...the word of the day is, "HYPOCRITE."
Now don't get me wrong, I think the things Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer) said on stage were reprehensible, disgusting and--frankly--probably indicative of his true feelings or a pretty severe case of bi-polar disorder. He absolutely should apologize, many times over, and his career should suffer.
Whether the hecklers should sue? I don't know, I'm not sure what they hope to gain other than money in their pockets. Punishing this one dufus isn't going to magically improve race relations in this country. It's too easy to say that Richards' comments were off-the-reservation and not indicative of a broader problem, so "raising awareness" isn't really going to do anything.
But where I draw the line is on Al Sharpton taking the moral high ground and refusing the apology. Unless I missed it, I have yet to hear Sharpton apologize for his comments about Jewish "diamond merchants," and "interlopers." I also don't recall him demanding an apology from Jesse Jackson who referred to New York as "Hymietown" and Jews as "Hymies." In fact, he backed Jesse in these comments and said Jesse owed no apology!
Why is it that whenever something like this happens, you can count on the one person who really ought to keep their mouth shut opening it wide in a display of such rank hypocrisy that they become the *new* story, not the problem they *claim* to be highlighting.
I'm referring to Charlie Rangel and the void inside his head obviously.
Conscription for the military or public service would make U.S. leaders more cautious about going to war, Rangel said yesterday on CBS's ``Face the Nation.''``There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,'' said Rangel, who is in line to become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee next year.
If she should change her mind though, I'll be right there suggesting that perhaps she should also consider that perhaps mandatory pregnancy would make people more cautious about having sex out of wedlock (or with minors, or relatives, or in adulterous affairs, or any other situation in which a child would not be a "desirable outcome").
[How do I type a raspberry? One would be so appropriate right about HERE]
...if I were half as smart as I think I am.
Alois finally saw Brokeback Mountain (I still haven't, seen it that is), and he had this to say about it:
I wish I could make more out of it than I did, but ultimately, I saw it as a story of two star-crossed lovers. At the wrong place, and the wrong time, with beautiful scenery.
See, the thing is, I've never really thought much about "gays." As I've said before, it really isn't much of a big deal to me what people want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
As a young man with a fair-to-middling sixpack and David Lee Roth tresses, I got my fair share of propositions from men. But almost invariably, the fellows took it with nothing more than a debonair laugh and a shrug of the shoulders when I expressed my polite disinterest. I really had no reason to "have it in for the fags."
I've had good friends who are gay and still do. And we don't talk about sex, in much the same way that I don't discuss sex with my straight friends except in the most vague, general terms. Sex is something you do in your bedroom with (preferably) someone close to you. It doesn't involve a crowd.
"Brokeback Mountain" is a quiet story, and it would be even quieter if it could be set in a day and age when our adult sexuality was not much of a cause for conversation. And by "conversation" I mean the obsession of the media with sex (most disturbingly as it involves adolescents and preadolescents); the constant drumbeat from those wacko gays who are trying to sell something called the "gay lifestyle"; and most disturbingly, those on the Christian right who rail against homosexuality while leading a closeted gay double life.
Please, people: Ultimately, this should be about love. I am not an apologist for the "gay lifestyle," but I would certainly think that God has bigger things on His mind in this era of terrorist beheadings, the mindless feel-goodism of the left, and the selling of sex to children than whether two people of the same sex fall in love. We keep railing about homosexuality while denying gays the right to live the committed, monogamous lifestyle that we straights like to pretend we do, being the upstanding Godly people that we are. I have certainly known some "married" gay couples whose relationships could serve as shining examples to many of their hetero friends.
So with this said, I leave you with an intriguing review of the "Gay Cowboy Movie" from none other than Christianity Today. Perhaps the day is coming when we can stand back and let Jesus (who never had anything to say about homosexuality) judge the "gay sinners." I think the rest of us would be well-advised to remove the log from our own eyes first.
OK, so I admit it, I hate to sound like Hillary Clinton (no, really, I hate it), but my position on gay marriage has "evolved" over the years. Part of my new view is the result of my belief that there are bigger things to worry about than this, and part of it is the result of my conversion to Christianity. Far from making me less tolerant, it has made me more. It has made me realize that it is really about love.
I think I was so sick of having a "lifestyle" thrust in my face that I reacted by fighting against gay marriage, when it wasn't the marriage that was bugging me, it was the emphasis on sex, and the justification for gay marriage that it shouldn't matter what goes on in the privacy of someone else's bed. Now while that ought to be a no-brainer, the argument should have been (and really is), it shouldn't matter what goes on in the privacy of someone else's HEART. I really feel if it were put that way, more people like me would see the light as well, more people would stop reacting out of frustration with a sex-obsessed culture, and would start reacting out of compassion and empathy.
