We voted you in to get spending, and government under control. I have no doubt that you will go hard at it. Please remember that what you are doing is not an academic exercise. Every decision you make, every cut you make, will have effect on real people. Real people understand that big things have to be done in order for us to recover. Real people also tend not to be political wonks. Don't forget to explain what you are doing, and why. You will have support for the sacrifices you ask of us if you explain clearly every step of your actions. It's your game. Make it your message. Godspeed.

 

Many have argued for letting openly gay people serve in the military.  It's an argument to be expected from the left.  Others, like Joe Lieberman and Charles Krauthammer make the argument that times and attitudes have changed.  They have changed, but that is not a relevant argument when it comes to the military. 

Both the right and the left argue that not allowing openly gay members in the military is discrimination.  It is.  The military routinely discriminates against people for the sake of readiness.  If you are to fat, to tall, to old, disabled, a criminal...you probably will not be able to serve. 

How is the military’s readiness argument valid when it comes to gays serving?  In the same way  that their argument against the integration of women more fully into the military was valid.  In the 70's and 80's there was a big push by some in congress to have women serve on ships, in the field, and in all "non-combat" roles.  While rarely hear much about how that has worked out, there have been many problems.  They range from the very serious problems of sexual assault and pregnancy, to the less tangible problems of fraternization, distraction, and sexual tension,  all things that impact readiness and distract a command from its mission. 

Gender is not an issue in an office or in a hospital, but consider the age group that does the bulk of the fighting.  You have taken 17 to 25  year old service members at the height of their sex drive and put them in close quarters on ships, overseas, and in little field tents.  In spite of the military having re-outfitted commands to accommodate both sexes, there is no way to avoid the problems. While pregnancy and tension might not be a problem for a summer camp, it is a definite problem for the military.  The question is not whether women can do the job.  Of course they can.  The question is whether the job gets done as efficiently and safely as it might otherwise be done minus men and women crammed together on tin cans and in tents.

We go to great lengths to keep birthing for men and women separate.  While we may share two man tents, open bay birthing, and open bay showers, at least men and women have their own.  Now into this mix of hormones and no privacy, you wish to throw openly gay members?  Surely even the most obtuse can see where there will be problems. As one example:  Will the openly gay members be quartered with the gender that they are attracted to?  If you can not put men and women together, why would you put men attracted to men together? 

DADT works because it gives gay men and women the option to serve if they make the CHOICE to keep their sexual preference to themselves.  Since serving in the military is a choice, I don't see how this is not a good compromise.  In all my years in the military I never saw a command go after someone because they thought the member was gay.  I have seen gay members use their preference as a way to leave the military.  Fair enough.  It's not for everyone.

I realize that we have a military overseen by civilians.  In most ways that's a good thing, but the civilians, especially those who have not served, need to understand that we are not an organization of rabid homophobes.  We are serving by choice in what are very often difficult living circumstances.  We know how we live and we accept it.  We also know what adds to the stress of the life we have chosen.  Many of the things that cause stress are unavoidable.  Allowing openly gay people to serve is not unavoidable.  We have a compromise in place that is working.  Rather than pushing the agenda of a small group, you might want to consider the needs of the people who are willing to stand between you and chaos.  Put our needs first and we will keep doing what we do.

And hey politicians...if you get the chance, go spend a night or two on a ship or in the field with the troops.  Get some firsthand exposure to how we live.  When you have done that, if you can come back and explain how adding a 3rd/4th 'gender' to those conditions is a good thing, I'll have more respect for your position.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

You can hardly say that he was unconcerned about the population, yet he knew that the government "fixing" things led to more thing needing fixed.  He also understood that the government produced and earned nothing.  You can do nothing without first taking from the people. 

If you are having a hard time understanding the people who oppose you, I have a list of reading material that might help.  You can start with reading the constitution. That would be the Constitution of The United States.  If you have trouble understanding that, try the Federalist Papers, and other writings of the founders.  Let me know when you are done, because there are many more recommended readings, and I can make you a list.

We are not the radical fringe.  I know it comforts you to label us that way.  What we are, is  the WE in We The People. We the people were admonished by the founders to keep control of our government.  Through our own lack of attention we failed to do this.  If you and your young president have done anything for us, it is to wake us up to our failings.  For that, We thank you.

