tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-198409592024-03-23T14:11:12.772-04:00eat more bugsDedicated to my rules: love many, trust few, always cut the cards and never, ever turn down a breath mintChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-38602716408378796192013-05-16T19:35:00.002-04:002013-05-16T19:37:10.792-04:00No Mas PantalonesThere has been nothing BUT headline after headline concerning the, if not downright illegality, than at least significant improprieties on the part of various government agencies. Recently, we have heard of inaction when the US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists, leading to the death of 4 Americans including the ambassador, the I.R.S. announced agents had improperly targeted conservative groups, and the Justice Department seized the phone records of Associated Press journalists. The common refrain from BOTH President Obama and Attorney General Holder has been that they knew nothing of these events UNTIL the press reported them. That means either a) BOTH Holder and Obama are ineffectual, feckless, asleep at the switch and incompetent, or b) they are lying.<br />
<br />
<br />
The White House released a hundred emails between the CIA, State Department and the White House concerning the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. The back and forth was slow, laborious, semantic driven and constantly being updated as information became available. The initial talking point parroted by Susan Rice on 5 Sunday morning news shows that the attack was an unpremeditated by-product of a demonstration over an anti-Muslim internet film later proved to be not only false, but patently untrue. Whether that was simple ineptitude, or something driven by politics is the wedge issue. Whatever the case, 4 Americans died waiting for relief which never came, as officials debated distinctions such as US Consulate vs. diplomatic post. <br />
<br />
<br />
Beginning in 2010, and continuing for more than 18 months, the IR.S. targeted groups based on their names and/or policy positions. The names and policy positions were ones linked to conservative groups and caused extraordinary delays and requests for unnecessary information. BOLOs, a law enforcement acronym for Be On the Look Out, were used to flag Tea Party, Patriot, or subject line references to government spending, debt or taxes. Of course the I.R.S. Commissioner informed us, “We believe the front-line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political and partisan viewpoint." That statement may stretch credulity. The notion however, that both Steve Miller, the acting IRS commissioner, and the Treasury inspector general investigating the complaints, J. Russell George knew of the activities for months, while the Attorney General and President did not, until reportage by the press, appears to stretch the truth in ways that would make Mr. Fantastic and Stretch Armstrong envious .<br />
<br />
<br />
During April and May of 2012 the Department of Justice obtained the phone records of more than 20 separate phone lines for the AP, its editors and journalists. They did not follow Justice Department policy of giving news organizations the opportunity to negotiate or contest the subpoenas before casting their huge net. The explanation for this irregularity is the old standby of National Security, but more than 50 major media outlets have protested the activity and publicly called for action. Attorney General Holder testified that he recused himself last year from the AP probe so as to “avoid the appearance of conflict”. According to press secretary Jay Carney however, The White House had “no knowledge of any attempt” by the Department of Justice to collect the phone records of Associated Press journalists other than press reports. So the Attorney General knew of an operation with far reaching National Security consequences, which was sure to make headlines once it was revealed, but did not bother to inform his boss. That is certainly something that makes you go hmmm.<br />
<br />
<br />
I am not a President Obama hater. There are a myriad of musings in which I give him credit where credit is due. Nor have I fallen into the derangement syndrome about his birth certificate or supposed Muslim heritage. Here though, I must pointedly ask how this president, or any president, could have events of this magnitude swirling around him, but NOT know anything about them. Is President Obama’s managerial style such that he reserves only the ceremonial duties for himself and delegates ALL else to underlings? Since he obviously cannot trust Vice President Biden to handle anything of import we must deduce, if we continue to follow the no-nothing defense, that anonymous, unelected officials in the administration are responsible for not only day-to-day functions, but matters of paramount importance too. <br />
<br />
<br />
As for Attorney General Holder, he has become the Teflon Don of AGs. Black Panthers at polling places, Fast and Furious gun deals and Associated Press subpoenas fall off him like racketeering charges on John Gotti. Holder’s suits are not as nice, nor his hair as coiffed, but his straight faced denials of knowledge would make Gotti as green as artificial turf. State officials and captains of industry have been fired after being publicly excoriated for much less, even when they honestly knew nothing of the goings on during their watch. Holder knows all this but, when questioned about any impropriety, steadfastly continues to simply say, I don’t know. <br />
<br />
<br />
Okay, so maybe a lack of executive experience could have explained how something got away from the President during his first term, but not this far into a second term. He would have to know something about each of these cases simply because of their magnitude. Would not his daily briefings by Cabinet and Department heads contain at least some mention of some of this? Is he so removed from everything and everyone that none of his aides dared mention the actual business of government to him? Or were those aides leading rogue operations and purposely keeping the President in the dark because the Constitutional scholar in him would never have allowed it? He is smarter than all of us, and knows it, but he relinquishes control to play golf with Tiger Woods? Not likely.<br />
<br />
<br />
All those options seem outlandish to me. What is more likely, is that a politician schooled in the rough elbows of Chicago politics encouraged, at least in part, some of the actions and took the (im)plausible denial route on the others. With helpful members of the press backing him, and an ever present race card up his sleeve, it is more likely to me that President Obama’s hubris makes him believe that no one will dare challenge what he says. Of course many people will, and have, defended him to death, while declaring that the government is too big for the President to know everything that is going on. If you are reading this and believe that, there’s nothing I can say to change your mind. If, however, you are reading this and agree with me that the President is either incompetent or dissembling, I can only ask, what now? Like those who suffer Mayhem in the Allstate commercials are we but spectators to the disorder, or are we the agents from A-Nother Insurance Company who have no mas pantalones? Because if the President is incompetent or lying and we do nothing, so are we.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-59286026718126661442013-03-29T14:22:00.000-04:002013-03-29T14:27:51.060-04:00My Heroes Wear GreenI arrived at my permanent duty assignment with the 7th ID (light) on 2 November, 1986 and was met at the door by 1st Sgt Darryl Gates, SFC Stephen Turner and SSgt. Michael J. Mills. All three men were Vietnam veterans, 1st Sgt Gates with the 25th ID, the Electric Strawberry, SFC Turner with the 23rd ID, Americal and SSgt. Mills with the 1st ID, Big Red One LRRPs. It will, no doubt, come as a shock that I had a big mouth back then and quickly talked myself into a position as the Company RTO, as well as the Guidon Bearer. The three men all took turns trying to dissuade me from both gigs, but I was having none of it. RTOs get lots of face time in war movies and the Guidon Bearer gets to be out front leading the way. That was, to the best of my recollection, the last time I failed to do exactly what any of those warriors “suggested” and that may very well have kept me alive. That’s a debt I can never repay and why, to this day, my Gold Standard for warriors are the Vietnam Veterans. They are, quite simply, my heroes.<br />
<br />
<br />
I knew I was a soldier when I was 5. I had to wait to enlist until I turned 17 and left for Basic Training/AIT at Ft. Benning, GA a little over a week after I graduated high school. Every man in my family older than me had done it and, though there was no pressure, it was just kind of known I’d do it too. I turned down a chance for an appointment to the US Air Force Academy, US Army Flight School and a full, college ride on the Navy’s dime if I would agree to be an officer on a submarine. I wanted to be an infantryman, mainly so I could bust a cap in a bad guy’s ass. Any bad guy ass would have done. Let me be clear. I have no awards or decorations for valor. What I have is 4 years of honorable service as an enlisted man, most of it in the finest fighting force known to God or man: the 9th Infantry Regiment “Manchu”. The men with whom I served, from the battalion commander, LTC John G. Hathaway, another ‘Nam vet with the 173rd who lost a lung in that war, down to my fellow privates were then, and are now, my heroes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Since my time in uniform I have had the high honor to meet everyone from Medal of Honor recipients to payroll specialists in the Army National Guard. I’ve escorted men and women home from deployments in the Middle Eastern war zones and taken KIAs to their last resting place. I’ve had a beer with veterans of the Frozen Chosin, Battle of the Bulge, Ia Drang Valley, Fallujah, and Operation Anaconda, as well as veterans from a number of places no one but they remember and a lot of men and women who never heard a shot fired in anger. They were draftees, veterans for whom it is a familial obligation to serve, kids who enlisted after 9/11, some that served between wars and many who would simply rather not talk about it. Every one of them is my hero.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When I first met Sgt Major Jon Cavaiani, Medal of Honor recipient and a POW for nearly 2 years it was after a ceremony in Philadelphia. We were at the Philadelphia Vietnam Veterans Memorial Society “Hooch” and I asked if I could buy him a drink. When he said sure, I told him how impressed I was with his citation and how proud I was to have served in his Army. He, with the equanimity I have found to be consistent amongst Medal of Honor recipients, said, “Ah hell Hill, it wasn’t anything you wouldn’t have done”. “I’d like to think so Sgt Major”, I said, “but all I did was carry the radio for my infantry company”. I still vividly remember the look that only E-9s can summon as he grabbed me by the front of my shirt. “I don’t ever want to hear you say anything like that again. We’re a team. From the cooks in the mess hall to the LRRPs out alone in Indian Country, no man can do anything without the others. Every man’s service is a valuable as any other. I just happened to be where I was”. For that, as much as the Medal he wears around his neck, the Sgt Major will always be my hero.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To me, it’s always been braver somehow to enlist during war, but a WWII Ranger who served with the 2nd Battalion and climbed the cliffs of Pont du Hoc thought differently. I was standing in line at the opening of the World War II Memorial when I noticed two women wearing shirts with a photo of a WWII Ranger on the back. I asked who he was and they pointed to an older gentleman in line ahead of us. Turns out it was his sister and wife wearing the shirts. I was in awe of a man who could summon the courage to make it across the beach at Normandy and then climb the cliffs when seemingly ever German soldier on the planet was trying to kill him, and said as much. He looked at me rather mischievously and said, “When did you enlist son?” “In 1985”, I responded. “I don’t remember any war going on then”, he said. “No sir, it was pretty quiet”, I said, with somewhat down-turned eyes. It was then that he put a knuckle beneath my chin and raised my eyes to meet his. “Well son, that makes YOU my hero. I enlisted because I had to. The war was on and we each had to do our part. YOU enlisted because you wanted to and that’s ever so more important to me”. He made my chest swell with pride, and for that, he and all the veterans of WWII, men and women who literally saved the planet, including my grandfather who served in Merrill’s Marauders, will always be my heroes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I could go one about men such as Dr. Leonard Miller, an RTO in the 24th ID who went ashore at Inchon during the Korean War, or women such as Maureen Robinson, who served two tours as a nurse in Vietnam and adopted an orphan of the war. Or two of my Lionesses, a female soldier named Jess and female Marine named Erica who embraced me after a speech I gave one 4th of July, where I extolled them and theirs for their service. I never forget Sgt Major Cavaiani’s admonition and have adopted it as my own. If it’s good enough for him it is certainly good enough for me, and I have passed it along to the O.E.F. and O.I.F. veterans with whom I have become so enamored. I address each and every one of them as Hero, because in my mind they, too, are a special breed worthy of the moniker. Once, after we escorted an O.E.F. veteran home to his house, his parents had a barbecue and beer spread ready for us all. The young Sgt was clearly overwhelmed by the attention and didn’t truly have the words ready when someone shouted, SPEECH, SPEECH. I yelled, “WELCOME HOME HERO! Anything you say will be right”. I remember how embarrassed he looked as he said, “I’m not a hero sir. I’m just a soldier who did his job”. I pushed my way through the throng surrounding him, grabbed him by both shoulders and said, “Sgt I truly love you, but I get to choose my heroes”. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I can understand why those who have worn the uniform would shy away from being called hero, even if they do wear the Medal of Honor around their neck. There’s something a little crass about calling yourself a hero, even if you are one. Hero is a word that gets thrown around for performances on the basketball court and for writing big checks to good causes. It’s a word many people don’t think much about when they use it. I don’t consider my service heroic and would certainly never call myself hero. I know though, that in a country with somewhere north of 330 million people, only about 25 million of them have EVER worn the uniform of the military. I also know that the overwhelming majority have never seen combat and for those that did, most sometimes wish they hadn’t. None of that matters to me. The brother/sisterhood of arms is bigger than that. It’s about knowing how the other guy feels when he talks of the people with whom he served. It’s knowing that, no matter our skin color, political affiliation, economic circumstance, age or gender, all of us once upon a time raised our right hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, and sincerely meant it. Every person who has every worn the uniform of the United States military signed that blank check, up to and including our very lives, when we swore the oath and I have yet to meet any who regretted it. It may be different for some, but, because I get to choose, everyone who has ever worn the uniform will always be one of my heroes and, I, now and forever, get to choose my heroes. Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-86706963578335136822013-03-27T08:19:00.001-04:002013-03-27T08:19:11.580-04:00Black and White and Read All OverPhiladelphia Magazine recently published an article titled, “Being White in Philly”, which has apparently convinced our very honorable mayor, Michael Nutter, that only black people and/or elected officials are allowed to discuss matters of race. Mayor Nutter was so “disgusted” by the piece that he called on the city’s Human Relations Committee to investigate some of the issues discussed in the article and, if warranted, to rebuke both Philadelphia Magazine and the author of the story Bob Huber. Apparently Mayor Nutter has confused criticism of the story with “official” government action to shut down the story. His honor might do well to remember that The Declaration of Independence was read aloud in Philadelphia and was a direct response to unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of people here in what would become the United States.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I am, as most of you know, a white guy. A white guy of Northern European stock so I’m white even in the summer months, which means the Mayor doesn’t deem me fit to discuss matters of race, and certainly not matters of race relations here in Philadelphia. I seldom do as I am told, (yes I know another shock), though. What I do as often as not, is to speak my mind with as much ordinary sense as I can muster. With that thought upper most in mind, I am here to tell the august Mr. Nutter that he is out of his friggin’ mind if truly believes this is the way to further race relations in the city. Race relations here in Philly are, as was plainly evident in the article, tenuous at best, and fractured at worst.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The problem is that people are afraid to attach their names to anything having to do with race. That’s not unique to Philly, but with the overwhelming majority of the city government, both elected and not, being black many people are scared of the inevitable responses from others if they voice their true feelings. You’re either a racist or race traitor, depending upon the color of your skin if you do or say anything contrary to the party line. If any of the people quoted in the story had given their full names it is not a stretch to believe that their lives would have become more complicated. The complication could and would have taken many forms, from glares in the grocery to sudden problems with Licenses and Inspections. The much loathed Philadelphia Parking Authority is the only agency in the city that runs with any efficiency, but when the others have nothing to do except inspect you it is amazing how well they too can run. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who had the temerity to voice an actual opinion in a magazine article which was inconsistent with the prevailing views would instantly be presumed racist. If you had the foolhardiness to attach your name to that statement too though, all the agencies of government would somehow become as efficient as the much hated Philadelphia Parking Authority and you would be Public Enemy Number One. You see, the mayor, who loves to throw the word ass around to seem tough, is actually an I.D.G., an Inordinately Delicate Gentleman, who himself was blamed for not being “black enough” not all that long ago. Since rising to national prominence with the US Conference of Mayors, Nutter has had to shift from the pragmatic, problem solving guy he promised to be, to just another big city cog in the liberal machine. He, like Attorney General Eric Holder, is completely comfortable calling everyone else a coward for not speaking about race relations, but when they do they’re called racist. Why would anyone bother when those are the only two predetermined results?