That's my take on it anyway.
Literally. I mean she's figured out how to walk around on her hands apparently because it's clear that her body is upside down. Because if that was her mouth that spewed forth this excrement, then she's got bigger problems than I thought:
O'Donnell: "Well, you have two choices in life, Elisabeth. Faith or fear. Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country-"Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe-"
O'Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers." [Emphasis mine]
Not all that surprising from a far-left liberal who probably supports abortion-on-demand for any reason, even "mild discomfort" or "cramps from too many third-trimester donut binges."
FAT. WADDLING. HOG.
I can't even stand that woman (she is a woman, isn't she? Hard to tell...She looks like a troll and seems to have the brain of one too).
Should someone tell Rosie that things wouldn't be so "rosie" for her and her WIFE if the un-terrorists she's so UNafraid of had their way. How fast would they try to force their beliefs on her? How fast would she be beheaded or stoned? How fast would it be made abundantly clear to her how far misplaced "tolerance" can go to get the tolerant killed
Useful idiot is too good a term for her. All I know is, when the un-terrorists come calling, let's make sure they have her address. Wouldn't want her to miss out on the chance to give them a big bear hug, especially if they're wearing an explosive belt at the time.
So I'm not the greatest prognosticator since Karnak, what of it?
I still think she *should* have been next to go. I like her and all, she's smart, but she's in way over her head, and frankly (as much as I loathe the feeling that we need to bend to the mysoginistic bigoted ways of the enemy), I don't think the Secretary of State should be a woman, I just don't.
We're not dealing with Europe as our primary focus anymore, or any other region in which gender equality has been reached. Our focus, probably for the better part of this century, will be the Middle East and Gulf region (even the Korean peninsula), and in none of those areas are women taken seriously.
Sad, but true, and reality would be a good thing to face right about now.
Bush expected in the Rose Garden any minute....Possibly to announce another change in his cabinet?
I predict it will be Condi Rice who will go next, and James Baker will take her place.
Let's see if I'm right.......
On Monday, I wrote about my frustration with the Grand Ol' Party in my post entitled The Day After Tomorrow:
It's great that they "get" the threat, relatively speaking, but it's not so great that they refuse to risk their own political hides doing what's really necessary to make this nation stronger.
My loyal reader, Jason Galbraith, correctly inferred from that comment that I wish they were more hawkish, not less, and that I would likely support whichever candidate for President would step up to the plate and deliver the harsh news to the American people that giving peace a chance means sending in MORE GUNS!
To my shock and flattered amazement, Jason then submitted for my review his "Modest Proposal from a Democratic Hawk". It is his list of suggestions, the list he said a hawkish GOP candidate should use during their campaign. He suggests that perhaps--if I agree with them--I could "repackage" them in such a way as to make them more acceptable to the candidate and his (or her) supporters.
So I read his proposal for us, and set about determining whether I agree with each of his points. This is from my gut you understand, mind-numbing exhaustion from being sick and chasing a sick-but-energetic three year-old around all day while trying to care for myself and my also sick 10 month old prevents me from doing the detailed research a thorough evaluation would require...
I'll address each in order, and will bold statements I find particularly intriguing:
1. Reinstate the draft. It is doubtful that the Allies could have won either of the World Wars without introducing conscription. I have long believed that the 20th century politician to whom President Bush most deserves to be compared is not LBJ or Nixon (much less Reagan) but British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, who stepped down two years into World War I, having resisted conscription all the way. As Congressman Mark Udall said at a press event to promote the United States Army Relief Act in July of last year,"Our troop levels should reflect the fact that we are at war.” Yes, he’s a Democrat, but why should this be a partisan issue? In World War II the United States Army was built up to 88 divisions, most of which were needed to prevent the outbreaks of insurgencies in Germany and Japan after those countries were defeated. Nobody stood up then and said, “How are we going to pay all those guys?” (See paragraph 3 for my answer to that question.) We might not have to go that high--only 8% of military age males were drafted during Vietnam, for example (but that war was fought in a relatively less populous region than the Greater Middle East). We have 10 active divisions in the Army today. According to slides viewed by following this link, the Army’s budget for FY 2007 is $111,800,000,000 and the Marines’ budget is $16,800,000,000. This briefing also specifies that this budget is designed to increase the number of active Army brigades by 9, the equivalent of two divisions, so current projections are for the Army to have 12 active divisions--still far from enough. Even the Marine Corps should probably be expanded beyond its current 3 divisions although traditionalists in that force would resist it (I know during World War II there were at least 5 Marine divisions). More about this in paragraph 4. A famous Rand Corporation study of insurgencies from Malaya through Northern Ireland posited that 20 occupiers to every 1,000 population are necessary to frustrate insurgencies. That means if we’re going to invade Iran, which option should probably not be off the table, we need to dedicate 1,400,000 soldiers and Marines to the occupation.