 

Dear Sirs,

Yesterday, in a discussion of town hall behavior, you both suggested that we be civil in our discussions with our representatives.  You admonished us to keep our protests and shouts outside the meetings.  Normally, I would agree with you.  We should all, always try to be civil. 

In this case, I can not be "civil".  Our leaders are lying to us.  Our representatives, and I use that term loosely, are trying to shove programs down our throat that we do not want;  programs that are not American, constitutional, or needed.  They have the microphone.  They have the numbers.  They have most of the press.  When we talk to them, they do not listen.  Since they will not listen when we talk, we yell.  That does seem to get their attention!

The first letters and complaints to King George were very civil.  They didn't accomplish much.  Because the people were not listened to, they began to protest.  When the protests didn't work, we had a revolution.  Perhaps our current representative should take a lesson from history?

V/R

Rider237

 

WE THE PEOPLE having determined that the state of our Union is in danger; having come to the understanding that we have failed in our primary responsibility to require our government to be accountable to THE PEOPLE; and seeing that our constitution, the founding document of our republic, is being ignored by our government; propose a new revolution. 

REMEMBERING that we were admonished by our founders to be ever vigilant against big government; we propose first, that our representatives reject the current move toward massive taxation and growth of federal government. If they fail to respond to our demand for reform, we propose that the people take a tax holiday. If our representatives no longer respond to the people, the people are being taxed without representation. We have the right and the duty to stand against them, and against further taxation.

WE further propose that the time our representatives spend in Washington be limited until such time as our representatives can be replaced by new elections. The time will be no more than three months out of each fiscal year. The remainder of the year to be spent with the people they represent in their home districts or states. They may continue to draw a full salary, but except in national emergency will not be able to legislate, hold hearings, or spend our money. They will not have taxpayer funded travel, meals, or other perks that they enjoy while in Washington. National emergency will be defined as an attack on the US, major national disaster, major international crisis, excluding current fiscal crisis.

ALL current increases in spending will be frozen. Until such time as our current representatives respond to the demands of the people, or until current representatives can be replaced, the government will operate on the budget from the last fiscal year. No more monies will be spent to bail out companies, countries, or other entities. 

President Obama, having been duly elected by the people, is to remain president providing he can satisfy questions regarding his citizenship. President Obama is NOT authorized to spend the peoples money. He may submit his budget request to congress understanding that they are operating under the above constraints. 

The revolution will be considered successful when the elected representatives demonstrate that they remember for whom they actually work. We remain hopeful that this will happen quickly and that no further actions will be required by WE THE PEOPLE.

V/R

The Bitter Clingers

   i am a great believer in kinetic warfare.  9 times out of 10, if you throw enough bombs and troops at a country, you will win the war in short order.  winning quickly and decisively is always good for us, and for the country being conquered.  get it done and get on with putting things back together.  yes, i know, it doesn't always work out that way.  it's not even the goal anymore, but it should be.

 what is that 10th time?  it is Afghanistan.  the 1st problem is that we are not out to conquer the country.  probably a good thing.  no one has ever done it.  Alexander The Great came closest, but in fact was successful in leasing trade routes in exchange for infrastructure improvements and a lot of money.  our goals?  root out the Taliban.  deny safe haven for the islamic radicals.  win the hearts and minds of the people.  how much of this can be done by throwing more troops into the mix?  not much.

 the fighting season in Afghanistan is 6 months, more or less.  nasty weather keeps even the natives hunkered down for the other 6.  our troops spend the time doing what troops do.  they plan, resupply, plan, wait.  the bad guys do much the same.  they have some advantage.  they know the territory.  they have bad guy friends.  they dig in, refortify, resupply, plan.  in the spring, it all starts over again.

 meanwhile, the radical islamists hole up over the border.  they plan, resupply, communicate with each other, plan, refinance, scout our troops, plan.....

 the people do as they have always done.  they make the best deals they can make with whomever they can make them.  they have no political allegiance except to the tribe.  the survival of the tribe is everything. 