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So why am I bothering? Well I am not racist and I am certainly not a coward. What I am is someone who is increasingly sick and tired of government officials telling me what I can and cannot do or say. It is Nutter, and those like him, who are afraid to discuss race because they do not want the dirty truth to ever be public. The dirty truth is that race relations are strained because they want them to be. For generations we have been told that solving society’s ills is just a matter of throwing enough government and enough money at the problem. The truth is that the political system prefers a permanent underclass from which votes are guaranteed. Nutter’s predecessor was referring to Philly when he infamously said, “the brothers and sisters are in charge” while speaking at a regional meeting of the NAACP. An attempt was made to temper the statement, but to everyone here in Philly the point was abundantly clear. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Philadelphia is 44% black, 39% white and 12.5% Hispanic, with “other” races making up the difference. The brothers and sisters are running the city though. The Mayor, District Attorney, Police Chief, Fire Chief and City Council President are all black. Somehow though that hasn’t translated into much of anything for the brothers and sisters not in government employ. Philadelphia has the highest rate of “Deep Poverty” in the United States, 12.9%, or some 200,000 people, most of who are, no doubt, black. Instead of making strides to address that problem, Nutter cries foul on an article in a magazine which had little regional, let alone national attention until he voiced his disgust at its “reckless disregard for speech”.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mayor Nutter certainly knows how to run a city though. Only a day before this pathetic attempt to silence a magazine, the mayor was booed off the podium in City Council Chambers by the city worker’s unions. In the city which arguably created the American brand of democracy the First Amendment is only a right when the government or the unions say it is. Neither knows how to comport themselves with anything approaching civility or etiquette. All either can do is feed at the trough of the public coffers. The coffers are only full enough to feed at if a public exists to fill them. With the mayor acting as High Commissioner for Race he is fundamentally implying that only government can discuss race relations and only on its terms. Well Mr. Mayor that tactic is what loses you not only votes but taxpayers. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Philadelphia cannot consider itself too big to fail. As Detroit saws its industries sink into ever burgeoning debt, the old ways failed to adapt and the white flight was on. Now Detroit’s Police Department won’t even respond to some types of calls anymore. How long before both white and black citizens who are able to depart the city for good do so? Race relations are horrible in the city because of just this attitude. More people than would care to admit it harbor feelings akin to those in the article because we have been splintered by race intentionally. It does not do the powers that be any good to have the hoi polloi united against them, so they raise false tumult to distract us. Maybe too many of my fellow Americans have become “low information voters” or are genuinely content with receiving public largesse and will not rock the boat. I certainly hope not. If we have become the illiterate and unwashed masses there won’t be any race by which to discern us. We will simply be what the pols want: a permanent and dirty underclass. Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-32085372845813908142013-03-26T12:54:00.000-04:002013-03-26T12:54:58.210-04:00Garden of Eden Need Not Apply<strike></strike>The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear two cases which could change how we as Americans see each other moving forward into the 21st Century. The court may, or may not hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case which could decide the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban. I say may or may not because the court has yet to rule on whether or not a group called Protectmarriage.com has the legal “standing” to represent California in the case since they have no personal stake as it is defined by the court. The Court will hear arguments in United States v. Windsor, which challenges the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they are legally married in their states. As someone who has been married three times I am either an expert, because I now know what not to do, or I am a twice a failure, depending upon your viewpoint. What I am either way though is someone who has heard the rites recited by several wedding officiants and none of them referenced sex when posing the questions of marriage. To my mind, that’s because marriage is now, and has forever been, only about love. <br />
<br />
<br />
There have been other laws enacted to determine who could and, more importantly, could not be married. Here in North America, laws were enacted from the late 17th century onward to prevent the “mixing of the races”. Those laws were enforced until 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and ALL anti-miscegenation laws were struck down. Some of the same arguments used to prevent the mixing of the races are currently being used in opposition to same sex marriage; “It is against God’s will”, “it violates Natural Law”, “it turns a moral wrong into a civil right”. In my opinion, those arguments all have in common a basis in some sort of religious scripture and should not even be a starting point for discussions. That, to me, they are simply daft is more to the point. <br />
<br />
<br />
I can hear the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth through the ether as people read that statement, but I seemingly must remind people that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Since no one actually knows for certain what God’s will is regarding anything, I would suggest that none of us make our decisions based solely on that. Rending and gnashing again for sure, but consider the Americans who were here when the Europeans arrived. While they may have agreed with the sentiment banning same sex marriage, they would not have considered it as the word of the Christian God, and all those good Christians would have deemed them savages worthy of eternal damnation just the same. It is fairly well known that I believe in no god, but I do not have any beef with those that do, provided they do not attempt to force their beliefs on me. In the case of same sex marriage, those who believe it against God’s will are attempting to play Christians and Indians, with those of us unopposed to same sex marriage as the Indians. <br />
<br />
<br />
I don’t play Christians and anything though, so unless someone is prepared to begin the Inquisition anew we should all agree that only secular arguments need apply whenever a law is going to affect all of us. We should, as calmly as possible, present our case(s) and let the majority decide. Unfortunately, that is not how the world works, so we are treated to whether or not something is moral more often than not. The problem with that is that morals change with the times. One of the most common arguments against same sex marriage is that it violates “traditional values”. With traditional being defined by Merriam-Webster as, an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior it is hard for me to see what people believe traditional to be. It was once traditional for men to wear wigs and stockings, but that’s not the norm now, unless you’re Dennis Rodman or a drag queen. Likewise, polygamy was once traditional and even lauded by the same scripture people use to demonize same sex marriage today. I’m guessing no one reading this believes either of those to be traditional, much less normal.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another argument which bears discussing is that same sex marriage is a State’s Rights issue. Then all those crazy liberals who want the world to implode could be happy and us God fearin’ folks could remain safe in our marriages. Unfortunately for those hitching their wagons to this argument, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution states: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. So, while the Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state and there are differences in requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state. The reason(s) for this are simple: you cannot have legally married people denied rights or privileges by various states, or criminalized in others as was the case in Loving v. Virginia. People travel for work, education and amusement every day, all across the country and, as we all know, shit happens. Of the over 1,100 federal benefits of marriage, none apply to civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by the state in which you reside. Now imagine you and your same sex spouse are on vacation in another state and the worst happens. Are we saying that we are in favor of making that worst time even harder because the two people who have pledged their love to each other just happen to be of the same gender? Are we also saying that if you’re gay the federal government deserves a larger share of your income via taxes? Neither of those statements sounds very conservative, nor compassionate to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
I recognize that nothing I say here, or anywhere else for that matter, will change the mind of those for whom the Biblical Word of God is inviolable, but I would hope that none reading this now are in that camp. The Westboro Baptist Church believes they are in the right when it comes to same sex marriage, as do the Taliban commanders who dynamited the Buddhas of Bamiyan. While I am not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with same sex marriage is in that stratum, I am saying that they most certainly champion your cause simply because they believe two people of the same sex cannot love one another as the tenants of matrimony dictate. Times change though, and my hope is that people today do not hold to the WBC or Taliban ideas of marriage anymore than they hold to the idea of a wife as the property of her husband. It is the 21st century and time for homosexuals to be allowed the same strife we as heterosexuals have had for thousands of years. <br />
<br />
<br />
I’m wholly in favor of allowing same sex marriages, and not because I looked absolutely smashing as a groomsman in a same sex wedding and want to see more violet, pirate tuxedoes in my future. I also don’t believe love is all we need. I’d prefer shame and humiliation heaped upon my enemies and consistently good parking before universal love, but I do believe it is a step towards making the entire world a better place. Palaces won’t fall, dogs will not start dating cats, and the fabric of society will not come apart at the seams if two men or two women marry. Nor will the heterosexual marriages already consummated be lessened. What we will have is more family units, and less reason for government to intrude into our bedrooms, and isn’t that what traditional values are all about?<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-52043146655049018122013-03-25T07:47:00.001-04:002013-03-25T07:54:50.607-04:00When Muskets Were A Must<img src="webkit-fake-url://610AB2BA-CE9D-43B2-B9CC-E5FE4A981350/imagejpeg" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">right</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at military funerals. They cited the 1</span></span><span class="s5" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="bumpedFont15">st</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Amendment as a rationale and suggested that offensive or unpopular speech is the speech </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">most in</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> need of protection. While I understand that, I disagreed vehemently with the Court as to what the right to Free Speech entails. However, if we are going to agree that the Bill of Rights are just that, Rights, and not privileges then we must except them as they are and not attempt to attach any modern opinions to them, unless of course we are prepared to utilize the methods by which the Constitution can be amended. Unfortunately, too many people are now engaged in rants about the 2</span></span><span class="s5" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="bumpedFont15">nd</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Amendment and what the Founding Fathers meant by it. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I am of above average intelligence and can understand the militia argument. I am not going to argue that here, but simply say: the Founding Fathers named it the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Privileges.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the Bill of Rights are: </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">“</span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15">A formal summary of those rights and liberties considered </span></span><span class="s8" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">essential</span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15"> to </span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15">the people”. A privilege is something enjoyed by a person beyond the advantages of most. None of us would want any group enjoying privileges of speech, worship, or assembly not afforded to us all as citizens of the United States. Why then does the 2</span></span><span class="s9" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="bumpedFont15">nd</span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Amendment engender such hostility and parsing of its text? It’s simple. Bad people do bad things to good people with guns. That’s truly what this is all about. That and nothing more. I was at the funeral for LCpl. Snyder when the WBC protested and saw the pain it caused his father. I saw too that pain revisited when the Supreme Court affirmed their right to cause that pain</span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15">. When I ranted </span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15">about the unfairness of the verdict</span></span><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15"> I was told by numerous people things to the effect of, “I don’t like it, but it’s the correct verdict. We don’t want to limit WBC only to find ourselves limited when we wish to protest some action of the government and that’s where this would go if we don’t let them protest at funerals, as vile and despicable as they may be.” </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s7"><span class="bumpedFont15">I still disagree with that sentiment, but do understand the argument. In his opinion on Schenck vs. United States Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is typically, and inaccurately, quoted, you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater. What he actually said was, “</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in </span></span><span class="s11" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">falsely</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">shouting fire</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> in a </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">theatre</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> and causing a panic</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">.” The difference is that falsely shouting fire is a reasonable restraint on Freedom of Speech. </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">Just as limiting military grade and/or fully automatic weapons from citizens is a reasonable restraint on the Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms. What’s lost in this discussion is the distinction. Military grade does not mean weapons that look like, or bear common attributes with, actual military weapons. An AR-15 is NOT a military grade weapon. An M-16 or LAWS Rocket are. Just because something looks like something does not make it something. You can buy a Chevy Impala, festoon it with NASCAR stickers and paint, but it isn’t Jeff Gordon’s car, nor could it compete on the track. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">What this argument truly boils down to is </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">emotion. The emotion of seeing small, innocent kindergarteners riddled with bullets fired by a mad man from a weapon that looks like the one a soldier carries into battle. No one gives a damn if you want to fire a thousand rounds into a stump somewhere out in the woods, but everyone cares when an evil man uses a weapon for nefarious ends, and quite rightly so. Blaming the inanimate object and not the user is the issue. </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">Nowhere in the United States is the speed limit higher than 75 mph, but dozens of models of cars and motorcycles are sold that can easily exceed</span></span><span class="s11" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">twice</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> that limit. Why should we be allowed to purchase a Ferrari that can attain speeds in excess of 180 mph when there is nowhere to legally drive that fast? Simple. Because we have a driver’s license and the money to afford one. There is no difference </span></span><span class="s12" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">in kind</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> between the maniac who drives his Ferrari into a busload of children and the maniac who shoots up a classroom</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">, but no one even considers banning cars that can drive that fast.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">In 2010, according to the National Highway Traffic safety Administration, 32,885 people were killed in automobile accidents, of those 6,414 were passengers, 4,280 were pedestrians and 618 were pedalcyclists. That means 11,312 people, who were not driving, were killed by cars</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> in 2010</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">. In the same year, 11,015 people were ruled as homicides due to firearms.</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Those numbers are stunning when you look at them; especially if you consider another 21,000 </span></span><span class="s11" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">drivers</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> were killed in those auto accidents.</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">To be fair, in the same year another 19,908 deaths were either firearm related suicides or accidents. Which still begs the question, why not just ban cars? Because that’s nonsensical is why. No rational human being believes the car is to blame when six teenaged girls are killed because the driver was texting while driving. That’s no consolation to the families of the dead girls, but the rest of us say, </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">“</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">What</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> a shame</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">”</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">and forget it the next day.