I would take it a step further though and suggest that a new draft focus not soley on numbers, but skills as well. The enemy we face today is technically sophisticated. Even Taliban fighters and Osama Bin Laden's lackies sit around on laptops coming up with new and different ways of waging their asymmetrical war with us. For us to simply draft young men and women of a certain minimum and maximum age to increase our "troop strength" in terms of numbers alone would be a mistake, I think. I think it would be entirely reasonable to also include people already proficient in computer technology, telecommunications, energy production and management, and probably some fields I'm forgetting that would be equally helpful in a war of this sort.
See, I just don't see us advancing on the ground in long green lines against tanks and infantry. Sure, it could happen, and as long as that's the case, we have to be prepared for it I just don't think it will happen that way. I think it will play out more like this:
Now why did I say no to a larger military to fight Al Qaeda-like terrorists? Well, it's kinda obvious, no? They have no army, they aren't using "might" or "numbers" to attack us, they are using stealth, infiltration, propaganda, psy-ops and, well, duhr, they are using TERROR! We have misused the word for so long, treating it as if it is the enemy istead of a tactic used by the enemy, that we've forgotten that "more" soldiers won't help against an enemy looking for bigger slower targets to hit!
This has been my gripe about the naysayers on the left who used the "not enough troops" mantra to simultaneously lend credibility to their claim that they "support the troops," and to build their case for getting out of Iraq immediately. "More" might have quelled an insurgency of native-born Iraqis early on, but no longer. The insurgents are fighting like terrorists now, using the same tactics, hiding in the shadows, using death squads and suicide bombs to create strife and ignite a civil war. Our troops are sitting ducks right in the middle of it all. A larger footprint would only get more of them killed (in my humble opinion).
The same is true with terrorists in any nation we would call enemy. Does anyone remember the bombing of the marine barracks? Soldiers have to sleep somewhere, and when there are hundreds of thousands of them, they're easier to spot. The Romans never figured this out, and look what happened to them. They sent conscripts to fight wars far from home against terroristic barbarian enemies, and they were defeated. Just because a mountain lion is larger and stronger than a scorpion doesn't mean the scorpion can't defeat him. The same is true here. Just like the scorpion, this enemy will crawl in the dark warmth of our shoes (or our civil-rights-obsessed country) and wait to sting us, and if we're not careful, we too will be defeated.
Which brings me to my final point on the draft/military enlargement solution. While I agree that in order to leave all options on the table, a draft is a must, I wouldn't advocate that a GOP candidate do the hard sell on it just yet. I would, however, suggest that he work overtime to convince Americans that we are, in fact, AT WAR, a precondition for support of the draft anyway, and the chief reason (in my opinion) that we aren't winning. I can assure you, there wasn't a man woman or child alive during World War II who thought we were facing essentially a "law-enforcement problem." I'm pretty sure captured German prisoners were not allowed attorneys, nor were there Americans arguing that they should be. And I'm reasonably sure political leaders weren't bending over backwards to refer to the non-Nazi Germans, or the "Japanese non-combattant people" as "peaceful," never mind "innocent." We were more than content to lock them up, bomb the bejeezus out of them and intern them, draft or no draft, and THAT my dear Jason is the missing link here. Before we can get the American people to vote for anyone, from either side of the aisle, who supports a draft, we have to convince them that they are, in fact, in danger, and I don't mean in danger of being bombed, I mean in danger of extinction. That's a tough nut to crack, especially with a people so woefully ignorant of world history and so obsessed with multi-cultural romanticism that they often willfully refuse to see reality even as it splatters its guts all over them.