 CW advises more troops to subdue the bad guys.  CW is wrong.  this is not a problem to be solved with 500lb bombs or more boots on the ground.  this is truly a bottom up situation.  the power in Afghanistan is with tribal leaders.  fail to reach them with a good deal, and you fail in the endeavor.  if ever there were a place for tree hugging, peace loving, NGO types, Afghanistan is the place. 

  granted, those UN and NGO types object to being shot at.  troops would be needed to protect them, maybe more troops, but not troops to crawl around in the mountains hunting bad guys.  use them to protect construction projects, and co-operative tribal leaders.  build public schools and pay locals to do public works projects.  build and staff clinics.  train teachers and medical people.  lavish good stuff on those who share intel and expel the bad guys. 

 yes, all of this has been done with some success, but the programs need to expand and blanket the country. 

 the Taliban and UBL succeeded in Afghanistan by intimidation and by spreading the wealth.  we can succeed by empowerment and spreading the wealth.  part of that empowerment will come from allowing tribal justice when bad guys are caught.  rather than taking a spy and exporting him to GITMO, he/she should be turned over to the tribal leader for "trial" and punishment.  this country may be backward, but its people are not stupid.  they will understand that it is to their benefit to co-operate.  we do not need them to be our friends, but we need them to be our allies.  if we have to buy that co-operation, so be it. it worked for Alexander the Great!

 we will be there forever.  it can either be a military quagmire, or a political project.  the choice is ours.

i looked back and it's been over a year since i have written.  my political emotions have bounced between momentary despair and sustained apathy.  my party has broken faith with me and with all other conservatives.  now they offer McCain as our savior.  he reaches out to us with a well greased hand.

even so, if he is the nominee, i'll suck it up and vote for him.  why?  because of the supreme court.  there will most likely be two seats up.  while a president may serve for 8 years, a supremes are for life.  the impact of the court will live on long after the administration is gone.  there are also all the other federal judges that will be appointed.

this is a painful decision.  it is a betrayal of my own beliefs.  still, i must believe that those McCain would put forward would be better for the future of the country, than those Obama or Clinton would nominate.

....and that's all i have to say about that.

Several weeks ago, a satellite followed the suspicious activities of an older, slightly portly, American in Iraq.  The man was observed removing something from under a construction trailer and heading across country toward the border of Iran.  Upon reaching the border, he removed what appeared to be some papers from his sock, and stuffed them between two rocks.  He then marked the place with a small white flag and returned to Baghdad.  He boarded a plane and left the country.  The plane bore the markings BCHC 4144.  The FAA will not confirm the ownership of the plane.

Fortunately, the papers were intercepted before they could be picked up by the intended receiver.  The following is the text of what turned out to be a letter:

Dear insurgents,

We wanted to thank you for  helping us get back in power.  We wanted you to know that your efforts will not go unrewarded.  Already, we are letting our president know in no uncertain terms, how stupid we think he is.  We have a number of non-binding resolutions pending.  These ought to get his attention.

Through our control of most of the media, we have been able to convince many Americans that the cause in Iraq is lost.  We have also been able to convince them that Iraq is not related to the so called "War on Terrorism".   Most Americans are convinced that we can withdraw from Iraq and it will have no lasting consequences.    We know that if we give you all that you have asked for, you will be grateful and there will be no more attacks on the US.  We believe that we have convinced most Americans of this also.

You may have heard that Rush Limbaugh and FOX news are against you, and are trying to convince people of danger.  Please do not worry.  We are pretty sure that no one listens to them.

While it is probably not necessary to communicate our support to you directly...... we know you watch our news and follow our politics, we wanted to give you our personal assurances that if you can just hang in there, Americans will be out  of Iraq soon and it will be all yours.

Please share this with your friends.  We want them to know our good intentions.

Sincerely,

The Democrat Party and Chuck Hagel

note...there is some question about the meaning of the little white flag.  It may have been left as a marker, but some have expressed the opinion that it has a double meaning known only to the intended receiver.

CAIR is encouraging Muslims who fly, to report to them any "discrimination" that they suffer at the hands of the airline or airport security.  With a little thought we might come up with any number of reasons CAIR would encourage such reports.  Reasons range from 'pointing out how abused Muslims are by the US' to 'setting us up for the next attack by making us skittish about taking a second look at Muslims who fly'.