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">I am not suggesting anyone should ever forget the sweet angels murdered in Sandy Hook, but I am also not blaming the instrument of their deaths. I blame the man who repeatedly pulled the trigger. No one may need a car that is capable of being driv</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">en 200 mph, but we are all capa</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">ble of owning one</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> and no one, save some environmental loons, would suggest otherwise. The argument, therefore, that no one </span></span><span class="s11" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">needs</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> a semi-automatic weapon is not only sophistry and sophomoric when seen in the context of a Ferrari, but completely and utterly wrong to boot. The Founding Fathers feared an intrusive, big government would counter what they had fought and bled to create, so the 2</span></span><span class="s13" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="bumpedFont15">nd</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Amendment was adopted to guarantee that we would always remain a free state. We can argue back and forth on the language of “a well regulated militia”, but ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is the salient point. Farmers, longshoremen, bankers and drunks collected their trusty muskets and with some military instruction, a lot of heart and not a little luck, defeated the most powerful army in the world. They did it not with weapons which could only be used for hunting, nor with handguns, nor low caliber weapons. They did it with the most technologically advanced weapon of the day. That weapons are now more technologically advanced, as are cars, has never been the point.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, et al made lofty speeches, wrote lofty tomes and proclaimed lofty ideas about what the United Colonies should be become, but it was the lowly citizen armed with a musket who made those dreams a reality. To this day, members of the United States Army Infantry wear crossed muskets as the symbol of their branch. They don’t wear those muskets to honor the Red Coats who massacred Americans in Boston, nor the husband who murdered his wife, but rather in homage to the men who left their homes to fight for an idea, musket in hand. That idea is who, and what we are. I am not suggesting that some limitations to the Bill of Rights should not be considered and, if after sober thought, adopted. I </span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">am saying though that denying good, law abiding people the right to anything because an evil man may make use of it and wreak havoc is simply not who we are as a people. We should make it ever more difficult for criminals or mentally unbalanced people to attain firearms, just as we do with cars, but we should never, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, trade freedom for security. If we do, we are nothing more than a lesser version of the shining city on the hill our founders wanted us to be</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">, and rights will be replaced by privileges, with the American Dream lost</span></span><span class="s10"><span class="bumpedFont15">. </span></span></span></div>
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-58172497642784158222013-03-05T19:10:00.000-05:002013-03-05T19:10:18.271-05:00Believe It or Not <br />
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I am not an atheist for one reason only: it simply takes too much work. An atheist has to be upset by the word god existing on our currency and could not possibly utter the word god when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Neither of those things bother me at all, nor do a myriad of other religion inspired things like nativity scenes in the public square or a crucifix hung on a wall. Atheists are also always called upon to </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">defend</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> their godless by the faithful. Yeah? Don’t believe in God huh? Well how do you explain …….? I do not care what anyone chooses to believe when it comes to religion; unless you worship in such a way as to be an immediate danger to others. I can make the argument that </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">all</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> organized religions are a danger to anyone who is not one of their adherents, but you get my point. </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">The problem arises though that I cannot be left to my secularity by the faithful. Someone or other has to explain to me the error of my ways or take umbrage at some slight, perceived or otherwise, to their faith. I am, therefore, not an atheist. I simply do not believe in god.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I wish there was some epiphany to which I could point as the seed of my disbelief, but no one event or experience comes to mind. I was, after all, baptized as an Irish Catholic, dutifully made my Communion and Confirmation, sang in my Catholic elementary school choir as a fourth grader and can still remember the majority of the prayers. As I made my way through the above lessons I always had the vague and eventually overt notion that this religion stuff was all just a racket of some sort. Not that Sister Colleen nor Father Al were bad people or even profiting off the faithful, but rather that too many people seemed to have bought into something which I simply could not believe. It wasn’t so much a mass hypnosis as it was a go along to get along and any of you who have known me for any length of time know that I am many things, but not one to do that.</span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"></span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I have visited many churches and the odd synagogue or three and, while there, do as the faithful do. I will cover my head for my Jewish friends and kneel, sit, stand, kneel for my Catholic ones. I can even admit to understanding why the pageantry and ritual of it appeals. After an all too brief exposure though my mind will begin to wander and I will wonder how best to make a graceful exit from whatever house of worship I might find myself in. I absolutely marvel at the artisanship of St. Louis Cathedral and the Sistine Chapel, but that is what it brings to my mind: the artisanship of the mortals who created it from stone, paint and glass, not the supposed breath of god that compelled them to do so. I no more believe that an alleged perfect being, who created man, would then speak to any of them, directing his wishes, than I believe that the pig in the Geico commercial is actually flying first class. </span></span> </span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Why would a perfect </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">being</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> and all faiths believe their god to be THE perfect being, after having created man need to tell us</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">anything?</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Wouldn’t he have imbued our genetic code with all the markers necessary for us to worship him or her faithfully? </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Why would a perfect being create something decidedly less than perfect, but fail to provide it innate rules for worship? Why wait until after the creations screwed up to demand that they worship the big guy in specific ways to exalt him, or her? I mean truly, what perfect being would give a rat’s ass what his creations do, unless that was part of the program from the get go? I mean a perfect being couldn’t possibly make a mistake, right? Because if he did that would mean the perfect being was either all </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">powerful or all knowing, but not both because to be both would mean </span></span><span class="s6" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">everything</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> you did could only be perfect.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Bo Derek may be a 10, but neither she nor Cindy Crawford, (feel free to add your own here and I’m perfect okay with it being Clooney or Pitt, by the way), are </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">perfect</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">, not in the biblical sense anyway. Nor was the contemptible Mother Teresa, or the gracious Pope John Paul, or the prophet Muhammad, or Judah. They were all just what you and I are: imperfect human beings. It is there that I have snared some of the faithful. If you are a believer and are nodding your head as you read saying, “well of course those people are imperfect human beings”, than I have you partly in my boat. Because if the aforementioned people are imperfect but they are if not the creators of their religion, they are indeed progenitors of them. If we agree there we must therefore agree that no religion can be perfect for they are all man-made.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"></span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I know, I know. It was the </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">word</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> of god, or the</span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15"> spirit</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> of same that moved mere mortals to create the religions to praise him. I won’t go into the specifics of how an illiterate merchant was dictated to solely in Arabic to establish his, or how another founder was actually the son of god, but him at the same time. Those conundrums never move the ball because you either believe or you don’t, and I don’t. What I will say instead is that if all humans are fraught with imperfection, equals parts good and evil, avarice and philanthropy, then </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">anything</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> created by them to worship their creator must itself be </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">intrinsically</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> flawed. Even if we presuppose that the spirit of god moved them to create something, no imperfect being could possibly create a perfect rendition of what the perfect being wanted. Truthfully, it occurs to me that not only would no perfect being </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">need</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> our supplication, there is no reason for said being to </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">want</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> it.</span></span> </span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">If by now your hackles are up and you are ready to start typing furiously to expose the errors of my words, do not bother. I’m not an atheist. I just don’t believe in god. This missive is only about me and no shot across the bow for any of you. It is simply me expressing a view that I hold dear and, hopefully, explaining some of the why I do so. It has always annoyed me that the creator would create us and then </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">demand</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> that </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">we worship him. Seems a bit cursory and superficial for someone that can chart the course of planets and move the tides to expose the seabed, doesn’t it? I, for one, could not care less what entertains those humans I consider beneath me. I do not spend any time wondering why </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">American Idol</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">, </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">Dancing with the Stars</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> or </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">Duck Dynasty</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> not only survive but thrive. I chalk it up to the general appalling, illiteracy of the masses. Should I not believe that as far from perfect as I am, that a perfect being would be similarly unconcerned not only with our daily routines, but would give our machinations nary a thought? </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I know, I know. It’s because god is so loving that he/ she cares about us. Didn’t Jesus restore the sight of the blind man he met on the road? Well if I believe he did, I would have to ask why not just cure all blindness? Do some people deserve to be hindered such? Again, I know I know. It is not for us to understand the ways of the lord. Yeah well that is where I have to leave the wagon train of religion. If we are supposed to love our brother, without exception, why </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">should god do otherwise? Ahh… because god moves in mysterious ways my son. It is not for us to understand his will. Well, uhh, yeah, but that’s not coherent, much less proportionate. It seems like the created has to do all the work in this relationship, constantly striving to attain a perfection he cannot achieve. Might just be me, but that seems like a pretty unethical thing for a perfect being to do. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">That leads me to the question of ethics. All the major religions believe that without them the world would be a lawless, contumacious place. Dogs would be dating cats and evil would reign across the world as it did in Gotham in the last Batman franchise. Why though would this be necessarily so? Many civilizations existed before the major religions and some even thrived. </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I am aware of no annotated scholarly work that suggests atheists are more prone to crimes of violence or greed. I would posit a guess that were we to undertake such a treatise that we would find many more acts of an egregious nature have been committed in the </span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">name of religion</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">, than have been in the furtherance of atheism. Muhammad didn’t put entire villages to the sword because he didn’t believe, but rather because he did and they had the temerity to not believe as he did. Likewise, Torquemada didn’t sentence heretics to the rack, or burn them at the stake for being atheists, but because they had the gall to be witches!! Proving your innocence of course was as likely to kill you as his proving your guilt though, so I fail to see how that furthers your religious concepts, but hey, what do I know? After all, I’m not even smart enough to believe in god. I am, to put it succinctly, without knowledge.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">This leads us to why I am not an agnostic either.</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Not only do I see that as a milquetoast way of addressing an issue, but it opens the door to the Gnostics were the ones with “special” knowledge of Christ and god. All others were agnostic, literally without knowledge. Forget that the Gnostics have been roundly extirpated for centuries because they were/are, apparently heretics to true Christianity. Odd that those who most loudly profess to “know” the word of god would be most roundly denounced for it. It’s sort of like Dionne Warwick should have known her Psychic Hotline was going to go bankrupt before it did, shouldn’t she? </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Although there are pagan, Gnostic, Jewish and Greek influences in the modern Bible, Christianity became a separate religion and the Gnostics were deemed heretics. Again, not because they failed to believe, but rather because they did not believe as the prevailing authority did. Agnostics then have the double whammy of being despised as intellectually lazy by both the fervent believers and the equally fervent non-believers. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<br /></div>
<div class="s5">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">All of which leads me back to where we started. I am not a believer in any religion nor god, am not an agnostic, and not an atheist because all of those positions require that I deem what someone else does as to be blasphemous, evil, thick headed, obtuse or stupefying. All that takes much more work than I am prepared to expend in what, for me, is the pursuit of proving a negative. I sincerely could not care less how you worship if I am left to my own devices </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">unfettered. I can sincerely appreciate the beauty of a sunrise with those of you who believe it to be god’s will, as easily as I can who will seek to explain the red coloration of it in strictly Stephen Hawking-esque terms. I only ask that we just simply regard it silence. </span></span></span></div>