Which brings me at long long long last to Jason's next suggestion:
2. Announce a policy of nuclear retaliation for 9/11 type attacks. I could hear the wheels turning in your head as I wrote the last sentence of paragraph 1. They ground out something along the lines of, “By this calculus, if we were to simply incinerate 20,000,000 Iranians we would need 400,000 fewer troops.” The Iranians, however, have not provided us with a pretext. Contributing to anti-Western proxies in Lebanon and other places is not enough. If it were the Russians would have launched a first strike while Brezhnev was still premier in response to American support for anti-Soviet insurgents, and we can’t play by more debased rules than they did. Sadly, I believe the window for using nuclear weapons in response to 9/11 itself is past. President Bush’s decision to leave STRATCOM on 9/11 without ordering nuclear release enabled the problem to migrate from southern Afghanistan to northwest Pakistan, itself a nuclear power. Also, to use nuclear weapons in either country now would be an admission that five years of fighting the Taliban toe-to-toe had been a mistake or wasted. Certainly, had the United States been a nuclear power on December 7, 1941, we would have deployed nuclear weapons against Japan before January 1, 1942, and we will have that opportunity again on the very day of the next major attack. But will there be another major attack? Nobody really expects that the next attack to result in loss of life on U. S. soil will be as big as 9/11; it may be a pinprick. It’s the attacks in between 9/11 and a pinprick that present a dilemma. My personal belief is that an attack as big as the 7/7 attack in London (52 innocents dead) justifies the incineration of a country, preferably the one the majority of the attackers came from. (If they’re homegrown, of course, as the 7/7 plotters were, self-immolation is no solution.)
I also agree that we must publicly announce our zero-tolerance of terrorist attack policy forthwith. Now. Today. Not tomorrow, not the next day, TODAY. And we have to be crystal clear that there is no such thing as a real "home-grown" terrorist. Whoever came up with that term should be SHOT. No one who would do that on their native soil has a right to call it his "home," first of all, second of all, no two-bit store clerk or engineering student has the funding or the access to training or weaponry himself to pull off an attack the likes of the 7/7 bombings. All that came from places no Englishman (or American) would happily call "home," so let's stop calling them that. Let's call them what they are: TRAITORS, SPIES, PARTISANS, DEAD MEN WALKING. Pick your favorite, or use them all, I don't care, but when they are discovered before they can carry out their dasterdly deeds, they should be subject to trial, but when found guilty, summarily shot, in the public square. If for no other reason than to let the people see the smug self-satisfied face of their enemy as he takes his last pathetic breath on this earth, and then maybe they'll have a sense of the death-worship they are up against.
And once people do "get" this, it should be easier for them to support the unapologetic announcement that any such attack successfully carried out will be met with immediate retaliation against the nation "presumed" to be the source of the funding and material support for the mission. The President "said" those who support terrorists are just as bad as the terrorists themselves, but what he failed to do was live up to that statement. Instead, he has taken an equivacation (purposely misspelled). That's a term I just coined to refer to where your brain goes when you've decided that war has to be faught only with the individual "bad guys" and not with the cultures and populations that produced them. As I said, during WWII we didn't do this. We didn't care if the people of Hiroshima were loyal to Tojo or not, we incinerated them all regardless. It may sound cruel, but THAT--not the lack of a draft--is the real difference between our ability to win then and our inability to do so today.
3. Raise taxes, or at least sell war bonds. We are financing our present war effort by borrowing from China and a few other Asian countries that run trade surpli with us. This is not acceptable. In World War II the top marginal tax rate was 90%; by the time of Vietnam it had only fallen to 70%. Gas taxes should certainly be raised to levels comparable to tobacco taxes to encourage the use of more fuel-efficient, even zero-emission, cars, thereby reducing the amount of money going to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Personally, I think income taxes should be raised only on those making the President’s salary ($400,000) each year, or more. This will not raise the required amount of money by itself – see paragraph 4 – which is why every Federal civil servant should be made to understand that their promotion depends on selling war bonds to their neighbors who can afford them. In this way we would be borrowing money primarily from ourselves, as we did in World War II.
4. Be realistic about the amount that must be spent. Let’s take the number $250,000,000,000, a quarter trillion dollars, and start out by doubling what the Marines have to $33,600,000,000 (which should enable them to have 6 rather than 3 divisions). That leaves $233,200,000,000 to plow into the Army, which should enable them to triple the number of active divisions over what’s currently projected, to 36. To fill those divisions, refer to paragraph 1. We’re also going to need to spend a lot more on reconstruction of the countries we invade – I should think another $80,000,000,000 a year would be the equivalent in current dollars of the Marshall Plan. In Iraq, up to two-thirds of reconstruction funds have been expended on security, but hopefully having enough troops from the get-go would mean that the insurgency would never reach the levels currently seen in Iraq. If not, add another $160,000,000,000 to make sure $80,000,000,000 is actually spent on the projects.