The solution is simple.  Start open profiling.

As I flew through London earlier this year, I watched security take middle eastern men aside and do an interview with them.  Plain clothed security men sat down in the boarding area and talked  to each and every man who appeared to be of middle eastern descent.  It was done quietly.  It was done openly.

We need to decide what is most important in this country.  Is it the appearance of  being "fair"?  Or is it the reality of doing all we can to be safe.  Open profiling would take much stress off security and travelers.  Security would not have to worry about being slammed for taking a second look at a Muslim.  Muslims would know that someone was taking a second look and they wouldn't have to wonder how, or when it was being done.

For those of us who have long argued that the current war bears no resemblance to Vietnam, we can stop now.  What we have now is exactly what we had at the end of the Vietnam war.

Vietnam Disease, hereafter referred to as VD, has been around for many years.  You'd expect to find it among the old radical protesters, but it is quite prevalent among the veterans of the Vietnam war. 

Some of those veterans seems so bitter about the war they fought, that they are determined that no military action since will be successful if they can help it.  They are adamant that every war and every action be label "another Vietnam" before it gets off the ground.  When the label fails, those with VD in positions of power set about to make fiction a fact.

We now have "another Vietnam".  We have those in Washington trying to make war policy.  We have the VDers holding the purse strings and the "oversight" power.  We have courts making war policy.  Guess that's a new twist.  One to add to the next war.  Even the same words are heard "there is no military solution", etc....

Those with VD share something in common with their counterparts all the way back before ww2.  They are eurosnobs.  They really don't believe in their heart of hearts that "those brown people" can do us any real harm.  They believe that we can talk to the brown people and convince them of how wonderful we are.  They believe that if we can just show them how much we care and how peaceful we are, they won't want to attack us.  Surely we can make them understand that Bush is an aberration as a leader and the rest of us are sooooo nice?  They ignore history, but worse, they ignore the words of the enemy.

Well....Hey Hey, What do you say? Looks like Vietnam Disease is here to stay!

What if you had a really good plan and couldn't tell anyone what it was? 

It has always bugged me that we chose to go after Saddam.  It's not that he didn't deserve it.  He surely did.  He never live up to his end of the cease fire, and he definitely was a supporter of terrorist groups.  We had every reason to believe that he had and would use WMD.  Even so, the timing seemed wrong to me.

Last month I finished Stephen Tanners book on the history of Afghanistan.  I also have been able to talk to my brother who is back in Afghanistan.  I know, since I have been around for many years, that Rumsfeld, Chaney, and the rest of the gang are pretty smart people. They are to smart to make some kind of snap decision that is poorly thought out, to take us into a war. As the info came together, I began to see the war in Iraq from a different perspective.

If you study the history of Afghanistan, one thing becomes very clear.  No one has ever successfully fought and held that country.  Over the centuries, many have tried.  Because of tribal division, terrain, and a weird sort of thinking that causes the people to swear allegiance to whomever is currently passing through the village, no outsider can conquer.  And...no democracy will hold. 

From more recent history, we saw what happened when the USSR tried to wage war in Afghanistan.  The war became a magnet for radical Islamists from all over the world.  In a country where you can only fight a few months out of the year because of weather, and where the radicals will be taken in by the tribes and protected, fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition.

What to do?  Here is what I think happened:  Bush, Rumsfeld, and Chaney came up with a plan.  They needed another place to fight the radicals.  They needed a place that they could legally enter and by being there, draw the radicals out of Afghanistan and into a more open war zone.  Iraq was the logical place.  A more or less legitimate case could be made for invading Iraq and without a doubt, radical Islamic fighters would be drawn there.

Not a bad plan when you stop and think about it.  We could not have made much progress fighting jihadist when they were protected in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  By drawing off so many fighters, we could pick off Al Qaeda leadership one at a time and also kill those who ventured into Iraq to make a name for themselves.