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-45439675389366430442013-02-28T15:26:00.001-05:002013-02-28T15:30:30.244-05:00All That's Left to Respect Is the Gun<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">Are you going to believe what I told you happened, or rely on your lying eyes? That appears to be what former Philadelphia Police Lt. Jonathan Josey has to say about a video in which he sucker punches a woman half his size. Even Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey characterized the action as reprehensible and referred to Josey as a 6’ 1” muscle on a radio show in Philadelphia. Josey was found Not Guilty </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">in a bench trial </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">by Judge Patrick Dugan who, it turns out, is married to Philadelphia Police Officer Nancy Farrell-Dugan. </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">According to</span></span><span class="s4" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="bumpedFont15">The Philadelphia Inquirer</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">, when Josey was found not guilty the courtroom which was “packed with police officers, erupted in applause,” and among these officers whose Motto is </span></span><span class="s5" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">Honor * Service* Integrity</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> was Mrs. Dugan. The question is not why t</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">he judge found Josey not guilty.</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Based just on the information in the previous sentences, I am fairly certain we all have a good idea. The question truly is: Why was the courtroom </span></span><span class="s5" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">“packed”</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">with ANY police officers</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">? </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">The Philadelphia Police Department has had its share of problems in the last few years. Dozens of Philly cops have been arrested in the past three years. The charges range from the misdemeanor assault of the coward Jonathan Josey to theft of services from area utility companies, to drug dealing and manslaughter. In the case of the manslaughter charge, had any o</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">f you reading this done what that</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> cop did you would have been charged with premedit</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">ated murder, but that is something</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> for another day. </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">What concerns me now is just how Judge Dugan could believe that this ruling would not have ramifications for him? Has the Philadelphia system of justice become such that the judges and police believe they are not accountable to the same laws as the rest of the city’s citizens? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">On a local talk radio show earlier today, Enrique Latoison, the attorney for the female sucker punched by Jonathan Josey, stated that </span></span><span class="s5" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">Mrs. Dugan</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> was heard to make a “disparaging, perhaps racist statement about the victim,” while in the hallway outside the courtroom before her hubby returned his verdict. Mr. Latoison said he discounted it at the time, but was forced to consider it</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> when he was driving home after the verdict</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">. As of today, Mr. Latoison has not ruled out the possibility that a federal Civil Rights violation might be in the offing for the coward Jo</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">sey. A similar thing happened in California when the officers who viciously assaulted Rodney King were acquitted in state court. If that happens, the coward Josey might very well wish that Judge Dugan had found him guilty of misdemeanor assault because the penalties involved in a federal Civil Rights complaint are much higher than those for misdemeanor assault.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">It is laughable when one hears the excuses that have been offered for why the coward Josey was found not guilty. Apparently, Judge Dugan believed that the atmosphere at the Puerto Rican parade that day was such that the officers feared for their safety and thus, Josey who has said he “didn’t know he struck her, but thought he knocked a beer bottle from her hand,” was to be excused due to the tenseness of the overall situation. First off, the coward Josey is over 200 pounds of muscle and allegedly a work out maniac and the victim was barely 5 feet tall. Second, not one single officer followed Josey as he stalked his victim and finally, in the video it is clear that the majority of the boys in blue have their backs to the crowd. Are we seriously supposed to believe that they feared for their safety so much that they would turn their backs to the threat? </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">If </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">that is the case all those present should be fired for having IQs which are lower than the temperature that day. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">I am friends with a few members of the PPD, and acquainted with more. Some of them may even be reading this now. Don’t worry fellas. I have no plans to out you. I believe those men to be good, decent, honorable stewards of the public good. Unfortunately though I must now rethink my position that officers like the coward Josey are in the distinct minority of the Philadelphia Police Department. When the Philly F.O.P. held a fund raiser for the coward after he was dismissed from the force, I chalked it up to a union thing that just had to be done. I found it distasteful, but understandable. After hearing about the cheering in the courtroom and seeing the number of officers flanking the coward as he fist pumped his way down the street after the verdict exonerated him, I must now rethink my position. Those members of the Philadelphia Police Department whom I know to be honorable, law abiding men who would no more do as the coward Josey did than would they steal candy from the mouths of children, </span></span><span class="s5" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">MUST</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> be in an ever shrinking minority.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="s6" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">As one who lived through the bad days of the New Orleans Police Department of the 1990s, I can say the signs were there before two officers committed murder with an aplomb that boggles any rational mind. </span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">The NOPD had been slipping toward becoming a criminal syndicate for years before Len Davis and Antoinette Franks snuffed out the lives of innocents. It started with substandard applicants becoming the norm, rather than those interested in serving the public filling the ranks. The dismal pay further diluted the pool and then the means of making up that money just went from extra work to illegality for all too many. What we have witnessed here in Philly may one day be looked back on as the first telling sign of how the PPD finally went wrong. When police officers who have been sworn to uphold the law can pack a courtroom in support of one of their fellows who nonchalantly broke the law on video we have all lost. When uniformed police officers can cheer a monster who not only struck a </span></span><span class="s7" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span class="bumpedFont15">woman</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> literally half his size, but who did so in full view of dozens of his fellow officers and thousands of city residents, we have not only lost but we have become endangered. The final straw will be the coward Josey’s reinstatement with back pay. I have no doubt that arbitration will get him his job back because, hey</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15">,</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> he was found not guilty. At that point his brothers in blue will no doubt cheer again and the rest of us who look to them for safety will just have to turn out the lights.</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> No more will we cross the street to avoid just shady customers, but now we’ll do it for the boys in blue too.</span></span><span class="s3"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span class="s3" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: 14px;"><span class="bumpedFont15" style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div>
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-43539532472628425222013-01-25T14:12:00.003-05:002013-01-25T14:12:40.382-05:00No Ma'am <br />
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, with the full backing and recommendation of the Joint Chiefs, announced that women will soon be allowed to serve in combat arms branches, what the press insists on calling “front line” units. The combat arms branches are traditionally considered Infantry, Armor and Artillery and typically require a 1 to 10 ratio of combat support units. As many of you are aware, I consider most officers to be an impediment to getting things done, so the fact that the Joint Chiefs signed off on this doesn’t immediately convince me of anything. I am, however, the father of a little girl with whom I am constantly striving to imbrue a can do spirit by telling her daily, “Girls can do anything boys can do. You can be the president, a princess or a pirate.” I do not believe however, that means my daughter, nor anyone else’s daughter, should now be allowed to serve in the infantry just because the military hierarchy says it is okay. <br />
<br />
<br />
Men and women are different. They are not inherently or genetically better or worse. They are just different. I cannot give birth, which doesn’t make me better or worse than the women in my life. I recognize some of the women reading this are mentally inserting inferior into that statement, but that is perfectly fine with me. Males may be inferior when it comes to the reproductive capabilities of the species, and I stress may be because it still takes two to tango. Where males are not inferior though is skeletal muscle mass. According to a perusal of Gray’s Anatomy (the tome not that inane Grey’s Anatomy tv show) the adult male skeletal mass is roughly 42% vs. 36% for adult females. According to US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, that means women are approximately 52% and 66% as strong as men in the upper and lower body respectively. In other words, men are generally stronger than women because they typically have larger bodies and a larger proportion of their total body mass is made up of muscle.<br />
<br />
<br />
Again, that does not make men better, just different and, as anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of biology can tell you, differences in biology have appeared over millions of years specifically so that the species can adapt, survive and flourish. If we had not done so, the chimp, to paraphrase Charlton Heston, might very well be atop the pony. According to the book, "Physiology of Sports and Exercise," the women's world weightlifting record is just above 250 kg, (450 lbs) while the men's is almost 450 kg (990lbs). That is a function of evolution and something that makes males different from females. “Before puberty, there is no marked difference in muscle mass between males and females, according to the National Strength and Conditioning Association, or NSCA. Once puberty kicks in, men develop increased levels of testosterone, resulting in broader frames and increased muscle mass. Women, however, experience higher levels of estrogen, which results in more body fat, less muscle and bone mass and lighter total weight than men. Further, women tend to have wider hips. All of these factors equate to slightly less absolute strength and muscle mass for women than men.”<br />
<br />
<br />
So now that we have, I believe, determined that I am not a misogynist, nor do I believe genetic differences make one sex better than the other, it is time to defend my argument. Women, as a general rule, are simply not suited to the rigors of life in the infantry. That does not mean some women aren’t capable of graduating the Army’s Infantry School at Ft. Benning, GA. As an Irish-Catholic kid I know a few tough Mick Chicks who could probably make the cut, but they are not the norm, nor even an average aspiration. The day to day life in an infantry unit is simply too onerous and physically wracking for women. As a 17 year old infantryman, my maximum encumbrance was around 120 pounds, while I myself weighed just under 140 pounds. It was not until I reached my permanent party that I learned “light infantry’ simple meant there were precious few vehicles to carry anything. Our leather personnel carriers (speed-lace combat boots) were designed for that task and my back shouldered the burden. A 17 year old female, even one of roughly the same weight of 140 pounds, would just have been unable to do what I did, for the same time that I did it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Understand that I am not speaking in absolutes. I find it somewhat irritating that I must write that sentence, but I am sure someone will give me anecdotal evidence of some female somewhere who could do anything I do better and tell me that, in her day, Brigitte Nielsen could have kicked my ass AND carried my ruck. For the record, I stipulate to those facts. What this discussion entails is the average male and female. I am also quite well aware that the Israel Defense Forces have female infantry. According to the latest statistics I could find, in October 2011, 27 female combat soldiers completed the IDF Ground Forces Training Course, along with 369 male soldiers and were promoted to the rank of Second Lieutenant.” That is hardly evidence of anything, much less that the new policy in the US military is behind the times. According to the Israel Briefing Book: Israel Overview- Israel Defense Forces “90% of all military positions in the IDF are available to women,” including the Caracal Battalion, a mixed gender battalion which patrols the Israel-Egypt border, although most serve in armor and artillery units.” The results have been mixed at best and simply Googling the battalion will tell you why.<br />
<br />
<br />
I am also versed in Maria Botchkareva and the Russian “Battalion of Death.” The battalion was organized as a means to ridicule Russian men into fighting for a cause in which very few believed, and only existed for a few months. The one battle in which they did fight doesn’t bolster the argument for female infantry any more than the small IDF sample. In the lead up to the battle, the Battalion of Death’s all female force was augmented with 21 male officers, a “battle adjutant” and eight male machine gun crews. Immediately before the unit did exit the trenches and “go over the top,” 100 officers and 300 soldiers joined them. The women behaved well under fire, but suffered about a third of their number in casualties. After only a few months in existence all the female units were ordered to disband. The greatest value of these units was propaganda and not any form of military justification. Had their military effectiveness been such that they could fight in sustained campaigns, whether as all female or mixed units, the concept would have gained traction in the Soviet Union, but did not.<br />
<br />
<br />
The main reason both the IDF and the Russian Army even considered the use of female infantry can be summed up in one word: need. Both have/had little to no other options. Even though the Russian women comported themselves well in battle, it must be noted that their numbers were comprised of above average women, the cream of the crop if you will. We don’t have a need for more infantry recruits, but that is not the intention of the Department of Defense decree. An Army study conducted about 20 years ago found that the average female recruit is about 5 inches shorter, 32 pounds lighter, has about 38 fewer pounds of muscle and roughly 6 pounds more fat than her male counterpart. Women also have significantly less aerobic capability, which means they cannot carry as much, as far and as fast as men and are more susceptible to fatigue. The only way to bridge those biological gaps is to water down the requirements for service. As it stands now, women and men in the military have different standards for physical fitness tests, as do different age groups. Women are required to do push-ups, sit ups and complete a 2 mile run, as are men, but the number required for scoring purposes is less for women. Why? Because the maximum number of reps to earn scores are directly tied to the corresponding biology of the soldier. Just as we wouldn’t expect a 50 year old man to run 2 miles in the same time as a 17 year old, we wouldn’t expect women to do as many push-ups. That’s not to say there aren’t 50 year olds who couldn’t run the 17 and 18 year olds into the mud. My Sgt Major, CSM Guzman did so routinely, but that is not the norm. The fact that some women could do as well as most men is not the norm either. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.<br />
<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember an Army study from my days as an infantryman that stated unequivocally that no soldier should ever carry more than 50 pounds for any length of time. Since the PRC-77 and its accessories pack that I carried inside my ruck, weighed more than 50 pounds by itself, we found no end of amusement in reading that particular study. I agree with the study that in theory no one should carry excessive weight for long periods of time, but that simply isn’t the way the real world works. Talk to any man who served in the infantry, in any era, and the complaints will be the same: knees, back and shoulders ache constantly and are more problematic as we age. If the average male’s body breaks down from the rigors of the infantry, what will happen to women who have less muscle, etc?<br />
<br />
<br />
Since we have spent so much time in the theoretical world of women in combat, I would like to say I am friends with a number of women who have comported themselves beyond compare in combat. I even spoke publicly at a 4th of July ceremony a few years ago. I am completely smitten with the American “Lionesses.” I know they can and will fight, but believe that they should not be allowed to attempt to earn the Infantry Blue Cord for the reasons I have stated above. There are other, more pragmatic reasons though. I can remember being riveted to the television when Brian Nichols escaped from the Atlanta Fulton County Jail and went on a killing spree before being recaptured. On the day of his retrial on rape charges, he was being escorted to a cell by Sheriff’s Deputy Cynthia Hall, a 51 year old 5 foot tall, self described “grandmother.” Nichols, a former college linebacker, is 6”1” and somewhere around 200 pounds of muscle. When Hall removed one of Nichols’ handcuffs he suddenly grabbed her, brutally beat her, fracturing her skull and causing brain damage before shooting her with her own weapon. He then went on to kill 4 people, including a judge and court reporter before calmly exiting the courthouse. To say that Deputy Hall should never have been allowed to supervise Nichols is an understatement. <br />
<br />
<br />
Corrections Officer Susan Canfield was a 59 year old grandmother, and 7 year veteran of the Texas Prison System, when she was killed by two male prisoners during an escape. Officer Canfield was on horseback, supervising a work detail, when she was struck by a vehicle driven by one of the prisoners, dying on the scene from blunt force trauma. A wise man once said to me, “A small man with a stick is not a match for a big man.” I would argue that a woman on horseback is no match for a desperate man with nothing to lose. That’s what this discussion is truly about. It is not about gender equality. It is about what works and what doesn’t. We haven’t even touched on the topic of sexual assault of female infantry, but we all know that women would have to fear that consequence much more so than any male counterpart. I could go into detail about the hows and whys of that, but I simply don’t have the stomach for it. Instead, I’ll leave it to your imaginations.<br />
<br />
<br />
One part of sexual misconduct I will touch on in a little more depth though relates to an Associated Press article that I read on Military.com a few days ago. It was titled, “Sex is Major Reason Military Commanders are Fired.” I’ll post the link below for anyone who is interested, but the gist of the article is that, “At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses.” Am I supposed to believe that more interaction, in more confined spaces, under higher levels of stress will lessen the instances of sexual impropriety? In my less than humble opinion, I would say anyone who believes that is simply delusional, misguided and/or has no understanding of the workings of combat units. <br />
<br />
<br />