Agree with everything you say, honestly, it just has as much chance of selling--especially to a GOP audience--as a pulled-pork sandwich to pilgrims in Mecca during Ramadan. And you know the bleeding-heart wing of the Democratic party would bleat out "We should be spending that on our own people, for free healthcare and birth-to-death entitlements, not on killing babies in far away culturally interesting places!"
But in principle, I agree, if a draft could be sold to the people, both raising taxes and selling war bonds would be the best ways to pay for it.
Look, I don't want you to think I'm totally against the draft at all costs, I'm not. I do see some value to reinstating the draft if only for psychological impact. It can have the effect of uniting the country against a common enemy, of investing each and every citizen in the war's outcome, certainly moreso than we are now, when we treat it as yet another depressing reality show we'd like to see cancelled. I just think we need to first attend to the preconditions, to the "repackaging" of the war itself, before we touch the draft never mind the huge taxes that will be needed to pay for it.
As for the gas tax increase, this worries me. I agree that we need to do something about our energy dependence, but taxing people seems a bit counter-productive. Nothing turns a country more sour on its leadership--whoever they may be--faster than paying huge prices at the pump. And we Americans are spoiled by cheap gas pure and simple. If we had to pay what Europeans pay, we'd rush to the polls to vote anyone and everyone out of office, you can bet your life savings on that one!
No, I think we need to push hard for energy independence, in particular for alternative fuels, and not only because of the middle east. Our environment is at a tipping point. I hate to go all Al Gore on everyone, but it is, global warming or not. Our consumption of fossil fuels is having an impact on more than just the air around us, it's affecting the soil beneath us and the water around us (and the fish in the water too). Whatever we're doing to the climate, we ARE upsetting the balance of the natural world that sustains us, and if we're not careful, nuclear fallout may be the least of our worries. This is where a rational Democrat needs to step up to the plate if you don't mind my saying so, perhaps someone with actual scientific credentials (not one who pretends to have them in a movie of his own production). And if we can stop raping the Earth, I believe that she (and God, don't laugh, I'm serious) will repay us tenfold by giving us a weaker enemy to fight! Our refusal to do what is right on this front is only strengthening the "devil" that wages war against us, and it's high time all of us--GOP especially--realized it. I think Bush "gets" this too, but he lacks the ability to communicate the seriousness of the issue and is hamstrung by his own party's unwillingness to "own" any of the problem. Make no mistake about it, nothing would hurt Iran and the rest of the wackos more than ditching oil in favor of fryer grease, nuclear power, even cleaner-burning coal technology. And if we don't do this? Mark my words, within the next ten years, we will have serious shortages of power, fuel, even some kinds of food (particularly seafood) and no one to blame but ourselves. And then the problem will be magnified by those who--in a desperate attempt to remedy the problem on their own--take to chopping down trees by the tens of thousands to burn them for HEAT!
As for your last two points, that we should appeal to the GOP base by promising to match Bush's record of countries liberated by invading the two most "anti-American" countries in the first two years of our candidate's term, and that we should implement Fareed Zakaria's ideas on Iraq, I can only say NO, and YES.
No to the first because I still don't think pre-emptive invasion works. I just don't. But then again what we did in Iraq, I believe, was NOT pre-emptive. We were in a 12 year stalemate situation with a man who'd never lived up to his end of a cease-fire agreement AND was bragging around that he had stockpiles of WMD, ready to distribute to the highest bidder (perhaps). I didn't feel then, and I don't feel now, that there was any responsible alternative but to go in and finish the job we should have finished long ago with Saddam. What I didn't sign up for, and apparently neither did the rest of the country, was some adventure in nation-building! Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a noble goal, and if it could have worked, it would have improved our situation in the war against Islamic extremists, but it was not what we all signed up for, and it sure as hell wasn't what we were prepared for--economically, emotionally or tactically!
Which brings me to Fareed's suggestions. I think they are well worth a try. We are there, we have to try something, and what he puts forth is as good a place to start as any. I would also remind people (and you) that it is a myth that the Marshall Plan was a model for "nation building" as it should be done. First of all, no nations were "built" they were "rebuilt." They had some history of "nationhood" in the first place, Iraq? Not so much. It is and always has been an artificial creation, a line-drawing on a map, created by and for people living very far away from the day-to-day struggles of the people they called "Iraqis."