Maybe I'm all wet with this theory, but from this perspective it makes sense.  It makes more sense than thinking that otherwise brilliant men went off their rockers and invaded a second country with no plan. 

it is not ok for those who wear the uniform of our military to align themselves with subversive political groups, and speak out against a war in which we are actively engaged. it was not ok for john kerry to do it.  it is not ok for our current enlisted and officers to do it.  it is not ok for retired officers to do it unless they have resigned their commissions.

to say that you support the troops but not the action, is a lie.  the soldiers know it's a lie.  these kids don't need much from us.  they need to know that the government backs them, the people back them, and more importantly they need to know that the officers and soldiers they fight with back them. 

imagine a young soldier being asked to risk his life in war.  as he's leaving, he hears a senior officer talking about how stupid the war is. he hears what a waste of time, money, and lives it is.  what does that do to the young soldiers moral?  imagine that a young soldier finds himself training next to someone who's just given a speech or written an editorial about how he doesn't want to go to iraq, or might refuse if he's called to go.  what happens in your head when someone who is supposed to have your back, calls what you are doing a worthless, and illegal?
 
in 1996 i left the military. 

when i put my papers in, i was counseled by my division chief, the xo, and finally the co, to stay in.  after all, in my 15 years the military had invested a great deal of time and money in my training.  i was one of those fortunate people who always seemed to land in the right place at the right time.  i had years of experience playing in the sand.  i was a CBRN expert.  i had had tons of anti-terrorist training. 

why did i leave?  because i could not support my commander in chief, or any pentagon idiots he'd put in place.  i knew in my heart that everything we were doing was wrong.  i knew were it would lead.  i spent the next few years writing and speaking out about the destruction of our military, and foolish "defensive" posture that we insisted on keeping.  when 9/11 happened i was devastated, but not surprised.  like many, i knew it was coming.  i was only surprised that it was not worse, and that it had taken so long. 

it is ok to have an opinion.  it is right to speak out.  there is a proper place for it.  active duty/reserve military is not that place.  when you put on the uniform you have the duty to go where you are told, and do what you are told, with your mouth shut.  there is no draft.  if the idea of keeping your mouth shut is not appealing to you, don't join.  if you are in, and can not keep your mouth shut, get out.  then you can talk all you want.

back in the day, christianity and politics didn't mix.  my father was very active in the reagan campaign for govenor in california.  he also was very active in our church.  i remember the day the pastor took dad to task for his political activities.  it wasn't like he was mixing the two.  the pastor just thought it wasn't very cool for a member of the board of deacons to be so political active.  i don't know exactly what dad told the pastor, but given that he was a rather salty CWO it's no wonder mom was afraid to show her face in church for a couple of weeks.

the reluctance by christians to enter politics openly started to change in the early 70's.  jerry falwell established liberty university.  if you didn't live in virginia, it would be years before you'd hear of falwell, the moral majority, or the university.  i remember when they started.  the church was growing fast, but the school started with few students, not much room, and not a lot of money.  even so, they had a goal.  it was to teach the usual subjects from a christian and conservative point of view.  they especially concentrated on things like political science, teaching, sciences, etc.  subjects that usually are taught from a humanist, liberal, point of view in major universities.  meanwhile, on the west coast, there was tim lahaye and christian high and christian u.  these schools also started out with a hope and a prayer, but soon began to grow like crazy.  they have since changed their names and moved campus.

turned out there was a big desire in the christian community for education from the christian point of view.  seems not everyone thought christianity and politics didn't mesh.  these schools produced local, state, and national level activists.  they taught the kids that it was ok to be christian, conservative, and vocal.  it was ok to run for office.  it was ok to win.

today i hear that because one congressman may have electronically diddled a page, christians are discouraged.  they may not vote.  they have lost faith in the morality of their leaders. 

well heck guys, you might as well pack it in.  you are led my men.  now that you know that, all hope is gone!  stay home.  don't vote.

while you are sitting home feeling sorry for yourself on election day, consider the failures of the bible that god choose as leaders.  how about david and bathsheba.  that wasn't to cool, yet from the line of david came christ.  Moses was always doubting or getting into some fix.  sampson was led astray by a woman......so many stories of mortal men. men with flaws. men that god still managed to use to lead and accomplish great things.  they are also stories of forgiveness and redemption.  they are not stories of surrender!