Something I have to discuss, albeit briefly, is the notion that this policy is just another attempt to use the military in social engineering to achieve some sort of diversity for purely political ends. I have to disagree with people who say the military is no place for social engineering. In fact, I would offer that it is exactly the place for it. Desegregation, women on ships and in fighter planes have had helped civilian society down the path of acceptance, when no other path could have done it as smoothly. I fervently hope that allowing openly gay members to serve will have similar results on society as a whole. The reasons those examples worked in the military was because there was simply no, good, scientific reason why they shouldn’t. The myth of black male intelligence or dexterity of female pilots was dispelled, not because society wanted them dispelled, but because First Sgts, Sgts Major, Gunnys and Sr Chiefs told everyone that they would accept those changes, whether they liked them or not. Anyone who has ever been on the bad side of one of those ranks can tell you just how quickly prejudices and myths can be dispatched by a foot to your ass from a guy/or gal who walks on water. <br />
<br />
<br />
Social engineering works in the military because we have to follow orders. Since there is no warrior caste in the United States, we take the lessons learned back into the civilian world when we leave the service. No one cares if the guy who guarded his six was white, black, brown or yellow when the shit hit the fan. They just cared that he wouldn’t break down and would shoot straight when the time came. This social experiment is grounded in a myth though. As I have shown with numerous examples above, men and women are different physiologically and those differences precludes women from becoming members of the Infantry. It doesn’t make women less than in any way. It just is. No woman could be expected to endure the daily rigors of an NFL franchise, at any position, because of the constant brutality. The same is true of the Infantry. I desire total equality for my daughter and would be beyond proud to see her in Army blue one day, but not in the sky blue of the Infantry. That is a “boy’s club” and no females need apply.<br />
<br />
<br />
Chris Hill<br />
Proudly Served 1986-1990<br />
HHC 2/256th Infantry 5th Infantry Division<br />
B Co. 1/9th Infantry Reg. 7th Infantry Division (light)<br />
<br />
<br />
Article I referenced in the body of my post:<br />
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/01/21/sex-is-major-reason-military-commanders-are-fired.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=8<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-85950583424815741372013-01-07T15:23:00.000-05:002013-01-07T15:23:20.639-05:00Football FirstAt a State College hotel on last Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, flanked by 40 supporters, including lawmakers, local businessmen, student leaders, and former Penn State football players, announced that he had filed a federal antitrust lawsuit to overturn the penalties imposed by the NCAA in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The NCAA sanctions, which were agreed to by Penn State’s president and board of trustees, came after former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh presented a 267 page report, which detailed the actions of not only Jerry Sandusky, but also the university’s hierarchy. Gov. Corbett though, has decided that the NCAA had no authority to punish Penn State in what was a “strictly criminal matter” and is seemingly concerned with the impact the sanctions will have on the State College business community. I would say he has forgotten what the impact was for the young victims of Penn State’s systemic treachery, but it is nearly time for him to begin campaigning and getting re-elected is what truly matters.<br />
<br /><br />
The Freeh report concluded that the “most senior leaders” at Penn State had known about allegations of child sexual abuse against Sandusky as far back as 1998, were complicit in failing to disclose them, showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims for 14 years” and "empowered" Sandusky to continue his abuse. When the NCAA announced sanctions, after the report was released, Corbett, who is a member of the university’s board of trustees, expressed relief that Penn State had escaped the "death penalty", while asserting that part of the "corrective process is to accept the serious penalties." He also wanted guarantees that no tax money would be part of the $60 million settlement. Since most of Corbett’s public proclamations on the scandal seem to be concerned with Penn State football, and the money it generates, it should not come as a surprise that he could file such a vicious, vile, repugnant lawsuit. To claim though, that he filed the suit because the NCAA seized on the publicity of the Sandusky case "to make a showing of aggressive discipline on the backs of the citizens of the commonwealth," is simply sociopathic and totally devoid of any measure of compassion for the children who suffered the worst possible fates for so long.<br />
<br /><br />
In the lawsuit, Corbett asserted that the $60 million fine and other sanctions levied against Penn State only harmed innocent people. Hell, we can’t have pubs and inns in and around State College going unfilled on game day is what he really meant to say. He seems to have forgotten that the only truly innocent people in all of this are the 8 children (at least) who were subjected to repeated violations at the hands of a serial pederast, Jerry Sandusky, who was then repeatedly protected by a) the head football coach, b) the school’s athletic director, c) the school’s vice president and d) the school’s president. All of whom were more concerned with the impact a scandal would have on the football program and the money it generates for the university, than they were for the lives of children. The Freeh report makes it explicitly clear that all four of these men engaged in “an active agreement of concealment.” Emails and confidential notes acquired by Freeh prove that. Corbett, in defending his lawsuit said “These sanctions did not punish Sandusky or the others who were criminally charged. They punished past, present and future students.” Guv’nah I beg to differ. The sanctions punished an institution that prized football, the second most lucrative national program by some accounts, more than it prized children. This was not just about Jerry Sandusky raping little boys, but that the entire hierarchy from head football coach to school president decided to cover it up rather than risk any public relations damage to the brand that is PSU.<br />
<br /><br />
Does anyone believe that if Joe Pa, the most powerful man in Pennsylvania before the scandal, had wanted something done about Sandusky that it wouldn’t have been done? Consider what the response by Penn State higher ups would have been if some first year head football coach had decided to cover up allegations of sexual abuse against one of his assistant coaches. They would have demanded he be tried criminally too, but instead, a coach who raked in tens of millions for the school and who won two national championships passed along allegations of child rape to his superiors and that’s supposed to be enough? The Freeh report makes clear that from 2001 on Paterno knew Sandusky was molesting children. If he passed that information upward, as he claimed and as he is mandated by law to do, than ALL of the hierarchy knew for a decade that Sandusky was molesting children and chose to do nothing about it. The only way to make certain that never happens again anywhere in the NCAA realm is to impose the sanctions they did. I am still of the belief that they did not go far enough. I would have shuttered the football program for a minimum of four years. <br />
<br /><br />
Gov. Corbett’s “innocent people” who were harmed by the NCAA penalties are the same ones that gave Paterno et al their power. By making Saturdays in the fall all about the Nittany Lions, they created a cult of personality around the football team and its head coach. Paterno could simply do no wrong. In this case though, Paterno not only did wrong, he allowed it to continue on his watch, as did Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. If the manager of a business conspired to fix prices, with the full knowledge of not only his immediate superior, but also the top two officers of the corporation, the business would be torn asunder by criminal proceedings and crippling fines for illegal activity. It would just be too bad that Dolores in the mail room, Todd the executive assistant and the other 2,000 employees now had to look for work Does the name Enron ring any bells in that cobwebbed head of yours governor? Because it was Division I football though, and a boon for the state tax coffers, and shhh… political contributions, we are supposed to consider the poor students who will be deprived of the chance to win a bowl game or compete for the national championship. If memory serves universities are institutions of learning of the highest level, and not vehicles for football teams, or does the win-loss record of your alma mater matter more than your GPA in job interviews? The hot dog bun may be the vehicle for the dog, chili, mustard, and onions, but it is still the thing that makes it a hot dog. Penn State is a university that has a football team, not a football team that happens to have a college or two. <br />
<br /><br />
The penalties were supposed to be a blueprint for suffering. They were designed to be a reminder to Penn State, and all big name football schools, that winning football games at all costs is not what a university, any university, is supposed to consider first. The sanctions were conceived to change the religious fervor and hero worship for the football program, at least as it was practiced under Paterno and Spanier, and to force a transformation of its identity. As part of the penalties, the NCAA vacated 111 of Joe Paterno victories costing him the record of winningest coach in NCAA history. Paterno’s image as an angel of steadfast honor and integrity was vacated too as an artist removed the halo from his head in the State College mural “Inspiration” and the university removed the statue of him outside Beaver Stadium. The pain was not intended to be solely for those who had stood silently as children were sacrificed on the altar of Big Ten Football. Those men should and will receive their legal due. The pain was intended to be of such a magnitude that no one would ever forget the lesson they imparted. They were designed as a reminder that future transgressions, of any nature, would be dealt with swiftly and severely.<br />
<br /><br />
The names have changed throughout the Administration of Penn State. Director of Athletics Dr. David Joyner pledged, “Penn State will become a national model for compliance, ethics, and embodiment of the student athlete credo.” New head football coach Bill O’Brien pledged similar designs and may very well deign to run the cleanest program in Division I football, but it is now, always has been, and apparently always will be, a cathedral to a football team that has a university program. Big Ten Football is God in many, many college towns, but in few places with more fervor than in State College, PA. Within days of finishing his first season honchoing the Nittany Lions, O’Brien’s agent was contacted by NFL teams and ESPN reported he interviewed with the Cleveland Browns. O’Brien had previously said, "I'm not a one-and-done guy. I made a commitment to these players at Penn State and that's what I am going to do. I'm not gonna cut and run after one year. That's for sure.” Billionaire booster Terrence Pegula decided to make sure by offering to add $1.3 million to O’Brien’s current $2.3 million dollar salary. That would have made O’Brien among the highest paid coaches in college football. This at a university which is banned for 4 years from bowl appearances, a reduction by half for football scholarships during those four years, the aforementioned vacated wins and a $60 million fine, which is roughly equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA probably envisioned these punishments as a Samson type dis-tressing, but among the We Are Penn State crowd it is still apparently Football First.<br />
<br /><br />
The PSU website proclaims that 1 out of every 117 Americans with a college degree are Penn State grads. That's a lot of votes, and, as witnessed by the proposed $1.3 million gift above, a lot more money. Corbett, like all powerful politicians, CEOs and Wall Street traders is a sociopath when it comes to career advancement. Wondering how he can sleep at night after an action such as this mostly misses the point. It was a Machiavellian tactic of the purest kind by a man who desires a particular political power. The lawsuit plays to a demographic that feels itself wronged and is cunning in its simplicity. From the typical blue collar Penn State fan who feels the NCAA punished those who had committed no crime, Corbett stands to gain some traditional democrat party votes whether he wins the lawsuit or not. From big time alumni like Pegula who can drop $1.3 million without batting an eye, Corbett stands to receive an infusion of much needed cash for what is sure to be an expensive race for governor. All he has to do to tap into that powerful structure is stand up to an organization that no one likes anyway and play the downtrodden soul. Corbett raised around $28 million for his election in 2010. With the election ground game already afoot, money needs to enter his campaign coffers now if he is to continue sleeping in the Governor’s Mansion in Harrisburg. So what if this lawsuit Sandusky’s makes victims relive their abuse? So what that Penn State agreed to the NCAA sanctions? So what that his position as a university trustee makes his lawsuit a conflict of interest? No matter what you or I think, the sanctions were hugely unpopular with fans, students and those numerous alumni. Corbett knows that too and, by filing his lawsuit, has decided that his re-election is the true “moral” victory. In the Corbett camp, whatever has to be done to secure re-election simply must be done. Depravity has found a new home. Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-22252454393923237922013-01-03T11:35:00.000-05:002013-01-03T11:35:12.918-05:00Keystone Cops Wanted<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Back in the old days of my elementary school attendance, which was a mix of parochial and public schools, Officer Friendly would make annual visits to foster a relationship between kids and cops. Later, the D.A.R.E. Program sought to do likewise. In fact, when I was a very young lad my uncle would frequently drop me off at school on his way to work as an officer with NOPD. Police, while not permanently stationed at any school I attended, were a fixture in the curriculum. Why then, in light of the horrific event at Sandy Hook Elementary, is the idea of an armed police officer at schools being so vigorously attacked? Why is this idea so inane and, therefore, completely off the table? What, exactly, am I missing? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Sidwell Friends Select in Washington, D.C., educates the children of D.C. area power brokers for an annual pittance of $38,000. Sasha and Malia Obama made news when they were initially enrolled there and we have once again seen them on front pages of newspapers because their <b>school employs 11 armed guards as a matter of course</b>. It should be noted that these are NOT guards hired since the two young ladies enrolled. Nope, Sasha and Malia have their own Secret Service detail, as they should. The 11 armed guards are there permanently to protect the students and staff.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The Friends Select website proudly states: Members of the Friends Select community believe in the Quaker values of respect for all, simplicity, <b><i>“the peaceful resolution to conflict” </i></b>(my emphasis), and a constant search for truth. Umm, peaceful resolution versus 11 armed guards? Doesn’t that seem excessive, even histrionic, despite the fact that these are the children of the rich and famous? I would suggest that it is even more than that. It is completely and utterly hypocritical for an organization that preaches “War Is Not the Answer,” while making money on t-shirts and bumper stickers emblazoned with that creed. Those bumper stickers mostly festoon Volvo station wagons and Subaru Outbacks and the t-shirts are most often worn by Birkenstock clad hippie re-enactors, but nonetheless that IS the Quakers publicly stated position, which is undeniably at odds with 11 armed guards roaming their hallowed halls. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I am completely comfortable suggesting that no matter what political view the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary previously held concerning guns, they now ALL wish there had been someone, anyone, armed and trained in the use of a firearm when evil incarnate broke a window and rained death and destruction onto the innocent boys and girls in school that day, as do I. I also have no doubt that more than a few of those parent’s cars had those blue and white, War Is Not the Answer bumper stickers. War may not ALWAYS be the answer, but when evil intrudes upon the safety of children it is, in my view, most definitely the answer. If you disagree with my assertion, then let me ask: if not war, what IS the answer? Please stick to real world solutions and pragmatic responses and not some juvenile, kumbaya version of how <i>you wish life would shake out</i>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On a recent front page of <i>The Philadelphia Inquirer</i> is a story wherein our potty-mouthed mayor, Michael Nutter, went on national television last week, looked into the camera and said the NRA's proposal to staff schools with armed guards was <b>"a completely dumbass idea from the start.”</b> He has used various versions of ass profanity to hammer home points in the past. I am not against anyone cursing, including public servants, but our august mayor uses tame profanity to appear tougher and more inner city than his lily background would suggest. It is part of his “I’m a tough guy when it come to this stuff” persona, which, as any Philly resident will tell you, is absolutely ridiculous. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The commercials of Mayor Nutter and his daughter Olivia are credited with swaying the electorate in his first run for mayor. I admit that I found those commercials heart-warming, but did not vote for him for reasons that matter not here. There was much fanfare when Mayor Nutter and his security entourage, (two cars and three uniformed cops according to<a href="http://philly.com/" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors="true">Philly.com</a>) dropped Olivia off at Masterman School, which is the top ranked public school in Philadelphia. There is, of course, a uniformed member of the Philadelphia School Police stationed there now. Unlike when Olivia attended though, the officer at Masterman, like all other Philadelphia school cops, is unarmed. Why Sasha and Malia Obama and Olivia Nutter are possible targets I understand. Why they are more precious than my princess I do not know.