Add to that the fact that Europe--Germany in particular--was Christian, and not Muslim. Now before anyone starts screaming at me that I'm a racist or something, hear me out. I think we need to accept the possibility (for me it's a probability bordering on certainty) that Islam and democracy as we know it are inherently incompatible. This is especially true of the "version" of Islam currently mobilized against us, in words as well as deeds. To think we could invade Syria and the Sudan--the former being a place so utterly dependent on the largesse of Islamic nations, despite having a relatively secular culture themselves, and the latter being so radicalized they think it's perfectly acceptable to rape young girls before lopping off their heads, just because they are black, or just because they are not the "right" kind of Muslim--and "liberate" anyone is just folly. I might as well try to teach my dog to speak English or vote, it's not going to happen, period.
I realize that sounds pessimistic, but I think it's time for a little lesson in our own history, the part that came before WWI or WWII. We did not become what we are overnight, nor did we become what we are by force or through any outside influence. No artificial construct of any kind gave birth to us, we "evolved" in the truest sense of the term, and the process was no less ugly than what it might look like if you got to live long enough to watch the fish "walk" up on the land (and vice versa, in the case of dolphins, but I digress...). Fits and starts and violence and civil war and ethnic strife and economic hardship, these are what you'd see. But ask people today and you get a romanticized vision of us as this "United we Stand, Divided We Fall" group of people who have always been thus! It just isn't so! And we were a largely Christian nation, not Muslim, which means that we began with the premise (in words if not in deeds always) that all men are created equal, and that forgiveness is divine, not to mention the stuff about separation of church and state and all! Islam IS the state for the truly faithful. For someone to say he or she is Muslim and American is akin to someone telling you she is a faithful Catholic who's twice divorced with children from each marriage. You can be one or the other, but not both, except in your own mind.
Not that I'm devaluing the loyal Muslim Americans amongst us, they are out there, plenty of them, they just bear no more resemblance to the Muslims fighting us and their supporters--who I believe are the vast majority of those loyal to the faith in the rest of the world--than I do. It's vital that we get that clear, I think. As long as we refer to it as "the religion of Peace," we will never "get" it as a nation. It would be like the Romans referring to the Goths as a "culture of peace" simply because the peasants in their villages weren't taking up arms against Rome's authority. It's ludicrous, seriously!
I have no idea if this is at all what you wanted or hoped for in a response, but it's what I came up with, unedited, unfiltered and unapologetic. It does no one any good for me to pretend I feel otherwise about these issues, right? Just as I think it would do no candidate I'd support any good either.
But as I said, before he, or I, or anyone can convince the American people to vote for a real hawk of either persuasion in '08, the American people have to grow some talons, wings and beaks themselves!
You know, raptors, birds of prey, hunt their food by sight. Most people don't know this and are surprised by it because the birds fly so high off the ground when they hunt, but it's true. Their eyesight is excellent. Without it, it wouldn't matter how sharp their talons or beaks were, and it wouldn't matter how fast they could move in for the kill. So must it be with us. We must first see the enemy, and not as a cute innocent or desperate little mouse, but as the thing we must destroy in order to survive.
The American people have spoken, the question is, what have they said?
The Democratic leadership says we've "sent a message" to the President about the war in Iraq (i.e., we hate it, want it to stop, never wanted in the first place, etc...). They neglect of course to reflect on the fact that most of them voted to support the operation in the first place, and continued to vote to fund it all these years as well. They further neglect to reflect on the small-but-significant number of races that ended in Republican defeat in decidedly GOP territory, where voter dissatisfaction may have had as much to do with corruption, scandal, write-in-confusion and profligate spending as with dove-like loathing of the war in Iraq.
But what about the message being sent to the extreme left? There were Democrats who lost their seats too. Not as many, to be sure, but some, and those who gained were--practically to a man--centrists. The not-so-subtle message to my ears was "Come back from the brink Ms. Pelosi, we're giving you the rope, just please don't hang our party with it, 'mmmmkay?"
And finally, what about the Republican voters and the message they sent yesterday? Sure, we turned out, we always do! Everyone expects that we will, we're the most informed block of voters in the nation, despite being so busy at work that we aren't home when the pollsters call. But we didn't come our yesterday as we usually do. We didn't show up to vote for parental notifcation in California, and we didn't show up in strong enough numbers in our own stronghold of Missouri to defeat the embryonic stem cell initiative that goes against everything we usually hold dear, the protection of innocent life itself.
Yes, the American people have spoken, but it would be a mistake to sum up what we've said as "It's the war stupid."
