bloggers and talk radio hosts, but it was not strong enough to overcome wider bipartisan voter doubts about Iraq.
And here is a GREAT roundup from Pajamas Media: Links galore that will have you stuck at your desk all day.
... And with all that said I head back to class. Back to Liberal professors and how horrible
---UPDATE---
I just came across this wonderful piece by Bill Whittle at Eject! Eject! Eject!
He hasn't had much to say as of late, but today he has decided that:
"As for me, I pledge to re-enter the fight with more energy, not less, and to continue to try to make the case I think needs to be made. I'll start on that tomorrow."
And he ends with:
"Welcome to the process of exhausting all other possibilities. This is where we separate the men from the boys. Pick a line and stand in it."
Amen.
Labels: Politics
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