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">At the beginning of this school year I noticed my daughter’s school officer was not on duty. When I questioned the principal, an educator par excellence whom I absolutely adore, I was told, “City Council removed the officers from ‘some’ schools due to budget cuts.” A subsequent call to a councilman found me hearing that my daughter’s school was deemed less at risk than others, so another school would have the protection afforded by an unarmed cop. An unarmed cop is better than no cop, but not by a huge amount. An unarmed cop breaks up a schoolyard fracas. An “armed” cop is a deterrent, which says to any, would be evil doer, “at this school you WILL be met with force and you WILL have to take a defensive posture. The loathsome bastard at Sandy Hook had to contend with neither of those things, as we all too well know. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The School District of Philadelphia’s Office of School Safety oversees the school police who, according to the district website, must complete 4 weeks of initial training and 24 hours of staff development annually, but they carry no firearms. For that, each school in Philadelphia has a Law Enforcement Liaison with the Philadelphia Police Department. This provides for 2-3 uniformed PPD who are tasked with responding to emergencies at assigned schools. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, <b>when seconds count those assigned cops are only minutes away</b>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">All of this leads me back to my thesis statement. Why is the idea of schools having armed officers, private or public, uniformed or not, so abhorrent to the same people who consistently make use of such guards? The day after the Newtown shooting, I offered to teach the principal I so adamantly support, to shoot and was told no thanks. She was concerned about the” message” it would send to her kids if she was packing, even though she stated unequivocally that she would have done as the principal in Sandy Hook did and run to the guns. I also unequivocally believe that she would seek to protect all her kids, but unfortunately an unarmed Good Samaritan versus a maniac intent on mayhem rarely winds up with a W in the good guy’s column.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">What I simply do not understand is why this is an either or proposition. <b>Why CAN’T someone trained to shoot dead any threat to our children be part of our school’s operations? </b> All we very smart people can find a way to make him/her unobtrusive and indeed un-noticed by the children if we wish, or part of the larger program like Officer Friendly if we prefer. Even if we were to completely outlaw ALL firearms tomorrow, something I do not support, there would still be hundreds of millions of weapons available to those bent on evil. Were it a utopian society where none of our children need fear any harm in their day to day lives, this would all be moot. It’s not a utopian society, though it is an exceptional one, and evil men (it’s mostly men who do these vile things) will commit evil acts. Shouldn’t the angel on the shoulder have 15 rounds of S&W .40 or 10 rounds of .45 ACP with which to defend the position of spirit and light? Or is that just not worth the cost to the world view of those wherein Peace Is the Answer?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span></div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br />
</span> <br />
<div>
</div>
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-17602857181981848252013-01-02T17:46:00.000-05:002013-01-02T17:46:19.431-05:00Of Cliffs and Cartoons<br />
My email inbox is a mix of electronic versions of newspapers, newsletters (Drudge and Huffington), and amalgamations of news stories such as <i>The Daily Beast’s </i>“Cheat Sheet”, as well as <i>The Atlantic’s </i>“Long Reads”. With no exceptions, each one of those email’s lead story was something concerning how we as a country have managed to avoid the looming “fiscal cliff”. Apparently, enough of our lawmakers cut short their ridiculously long Christmas breaks in order to prevent taxes from rising on every single American who takes home a paycheck. As it stands now, only individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000 will see their tax rates rise from 35% to 39.6%. The rest of us have dodged the label of nouveau pauvre once again, or have we? I would submit that the “Fiscal Cliff” debate is nonsense of the sort only Wile E. Coyote and the Acme Corporation can provide. The problem with government is spending beyond its means, and that is as it always has been. <br />
<br />
<br />
The federal government has almost always spent more than it took in. In 1914, the first full year after ratification of the 16th Amendment, (which authorized Congress to tax both individuals and businesses), government revenue was $725,000,000 and spending was $726,000,000. There was a period from 1920 through 1930 during which we actually spent less than we took in, but that is decidedly not the norm. Other than the surplus years 1998 through 2001, there has never been more than a year here and a year there where the government spent less money than it actually had in the coffers. If you or I spent more than 50% above our income for years on end we would have been arrested, tried and convicted for fraud by now. In Washington, D.C. that’s just called deficit spending.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8BVgIOokw3_0_q6oqkdnlT5GaWTtLIKekl6y_M2D_i_ZR0NXcC1ALFLVvzkd5Xv9mSBupW0NLg6xry7iq-p8ew4FET53gE6DObra_kRc0_dl4jyEMA9lnB-zw9NSQF-BGWH39/s1600/wile-e-coyote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" eea="true" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8BVgIOokw3_0_q6oqkdnlT5GaWTtLIKekl6y_M2D_i_ZR0NXcC1ALFLVvzkd5Xv9mSBupW0NLg6xry7iq-p8ew4FET53gE6DObra_kRc0_dl4jyEMA9lnB-zw9NSQF-BGWH39/s320/wile-e-coyote.jpg" width="199" /></a></div>
<br />
I may be in the minority here, but I don’t want taxes to be raised on anyone. A check of the White House website <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals</a> shows tables relating to what the government takes in and what it lays out. In a preposterously government-ese link named SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS the money which comes in, and almost immediately goes out, is broken down from 1789 through projections for 2017. In 2009 we took in <b>$2,104,900,000,000 </b>and spent <b>$3,517,600,000,000</b>. In 2010 the numbers were <strong>$2,162,700,000,000</strong> and <strong>$3,456,200,000,000</strong> respectively and the numbers for 2011 are <strong>$2,303,500,000,000</strong> and <strong>$3,603,100,000,000</strong>. Once the final numbers for the just ended 2012 are released, there is simply no reason to believe we will not continue the trend of ever higher spending, no matter what revenue is generated. In fact, we should all expect the deficits to continue their historical march onward and upwards. <br />
<br />
<br />
A couple of the lesser mentioned aspects of the deal are that the debt ceiling will not be addressed and the federal payroll tax holiday will be allowed to expire. The former is attached to the $110,000,000,000 in automatic spending cuts which have been delayed for two months. As for the latter, well you didn’t actually think that the only tax which truly affects everyone who works could be rescinded did you? After all, that pesky 47% of people that Mitt Romney referenced can’t be allowed to get off scott free, not now that the election is done. Somehow our government has become addicted to spending and, even with Scrooge McDuck-like buckets of money in play nothing appears to be able to stem the tide of red ink. No matter how much money the politicians in Washington have in which to swim, they will always find ways to spend that and lots more.<br />
<br />
<br />
Government has always been too big and just keeps getting bigger. Check out any two subsequent years of the federal budget and you will see that it never goes down. Each and every year someone else in Congress adds a pet project or 6 into the document and we get bridges to nowhere, swine odor and manure management research, water taxi service to places with zero residents, and multiple millions of dollars for an indoor rain forest in Iowa. Therein lays the actual problem. As long as the august men and women in Congress are allowed to add earmarks, without repercussion, they will, because it benefits them come election time. How else can a body politic with single digit approval ratings see 90% of incumbents re-elected? I have personally seen and heard politicians of both parties say things like, “Well, Congress may only have an 18% approval rating, but polls show my ratings are 45% favorable.” Why the seeming disconnect? Because millions of dollars for the World Toilet Summit benefit the voters in his or her district of course and jobs back home equal votes. <br />
<br />
<br />
The theatrical façade of doomsday predictions concerning this cliff or that precipice will continue unabated until we quite literally break the bank and riots of the current Greek variety consume the streets of American cities. As long as politicians can write bigger checks for pet projects than their checking account would seem to allow, they will. That’s where true leadership and legislation should be found. Instead of squabbling over how much the wealthy will, or should pay, we should all be discussing how to stop spending money we simply do not have. It should be the type of discussion that goes on over my coffee table or your couch. How many of us have had the conversation with the spouse concerning just what we <b>won’t buy </b>this month? All of you reading this I would bet.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, what to do you ask? Should we all become doomsday preppers and stock up on food, water and ammunition for our self sustaining bunkers? That’s one idea I guess, but I am of the belief that if enough of us make time to let our Senators and representatives know what we want, we can change the course of the nation and right the ship. We need an immediate freeze on discretionary spending, actual reform on entitlement spending, some sort of balanced budget spending legislation, the termination of redundant and/or un-necessary programs, and serious, grown up talk on the privatization of other programs.<br />
<br />
<br />
But wait! I can hear you yelling. That means talks about the sacred cows of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the political death knells of unemployment compensation, food stamps and agricultural price support programs. Any politician who even suggests cuts to these third rail programs is assured of a landslide defeat in his next election. Unfortunately for whomever that may be, that is precisely what some brave politicians, who never saw Congress as a lifetime gig anyway, need to do. Serious discussions on allowing me and those behind me in the retirement queue to have some say in our retirement need to take place. At roughly 21% of the federal budget, Social Security is the single largest slice in the budget pie. Since there is not now, nor has there ever been a “lock box” for Social Security, funding that slice takes actual money, but the Social Security trust fund only consists of Treasury securities. This means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax, which since 1969 have been designated as part of the unified budget, are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires<br />
<br />
<br />
It is in those “present purposes” wherein the problem exists. Since, by law, monies collected through taxes cannot be separated from the budget, Social Security is only adequately funded through 2026. What happens after that? Nobody actually knows for certain. It just depends upon what Congress is doing concerning the red and black ink of outlays and revenues. What is for certain is that kicking the can down the road continuously will eventually yield unpleasant results. Whether that is the emergence of a third political party, some form of isolationism, outright anarchy in the streets, some combination of all three, or none of them remains to be seen. All that is for certain is that the results will eventually be, at the least, unpleasant for many and, at the worst, painful for us all. <br />
<br />
<br />
I am fairly certain that, after 1,200 words give or take, my thesis statement for this piece is sound. I am also fairly certain that most of you believe government spends too much money on frivolous and inane things. The sticking point lies in what each of us consider frivolous and/or inane and what we think should be done. I am most fond of my Super Genius tattoo, which resides directly beneath an image of old Wile E. Coyote falling through space. I am that type of Super Genius. The Rube Goldberg complex contraptions which I construct, usually in my mind, never seem to work as well in practice as they did in theory. Being that old Wile E. and I are kindred souls, I do not truly have a cut and dried answer to what needs to be eliminated and what should stay, but some projects and even <b>departments</b> need to go.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Congress is currently awash in Acme mail order contraptions like Bat Suits, exploding tennis balls, Do-it-Yourself Tornado kits, rocket skates and the ubiquitous Acme American Anvil. While Wile E. can drop an order form into a mailbox, or enter an order into a website, and have the requested items delivered from Acme’s headquarters in Fairfield, NJ in seconds, Congress cannot expect any such miracles in unraveling the Gordian Knot of their own making. They can however, employ an Alexander the Great type solution and cut through it now. If history is any indicator though, that will not happen. <br />
<br />
<br />
I am more expectant that one by one our elected officials will don the Acme Bat Suit, leap from the cliff and, after one or two swipes of the outfit’s wings, plummet straight into the ground, after which, as they unsteadily regain their feet, an anvil will promptly appear from the heavens and squash them into the dirt. The failures of the Acme products always leave old Wile E. more humiliated than harmed. Failures in Congress, as we all know though, leave the politicians neither humiliated, nor harmed and the Coyote’s greatest enemy, gravity, seems to have no effect on politicians at all. Congress is a body of true fanatics with whom only Wile E. can compare because both continue to, in the words of George Santayana, redouble their efforts when they have forgotten their aim. <br />
<br />
<br />
That attitude has gotten us where we are now and one of these public servants needs to put on their big boy or girl panties, throw off the Acme Corporation livery and read the fine print on the order forms. For there, as any <i>Looney Tunes </i>aficionado can tell you, are the words that could finally cause our friend the Coyote to expire: Acme is A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Roadrunner Corporation and a more apt analogy for the current financial morass one simply will not find.<br />
<br />Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-53283715933454581462012-12-27T13:20:00.000-05:002012-12-27T13:20:01.423-05:00They Say Locks Only Keep Honest People Honest<i>"Anything you lose automatically doubles in value."<br />
<br />
Mignon McLaughlin<strike></strike></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I have always had a particular fascination with that quote, while not truly having any specific information on its author. So when I stumbled across a bargain e-book on Barnes & Noble’s site titled, “Sober Is My New Drunk,” with a lead in quote by Ms McLaughlin I decided to take a chance on it. That led me down the rabbit hole of self immolation from which I can, hopefully, arise like the Phoenix, or at least not like Brandon Lee’s Crow.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some of you have, no doubt, ascertained where this is going and some of you are already clued into my new path, as it were. I took much longer than I needed to make this public pronouncement. I didn’t hesitate because I was afraid of the responses some might give, nor that any of you would think the less of me. I hesitated because I just didn’t want to have it be over. I just harbored the ridiculous notion that someday I would be able to do things differently, the grown up way. Unfortunately for me that just isn’t the case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you’re still reading this I trust the light bulb has gone on, but in case it hasn’t, or more correctly, because I decided to make this public declaration, here goes: I have not had a drop of alcohol, the sweet elixir that sustained me for too many years, since 6 October, 2012 and intend to keep it that way permanently. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I truly wish I could say I came to this place in life because I realized that I was hurting those that love me, or that I recognized I have a problem and wanted to do something about it, or that some major epiphany befell me, but the truth is much more plebian, pedestrian and all too embarrassing. I had a run in with the Philadelphia Police Department, after which I decided to go to rehab for the second time in two years.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I can no longer lie to myself. I have a problem with alcohol, and have for a very long time. Unlike most of you reading this, I cannot simply have 1 or 2, or even 10 or 12. Once I start drinking I will not, and cannot stop until I simply cannot drink anymore due to unconsciousness or some minor to major catastrophe stops me against my will.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
That is the long and short of it. I have had multiple debacles while drinking, but didn’t want to face life without it. I adore bar rooms. Whether it is a gin mill, biker bar, honky-tonk, or upscale smoker’s lounge matters not. I love the sights and sounds of them; the way the glass tinkles as the bartender lifts the bottle from its place in front of the ubiquitous mirror; the too loud conviviality of strangers; the tv always turned to sports and the bartender remembering my drink choice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
See the real truth of the matter is I didn’t want to give up drinking. It has been the major part of my life’s jigsaw puzzle for as long as I can remember. It allowed me to act up and have an excuse, even though drunken excuses wear a lot thinner at 44 than they did 20 years earlier. As much as I might protest otherwise, I never wanted to drink like a gentleman. I never cared for a polite buzz, but rather, always preferred the blotto state up against brain damage territory. There are a number of reasons for that, but I will not bother to list them here. Truthfully, they don’t really matter. <br />
<br />
What matters most is that alcohol has become a crutch I must abandon if I am to heal in any meaningful way. I have never needed booze to give me a jolt of confidence, nor do I need it in order to do things that are truly, stupendously ill conceived. Those things just come naturally to me. I’ve tried for a couple of years now to quit drinking, with various lengths of success, but what I have never done is what I am doing now. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The purpose of this monologue is not that any of you will coddle me, or hold my hand, but rather that I will have to face my words. I will have to admit that I simply cannot drink with any reasonable measure of success and the only way to prevent bad things from happening when I do drink is to abstain completely. So there you have it. The legendary, many would say infamous, days of wine and song, or in my case Heineken, Jameson’s and juke boxes are done. I was never overly embarrassed by my drunken antics, nor cared that people knew I tended to over imbibe, so why should I care now that the world knows I am officially On the Wagon? As you can all see, apparently I don’t. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