Don't get me wrong, it is the war that has most Americans pissed at the administration, but what I fear is that the Democrats will take these results and lump our anger all into one bucket and call it "anti-war sentiment," and I believe nothing could be further from accurate.
Yes, plenty of people voted against the war altogether yesterday, but plenty--especially those in traditionally pro-military, pro-war areas--were probably voting against the way the war is being faught! Some of us want to win, and not just in Iraq either. Iraq is the Sudetenland for us. Losing it would merely give the Mullahs in Iran more "lebensraum" in which to plot their "final solution to the Jewish (and Western) problem."
Some of us "get" this, and some of us are frustrated at what appears to be an administration brave enough and far-sighted enough to see the forest and enter it willingly, but not bright enough to avoid bumping into the tree trunks as they pass through.
With Rumsfeld gone, it would appear that the President has heard at leat this part of the message, now the question is will Rummy's replacement hear it too, and will the Democrats in power now stop campaigning for '08 long enough to realize it's been sent?
From Pete, the genius a.k.a Alois:
11/07/06:
DON'T VOTE TODAY... if you don't have a clue.
Don't vote today if all you are saying is "give peace a chance"—unless you can tell me what you plan to do to fight Islamofascism. It's not going to go away just because you throw daisies at it.
Don't vote today if you think Jacques Kerrique is funny or cute. He isn't. He's dangerous and un-American.
Don't vote today if you don't think the Iraqis deserve to hang Saddam for what he did to them. Don't vote today if you think we shouldn't be able to lock up illegal combatants at Guantanamo Bay (read the Geneva Conventions if that sticks in your craw).
Go protest something. Anything. But stay away from the polls, because children can't vote.
What he said.
Here I sit on the Monday before the mid-term elections wondering how to feel. Part of me is quaking in fear of the spectre of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House--three heartbeats from the Presidency--and Harry Reid as Senate majority leader (egads, it is too horrible to contemplate).
Another part of me is saying "Have at it! Take the next two years to do as much damage as you can so sanity can prevail in 2008!"
Because let's face it kiddos, there are two things that can happen:
If they lose power, for sure they'll blame Bush, the war, AND the Democrats, but they still won't do anything constructive, so what does it matter?
Meanwhile, if the Dems. win, there will be a tug-of-war in their party over whether to impeach Bush or not. This will distract them long enough that they won't get much of their own agenda in front of the President, and whatever they do succeed in putting before him, he is likely to veto anyway, so who cares? Oh sure, they'll blame him and the GOP come '08, but if the GOP is smart, they won't publicly fight too much except over impeachment (where a fight is the only sane response, and what all GOP base voters would expect), but they'll still quietly vote against whatever the Dems want so come '08 they can cite that record of loyalty to the party when they're running.
So back to my original point, it's sort of a win-win (or lose-lose, depending upon how you look at it) either way. It is highly unlikely that the GOP will keep both houses, come blazing into office with a radical new successful way to extract us from Iraq with our image intact, to secure the borders and deal with the immigration mess, to stop the march towards human cloning in the form of embryonic stem cell research, and a way to save social security with private savings accounts. They've had 6 years to get that shit done, and they have FAILED.
Let's face it, things on the terror front have to get worse--way worse--before we'll get some leaders with the nads to step up and do what's right, before we realize as a nation (not just 49.9 or 51% or whatever the margin for error is today) that we are at WAR with RADICAL ISLAM. And until we do wake up, it's all just noise, posturing and nonsense we're hearing from cowards on both sides of the aisle.
I truly believe that a Dhimmicrap win tomorrow (or next month, after the recounts, challenges and lawsuits are over) will just mean that their chances of annointing that socialist BITCH Clinton as our new "Supreme People's Leader" are slim-to-none.
As happy as I would be about that, I will still feel empty somehow, still feel frustrated and let down by my own party, the party of Lincoln, the party that stubbornly refuses to do more than ONE thing right lately. It's great that they "get" the threat, relatively speaking, but it's not so great that they refuse to risk their own political hides doing what's really necessary to make this nation stronger.
I'll still vote for GOP candidates because, well, what the hell choice do I have--it's truly the lesser of two evils at this point. But if things don't go my way, I now have a way to look at it that will comfort me, the day AFTER tomorrow.
Well, not exactly, but file this under "News of the Weird" at least!
OK, so hubby and I went out to dinner tonight--at a restaurant that was
like third on our list to try, we couldn't get in the other places,
too busy. And mind you, we hardly EVER go out either. We're sitting
there eating our appetizers, having a nice conversation when all of a
sudden I hear the words "Keith Larson show (voice trails off...)."
Then I heard "...was doing an interview with some columnist from the
Observer on Wednesday (voice trails off)."
By now I'm in full-blown eavesdropping mode. I just had a *feeling* I
should listen more closely. Then I heard "...caller of the week, man
she was great!"
OK, now I have turned completely around in my chair and am practically
staring at these people, partly in shock, partly to lip-read so I can
confirm that I'm not hallucinating. Sure enough, the guy repeated
himself and said "He called her the call of the week and he was
right!"
As crazy as this sounds, I couldn't help myself, I stood up and walked
over and said "I'm sorry for eavesdropping on your conversation, but I
think you might be talking about me."
The three diners--one man, two women--said "You're DEB?!" Oh man, that
was great! You got her good!"
Then the wife said (pointing to her husband) "He's been talking about
that call all week! It was great, you were so well-spoken, it was so
refreshing to hear someone sticking up for the military! Kids today
(they were all in their late 60s I'd guess) don't know their history!"
Then the other woman said "If the Democrats had their way there'd BE
no 'United States of America!'"
To which I replied "Well, there'd be no 'states' that's for sure!
They'd like to do away with the electoral college and have NYC, LA,
Chicago and Detroit decide elections, and I say that as someone who
grew up in New York!"
To which they responded "SO DID WE!"
It was hilarious! There I was, the 40-going-on-65-year-old, yuckin' it
up with my ideological compatriots, having a blast and feeling so damn
good that my words not only resonated with these people, they cheered
them up, made their day--or their week as the man claimed anyway. I
can't remember feeling more proud of anything not involving my
children.
But how random is that? How bizarre, that in a city of over half a
million people, a solid 15 min from my house, in a restaurant I hadn't
even planned to visit, I was seated two tables away from people who
not only heard me on the radio, they thought enough of it to make
dinner conversation about it--on a SATURDAY NIGHT!
Ryan says it's a "sign." I'm not sure of what exactly, but I'll spend
the next couple of days trying to figure that out, and if I do, you'll
be the first to know!
All I know now is I'm going to bed with a big self-satisfied grin on
my face, and wondering if maybe, just maybe, there are enough kindred
spirits out there in the electorate that Tuesday won't be the dark day
I've been fearing.
(Hey, I said "maybe," a girl can dream, right?)
So today I had my five minutes of fame. I was the "call of the week" on a local talk radio show for which there IS NO "call of the week!"
Here's the skinny:
Local entertainment reporter Tonya Jameson was the guest on the Keith Larson show on WBT. She was taking the position that John Kerry didn't botch a joke, he at least subliminally "meant" what he said the other day, but he was (get this) RIGHT!
Yes, you read that correctly. She said he had a point, that not doing well in school could land you in the military and if you ended up there for that reason, you would be sent to Iraq.
Let's review shall we?
You + poor grades = career in the military
Career in the military/your poor grades = one-way ticket to Iraq (and by implication, death and misery)
Got that?
Meanwhile, in her private Idaho, if you have a college degree and become an officer, you can avoid going to Iraq because, well, you did well in school. Bush doesn't want your guts splattered on the side of a humvee, just the guts of those too stupid to "do their homework."
OK, now that we're clear, I hope you can understand the instant sensation of total revulsion that I had for this woman. Not only was she WRONG about who gets sent to Iraq, or how educated they are (or aren't), she was wrong about the kind of war it is! She's using the tired ol' Vietnam war analogy, despite never mentioning that war by name. She's assuming that the men and women over there today are merely cannon-fodder, and that as in Vietnam, our current leaders are happy to send the lowliest amongst us to be killed because, well, they're not that bright anyhow, why not?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So I decided to tell her so, in so many words, publicly and audibly, in front of thousands of my fellow citizens, hopeful that some would agree with me and would see her and her opinion (and the opinion that I'm sure is shared by the coctail-party set in the Democratic party, the people who sneer at those who join the military when they think no one is looking or listening) as the inane ramblings of a coward and a moron, as I did.
Here's the pod-cast for your listening pleasure. Let me know how you think I did representing the forces of good and reason!
No, I'm not dead. I'm here. Been super busy, lots of family stuff, and to be honest, the news has been so dense, so much to talk about, I didn't know how to get back on! I felt like Marlin trying to hop aboard the East Australian Current as it whizzed by!
But I'm about to try with my very next post.....