While I am not as renowned as the author of the book that started this journey, I fully intend to let you all know what life is like from this side of the divide. To Your Health.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-27788166379456203682012-12-18T15:32:00.000-05:002012-12-18T15:32:13.512-05:00Making Sense of TragedyAs the father of an 8 year old daughter, I was horrified when I heard the very first reports of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. My horror and abject sadness only deepened as the picture of what happened emerged. I cannot fathom the evil or degree of mental aberration that would be needed to execute 6 and 7 year old children one after the other, pausing only to kill teachers and staff who attempted to come to their rescue. Nor can I imagine how someone deranged enough to commit such acts was allowed to walk in public amongst the rest of us. I honestly don’t care to know anything about him, nor will I endeavor to remember his name and I certainly won’t use it here. A despicable piece of humanity snuffed out the life of 20 children for some reason that died with him when he took the coward’s way out and killed himself so as not to face accountability for his actions. We as a nation now have to address the issue not only of Gun Control, but also Mental Illness and what to do about both. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Juxtaposed against the madness of the gunmen is the utter heroism of the school staff. The school’s principal Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, the school’s psychologist, ran towards the first sounds of gunfire, confronting the gunman in an attempt to protect their students and were murdered in cold blood. First grade teacher Victoria Soto rushed her students into a closet as the first gunshots rang out and then shielded her students with her body when the madman entered her classroom, as did Special Education teacher Anne Marie Murphy. Both teachers died doing their best to protect the children they desperately loved. Other teachers saved dozens of lives, while risking their own. The school’s music teacher Maryrose Kristopik barricaded a door with instruments, holding the knob as the maniac beat on it, and first-grade teacher Kaitlin Roig rushed her 15 students into a bathroom and barricaded the door with an old bookshelf, using her body weight to keep it in place. There are dozens more stories of teachers and staff taking similarly heroic measures to protect their charges. Nowhere among those stories though is the elephant in the room: one teacher, armed with a handgun of their own, and trained to use it, could have ended the tragedy before it truly started. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I know, I know what some of you are saying already, “We have to ban guns, not give them to teachers”. While that might seem as an answer to the problem it doesn’t begin to address it in any substantive way. It is a juvenile response to an adult problem. Don’t believe me? Well how about we just start with the desire to BAN guns, all guns. How EXACTLY would you go about that? Would you just tell the firearms industry that they can no longer sell weapons to anyone other than the government or the military? Okay. That stops future weapons from entering the community, while throwing hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work I might add, but does less than nothing about the guns already in private hands. Less than nothing you say? Why that’s preposterous! Really? What’s the quickest way to assure that something becomes more valuable? Have a finite number of it. The weapons currently owned, legally or illegally, just became more precious and people on both sides of the law will stop at little to acquire and hold onto them. Previously law abiding citizens will hide their weapons and criminals will attempt to acquire more through the normal illegal channels. Both sides will do this as a hedge against the future. Let’s ignore that pesky little fact though.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, now we’ve banned all future gun sales. Now what? “Well we start taking them away from EVERYONE except cops! That’s what”, you say. Umm… okay, but how EXACTLY do you propose to do that? Are you going to demand that people turn them in voluntarily by a date picked by you and then send the local constabulary house to house to collect the rest? House to house in every city, town, village and farm? Huh, good luck with that strategy. Some of the bad guys will choose the moment when Officer Friendly knocks on the door to collect his weapons to begin his final shoot-out, which just ties up the other cops busy making their allotted confiscations of weapons. Yep, bullets will be flying then for sure, but that’s okay because eventually the cops will outgun the bad guy and he’ll commit suicide by cop. Some places, ala Ruby Ridge or Waco will require a larger law enforcement presence to affect the ban, and it won’t be just one place, nor will there be many peaceful resolutions. That’s okay too though because after a decade, or so, of dogged determination by our local LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) all the guns and ammo will have been collected and we’ll have thinned the national herd of some disagreeable sorts. Of course, along the way all manner of well meaning, but draconian, rights infringing, legislation will have been enacted to combat the gun problem, which won’t be used to limit any other personal freedoms I am sure. Wink, wink.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
What would a utopian view of a gun-free America look like? What will the national landscape resemble then? I know what it won’t resemble. It won’t resemble a representative democracy anymore. It would be nothing more than another despotic regime paying lip service to its citizens concerns and rubber stamping elections. “Nahh”, you say, “life will be better and more kumbaya for all of us”. Unfortunately, nothing in history suggests that. The United States came into being because of guns. The Continental Army was a collection of citizen soldiers who brought their own hardware to the fight and, once established as a country, those same individuals expanded the nascent country’s borders with the Colt Peacemaker and the Winchester Model 1873, “The gun that won the West”. We are a nation of gun owners and just as the American Motorcycle Assc. famously remarked about the Hollister riot in 1947, 99% of those owners are law abiding. Just because you’ve never owned, or even fired a weapon, nor know anyone who has, doesn’t mean they are not part of the literal fabric of the country. Millions of men, women and, yes, children eagerly look forward to various hunting seasons and that many more engage in some form of target shooting. Others own one that they haven’t touched in eons, but know exactly where it is just in case. None of those people have done anything that deserves having their personal liberties expunged, but, hey, so what? They’re not Upper East Side or Rodeo Dr friendly anyway.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This could be the place where I could lay out the stats on other types of deaths versus gun deaths. Like the 48,000-98,000 deaths each year attributed to medical errors, or the 33,000 deaths due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred last year on the nation’s highways; a number that continues to go down despite the dire predictions of various agencies when the speed limits were raised. There’s also the unintentional poisoning deaths, 31,758 or unintentional falls, 24,792, or the intentional self harm (suicide) 36,909 to which we must make mention. We should probably throw heart disease, 599,413 cancer, 567,628 and diabetes, 68,705 deaths in her too because there are all manner of lifestyle choices which cause a large portion of those diseases. It has become cliché to say, people don’t kill people, guns do, but, unfortunately that is true. Guns are no more inherently evil than cars or doctors are and no one is considering a ban on those. The idea of banning guns is just more chic because those who argue most vociferously for it are the ones who don’t own any anyway, nor understand why you would want to. When an event such as the Sandy Hook massacre occurs all of us are shaken to our core and just want to do something, anything, to seem to be responding to the tragedy. That is nothing more than posturing for the sake of posturing so that we can all feel better about the ugliness of humanity.<br />
<br />
Humans are not inherently evil, nor good in my estimation. We are just that, human. There is no aggressive gene or singular trait that makes us war on ourselves. According to Dr. Agustin Fuentes, writing in the popular accepted journal “Psychology Today”,<br />
<br />
<i>“In the human fossil and archeological record there is no good evidence of intense aggression and warfare until very recently, and it is associated with the advent of permanent settlements, agriculture, and social stratification. Increased social inequality and more complex political and economic systems seem to correlate with more types of aggression and violence in human societies. Interestingly, these scenarios also correlate with larger and more complex peaceful relationships amongst and between peoples.”<br />
</i><br />
What that seems to suggest to me is that the more people there are the more aggressive, hostile acts there will be, but they will always be out-numbered by acts of kindness and those of a peaceful nature. Simply put, our biology is not to blame.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
All right, so play along with me a while longer. Let’s accept that neither guns, nor humans are inherently evil. What to do then, pragmatically, to make sure that those among us who have the propensity for evil, or violent mental instability, never acquire the firearm means to inflict casualties. A good place to start is to enforce common sense concerning firearms. The Sandy Hook murderer should never have had unfettered access to the weapons legally acquired by his mother. She, unfortunately, paid for her life for that error, along with dozens of innocents. Apparently she was aware of his mental imbalance, but was at a loss to address it. From the news reporting on such shootings, most of the shooters didn’t acquire their weapons through due process, but rather stole them from others. That’s as true of an 18 year old kid who fires a pistol at a person on the subway in Philly because he had the temerity to wear the team jersey of some organization from somewhere else, as it is for more headline making shootings such as Sandy Hook . That doesn’t make it any less true though. The penalties for gun violence, indeed any illegality involving a firearm, need to be stiff and consistently enforced. Legally owned firearms need to be stored safely and securely, with stiff penalties for those who allow them to fall into others hands through carelessness too. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It’s true that mass shootings occur in the United States more often than anywhere else. At least it is true for the sake of this discussion. A resident of Tel Aviv killed with a dozen of his fellows on a bus blown up by terrorists would make no distinction between being dead, with someone shot down protecting children. Dead is dead. Around 50 people were killed in Syria today as fighting between rebels and the government has intensified. The death toll there thus far is somewhere around 40,000, with no end in sight. There are many such places in the world where 26 dead in a day would be an improvement. That’s part of the reason this event shocks the national consciousness. No matter what you may believe, these types of events are still rare. We, quite rightly, are horrified by this one because it involved our children, the innocents among us. In trying to make sense of a senseless act we seek to solve the wrong problem and assuage our collective guilt and sorrow. Banning weapons as a knee jerk reaction to an heinous crime is punishing the wrong actor, while not even preventing the next gruesome event. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When James Brady was wounded by John Hinckley Jr. during his attempted assassination of President Reagan, the outcry for Gun Control was instantaneous. The legislation that resulted, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act sought to prevent just such an unhinged character as Hinckley from doing just what he did; buy a .22 caliber handgun in a pawnshop with no background check. To that end, it was effective in stopping the sales of firearms to illegal or unlawful owners, but prosecution and convictions of violators of the Brady Bill are rare. Federal oversight, the biggest Big Brother of them all can seldom be bothered to enforce the law, unless there is a splashy news story to spur them. What we get then are a hodge podge of local and state laws that criminalize otherwise legal gun owners. In a rush to extract vengeance from someone for a despicable act we punish people who bore no ill will in some cases, and let others off the hook. What is needed is straight forward enforcement of the federal firearms legislation already in place and zero tolerance policy of punishment for those who commit gun violence, anywhere and anytime. The 18 year old in Philly who fired into a crowded SEPTA train last week should be aggressively punished for his actions and serve a severe sentence for it. His actions are no more mundane for the lack of deaths. In fact, one could argue that since he is still, as of this writing, on the loose that he is more terrifying than a random school shooter is. A school shooter has a soft target in mind. A place where he can go about his gruesome business without fear of retaliation, at least until law enforcement arrives. The SEPTA shooter didn’t care on whom his bullets landed and didn’t seem to care about the number of deaths he could have caused. Nothing, save capture and imprisonment, will stop him from doing that again and again. That shooter believes his action was justifiable for some inane reason, but probably isn’t deranged in the manner of the scumbag in Connecticut. How many more like each shooter exist?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
More likely than not, the SEPTA shooter belongs to a class of people who believe that spraying bullets into a train is something that is acceptable in his world. That is truly alarming because a mass murderer is an aberration, but more picayune shootings like this are just that, commonplace to the point where they make only the local news. We may never be able to stop an unsettled maniac from committing a crime of a magnitude that shocks us all, but we can address why it is that a shooting on public transportation, in front of hundreds of witnesses, doesn’t. Sensible solutions to gun violence need to be considered by all of us in civilized society. That means the duck hunter in Tuscaloosa, AL and the gun collector in Lost Creek, WV have to be accepted as equals by the urbane jet set. Both sides need to recognize that while guns are not inherently evil, they are part of the problem and all of us have a responsibility to see to it that we are all as safe in our homes and schools as we can be. Instead of hysteria, blustering and finger pointing we need a grown up discussion replete with both side’s viewpoints on what constitutes gun safety. No one can get all of what he or she wants all the time, and this discussion would be no different. What we could get though is something none of us would ever recognize: we might stop someone else from shocking our consciences with an act like this and isn’t that truly what we all want?Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-80945314212893423322012-11-13T13:52:00.000-05:002012-11-13T13:52:34.646-05:0019,605 to Nothing<br />
In the aftermath of the Presidential Election, an uproar from the right side of the political aisle has erupted here in Philadelphia. The culprit is a news story, which appeared in the “Philadelphia Inquirer” http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-sasha-issenberg#.UKJI014h1fA.email Since its publication yesterday the local talk radio outlets, and a number of national ones too, have begun trumpeting the call for an investigation into how it is possible that in 59 voting divisions not one voter voted for Mitt Romney. Republicans in all strata of government are decrying the numerical improbability of such an event. The venerated Larry Sabato, political scientist from the University of Virginia, and go-to guy for all manner of election nuance is quoted in the article as saying,<br />
<br />
"I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of precincts that didn't cast a vote for Romney". But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination. Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into”. <br />
<br />
Well, far be it for me to differ with the august Mr. Sabato, but I’m at a loss as to why anyone is incredulous about these numbers. The problem is not Democrat Party chicanery, or malfeasance, or party politics. No. The problem is the Republican Party generally nationwide, but particularly in the feckless, counterproductive, ineffectual version that resides here in Philly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The City of Philadelphia has 66 political wards, each ostensibly governed by a Ward Leader from each party. My understanding is that it is the Ward Leader’s job to turn out his or her ward’s registered voters for the party on Election Day. Each one of those wards has not less than 10, nor more than 50 divisions, according to the self styled watchdog group The Committee of Seventy. So, in the city’s 66 wards there are a total of 1,687 divisions. In 59 of those divisions not one vote was cast for Mitt Romney. The statistical implausibility of 19,605 to 0 is the rallying point for those who have had their ire raised by this seeming travesty. If my math is correct, that means in roughly 3% of the city’s divisions, the voters unanimously voted for President Obama. Out of the total 656,263 votes cast in Philly, President Obama received 559,180. If anything, I am surprised there weren’t 100 divisions that voted unanimously for the President’s re-election.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Various sources have the total number of voters in Philadelphia at about 1 million, with roughly 811,000 of them registered as Democrats, 129,000 as Republicans and 99,000 from all the other parties combined. Of the 656,263 votes cast and counted on Election Day, Obama received 559,180, Romney got 91,953 and Libertarian, Green Party and write-ins accounted for 5,130. Instead of concerning themselves with the 19,605 votes from the 59 divisions that went all in for President Obama, I would suggest the Republican Party concern itself with the 467,227 vote difference between the candidates and how to collect some of them. Or, even better, how about the 37,416 supposedly registered republicans who did NOT cast a vote for Romney, but either a) voted for Obama, b) didn’t vote at all, or c) don’t live and vote in the city anymore. Those numbers are much more important than the 19,605 votes, which works out to about 332 votes per each of the 59 divisions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is worth noting that according to the City of Philadelphia, minorities make up about 94% of the population in the disputed 59 divisions. Now I am personally acquainted with some minorities who voted for Mitt Romney, but none of them live in divisions that have that sort of ethnic make-up and that’s the actual crux of the problem, as far as I am concerned. As someone who is actively involved in a number of volunteer efforts including homeless veteran issues and women’s reproductive rights, I have witnessed the dumbfounded looks I receive when people first become aware that I am a lifelong, registered Republican. They are flummoxed that I even “have” a social conscience, because the media, entertainers and their own coterie of folks have told them forever that we are all evil, $1,500 suit wearing bastards with horns and tails that revel in dirty air and water and enjoy nothing more than stealing candy right from the mouths of children. There is no recollection of Rockefeller Republicans or knowledge of Teddy Roosevelt’s protection of the environment for future generations. Nope, we’re all Dick Cheney, have stock in Halliburton, and care not for anything except the bottom line. I don’t blame the uninformed masses, nor the Democrat party for those misnomers. Those characterizations are the fault of those of us in the Republican Party who allow them to define us as a whole.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In a decidedly unscientific, anecdotal means of buttressing my argument just consider your more liberal friend’s stories of voting. While standing in line last week to cast my vote, I overheard a woman explaining to a man standing with her that you just need to hit the “big button” and you’ll vote for all the Democrat Party candidates. In my experience, that’s the way the Dems vote most often. Whether or not they know anything about the person running for Auditor General they choose the one with the D behind his or her name. I have never personally hit the “big button” to elect all the R candidates on any given ticket, nor will I. I take my voting responsibilities seriously and make it my business to find out what I need to know about a candidate to make an informed decision. Two cases in point, I did not approve of Tom Smith’s self avowed positions on abortion and gay marriage, so I held my nose and voted for Bob Casey for Senate. With one R from Pennsylvania already embedded in the Senate I did not feel the need to make it a monolith. As I didn’t know enough about the candidates for Auditor General though, I defaulted to the Libertarian candidate. I cannot imagine any of the Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood doing likewise, especially when the toothless, Chinese grandmother four people ahead of me kept asking people their party affiliation and smiling her toothless grin ecstatically when she was assured that they were Democrats. My wife described a similar scene so I’m uncertain if the woman actually voted, voted twice or was just cheerleading for her brand, but there it is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When I was called to testify in front of the US Civil Rights Commission after the last Presidential Election, I was asked by one blue blooded member of the panel why the Republican poll worker who first alerted us to the appearance of Black Panthers was not with us. Apparently this woman of, I am sure, impeccable breeding could not fathom the amount of ostracism or even outright threats of violence a black man would have to endure in his 94% black neighborhood had he done so. Just being registered as a republican in the lower socioeconomic strata of neighborhoods in most major cities would be enough to cause you a ton of grief with your neighbors. That’s because the Democrats have done a stellar job branding Republicans as the enemy of ALL people of color. Don’t think so? Why then would blacks, who in poll after poll disagree with gay marriage and abortion, continue to vote for the party that endorses those issues in their platform? I am not suggesting the Republican Party needs to endorse abortion and/or gay marriage in our platform. We don’t need two parties to do that, but we could certainly remove the stringent, religion based aspects of it and recognize that a not unsizeable number of registered Republicans are both Pro Choice and in favor of marriage being extended to homosexuals. It’s no secret that I’m one of those Republicans in favor of both, but still I pushed the button for Romney. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Republican Party needs to realize that we have always been the Big Tent guys. We need to purge our vernacular of the RINO tag and remember the words of Ronald Reagan, “My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy”. We need to begin reaching out to minorities and women and show them with actions that we are not all Rick Santorum or evangelical Christians. In a day and age when everyone is suited up for elections in their best game day uniform, we have to realize that a party that caters to the view of an ever diminishing segment of society will itself one day disappear. That does not mean we should become the Democrat-Lite Party. We can still be the party of fiscal conservatism and pragmatic responses to national security without watering down the brand. We cannot, however, keep being seen as the party of old, rich, white men. As that demographic continues to shrink in all the major cities we risk turning Pennsylvania into a perennial blue state. It does no good to decry the facts that as goes Philadelphia, so goes Pennsylvania all too often. We have to instead convince more Philadelphians, and those in major cities elsewhere, that the policies of the Democrat party, which have been in effect in those cities for decades, have not only failed them, but have continued to foster a caste system. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Republicans are the party of school choice, wanting all kids to have an equal footing. We are the party of less government infringement, by which I can make cases that we should be the pro-Gay/Choice party, but for these purposes I mean the party that will least likely stop your forward progress. Recent studies have shown that minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to start their own businesses. Some of that is, no doubt, a response to the glass ceiling, perceived or otherwise that exists in corporate America, but so what? We need to make the effort to reach out to minorities and say we’re the party that will help you grow your business by limiting taxes, government intrusion and onerous workplace regulations. We further need to assure minorities that we fully intend to cut back the number of government officials who can interfere in their lives. A wary regard for the government has always been a part of the minority community, but they continue to vote for the party that increases both the number and the scope of bureaucratic intrusion. If we can promote the ideal, and then pay the dividend on it, that we fully intend to make life easier, we can win voters. Portability of health insurance, a reliance on entrepreneurial spirit, a simplified tax system and the reining in of government spending and regulation is the way to get new voters onboard with our ideas. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, back to the 19,605 voters in the 59 divisions in Philadelphia. Maybe there was some fraud at play. I don’t honestly know, but my knowledge of the city and how things work in the neighborhoods forgotten by the power elites of both parties tells me one thing: if there was fraud the neighborhood was complicit in it because they believe, truly believe, that is the only way to get their piece of the pie. And you know what? They might be right. For too long we in the Republican Party have decried the way cities operate and have voiced a longing for the good old days, which weren’t all that good to begin with. A maxim of the Army has always been, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. That’s because the enemy gets a vote too and in 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia voters saw Romney as the threat, as opposed to the way out. If we don’t change that notion the number of divisions reporting likewise will only increase as the years go on and Republicans will become the Whigs of the 21st Century. I, for one, am more interested in being a vehicle for change, than an historical footnote, but I may be in the minority there. It seems that the current Republican Party leadership in Philadelphia has written off any chance of competitiveness here and is instead trying to stack as many slices of the pie as they can before the party itself ebbs away. No plan may survive first contact with the enemy, but first contact requires action and it has simply been too long since the Republicans in Philadelphia actually saw some.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-4623013254543114842012-11-09T11:12:00.002-05:002012-11-09T11:12:45.162-05:00Veteran's Day / Holiday Needs<br />
As most of you know, I am on the board of the Philadelphia Veterans Comfort House here in Philly. Our mission is to provide refuge for veterans who have found themselves homeless, but more than that, we take in veterans undergoing treatments at the local VA. At last night's board meeting, we accepted another aspect of our mission. We have joined the Missing in Action Project http://www.miap.us/ This program is designed to locate, identify and inter the unclaimed cremated remains of American veterans. At the Comfort House our guests will now be actively involved in this mission. My hope is that we can coordinate efforts with the local mc/rider groups/Warriors Watch to provide escort and attendance for these remains. <br />
<br />
Also, it is the holiday time of the year. At the Comfort House, we open the doors on Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, accepting all comers. We typically feed at least 80-100 men and women a FULL holiday dinner with all the trimmings and we need help to get it done. You can donate at the link below, drop off one or more of the items on the list below or show up and volunteer on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day.<br />
<br />
http://vetscomforthouse.org/<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanksgiving supply list<br />
<br />
<br />
16 turkeys<br />
<br />
10 pounds roast pork<br />
<br />
6 whole chickens<br />
<br />
20 cans of corn<br />
<br />
14 boxes of stuffing<br />
<br />
14 14 oz cans of turkey broth<br />
<br />
10 cans of cranberry sauce<br />
<br />
10 bags of salad<br />
<br />
20 cans of green beans<br />
<br />
10 boxes of mashed potatoes<br />
<br />
4 pounds of butter<br />
<br />
100 dinner rolls<br />
<br />
8 cans of yams<br />
<br />
3 x 2 liter Sprite<br />
<br />
3 x 2 liter Coke<br />
<br />
4 x 2 liter Iced tea<br />
<br />
4 apple pies<br />
<br />
3 cherry pies<br />
<br />
3 pumpkin pies<br />
<br />
6 containers of cool whip<br />
<br />
4 large containers of coffee<br />
<br />
<br />
Christmas food supply list<br />
<br />
<br />
10 eye beef round roasts<br />
<br />
6 Hams<br />
<br />
6 whole chickens<br />
<br />
20 cans of green beans<br />
<br />
10 boxes of mashed potatoes<br />
<br />
10 boxes of Mac and cheese<br />
<br />
10 bags of salad<br />
<br />
4 pounds of butter<br />
<br />
5 pounds rice pilaf<br />
<br />
100 dinner rolls<br />
<br />
5 bags Brussels sprouts<br />
<br />
40 sweet potatoes<br />
<br />
3 x 2 liter Sprite<br />
<br />
3 x 2 liter Coke<br />
<br />
4 x 2 liter Iced tea<br />
<br />
5 cheesecakes<br />
<br />
6 cherry pies<br />
<br />
6 containers of cool whip<br />
<br />
4 large containers of coffee<br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-32179549660397658822012-11-07T18:34:00.000-05:002012-11-07T18:34:43.269-05:00The Day After<br />
<br />
After nearly two years, the Presidential Election is finally done. No, I am not devastated by the result. Nor do I believe it spells the end of the republic. I do believe a major political shift has occurred and I do believe the Republican Party is growing closer to irrelevancy. The shift, in my opinion, is that a majority of people, regardless of race, economics, and/or gender, believe that there is class warfare. Us against Them is the new mantra, even if a number of the Us are incredibly wealthy themselves. Forgive me for not feeling sorry for the George Clooney type liberal, nor the Warren Buffets of the world. If that class of liberal feels guilty for how well they have done, so be it, but do not begrudge me an opportunity to do likewise. Apparently though, a majority of my fellow Americans have come to believe that those who have done well for themselves are the enemy of the state; unless of course you are part of the aforementioned limousine liberal class who are “down with the struggle”. I did not believe that yesterday and I do not believe it now. The election defined all voters as either part of the President’s victimized class or one of the Romney-like oppressors.<br />
<br />
For the record, I am neither victim, nor oppressor and I am not heart broken by the election. That’s mainly because I saw the result coming. I was hoping I was wrong and that living in a major city in the northeast had skewed my cognition on the subject of national politics. As we now know, that was not the case. To my thinking, what has come to pass is that we are no longer a nation that wants to help those who need help. We have now become one that is intent on doing for those who won’t do for themselves. The United States has always been the place where anyone can make it, if they are prepared to hustle for it. As proof of that, consider that the last two Democrat Party candidates elected President of the United States were both sons of single mothers, with mostly, if not completely absentee fathers. President Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas, population 8,000 and possessed a Southern drawl. President Obama overcame an alien sounding name and race. Both had grandparents who played pivotal roles in their lives and both were admonished to better themselves. Obviously, both did. <br />
<br />
The question now though is would either of those future presidents receive the same advice today? Maybe they would be counseled instead to remain in school until they neared 40, taking advantage of “free” healthcare, birth control, education and state sponsored monetary beneficence until they could find a job with 5 weeks of annual vacation. After all, that PhD in Philosophy or Renaissance Poetry is just as valuable as an MFA in Elementary Education or an orthopaedic surgeon’s MD. Why take the taxing job route of the two latter disciplines, even if the rewards are greater, when the former course leads to a vocation that allows plenty of time for stopping to smell the roses? I have seen the satisfaction on the faces of my daughter’s elementary school teachers and I know the joy of a reconstructed should that allows me to throw a baseball with my daughter. Never mind those pesky details though. After all, the country “owes” us those benefits and weeks of relaxation, right? JFK’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you- ask what you can do for your country,” has become meaningless. We are now being excoriated for wanting to do better than our neighbors and the country is to do for us what we don’t want to do for ourselves.<br />
<br />
The Marlboro Man is a uniquely American concept and I would argue, political correctness aside, that both Presidents Clinton and Obama fit that Marlboro Man mold. Both are self made men. They may have had help along the way and Ivy League educations, but in 95% of the world two men from such humble backgrounds would have no chance of attaining their country’s highest elected office. Even in the 5% of the world where it “might” be possible to achieve such status, the odds against it would make it almost prohibitively risky to even try. Only here in the United States can every child dream of being whatever they want when they grow up and truly have a chance of achieving that dream, if they are prepared to bust their ass tirelessly to get it. Every one of us wrote numerous essays in elementary school titled, “What I Want to Be When I Grow Up”. No doubt what we wanted to be when we grew up changed as we did, and few of us actually became ballerinas, astronauts or fire fighters, but the opportunity was always there. <br />
<br />
So, I did not shake my fist at the heavens and curse mightily when I awoke to the election results this morning; mainly because as an, at best, agnostic it would have seemed ridiculous. I did not immediately send out dozens of scathing texts decrying the demise of the republic. Nor did I forward the multiple emails with images of a tombstone showing t<strike></strike>he birth and death of the nation. No, instead I did what I do each morning. I took a shower, hunted for matching socks as I got dressed, smoked a Marlboro, and headed off to work in the pre-dawn hours. I came to work as I do each day and got on with the business of my employer’s business. I am somewhat disenheartened to think that more of my fellow Americans believe in receiving from the government than making their own way, but I still have to do what I have to do to keep the wheels turning in my small part of the world. Maybe the United States is finally becoming more like Western Europe, as my far left friends have always hoped, but I’m still the Marlboro Man and plan to die out on the range, not in some utilitarian comfort zone for old folks. <br />
<br />
If this sounds as if I am maddened or filled with ire, know that is not the case. I am resigned to the notion that more Americans believe in a way that I do not, than believe as I do. I likewise do not harbor any anger towards President Obama. He may believe, as is said by many, that he is only the President of the progressives, and the rest be damned. I, however, feel as I have always felt about the office of the President of the United States: whomever occupies it is MY President, whether I voted for them or not. I did not believe the Hope and Change rhetoric, and do not believe the rhetoric now which promises to reach across the aisle. Like my prognostication of the election though, I truly hope I am wrong. After all, President Obama and I are both the Marlboro Man. I just see the range as a promise and a place to satisfy my peripatetic urges and the President sees it as a place fenced off by the J.R. Ewing's of the world. I'm okay with hopping a fence here or there and leaving J.R. to his pursuits. The President seems to think the J.R.'s of the world stole the land at the expense of "the little people" and it deserves to be distributed more "equitably" amongst them. Since millions of my fellow Americans decided they wanted four more years of what has come before, I guess I'll have to accept that my time has come and gone. The cowboy born in the middle of the 19th century, but who lived to see the horseless carriage in the early 20th no doubt felt somewhat as I do. I guess that's why the President is called a progressive. <br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-75426165881720411972012-11-05T05:29:00.001-05:002012-11-05T05:33:31.189-05:00A Tale of Two American HeroesLast Tuesday the President, while speaking about Hurricane Sandy, said:<br />
<br />
This is a tough time for a lot of people, millions of folks all across the eastern seaboard, but America is tougher, and we’re tougher because we pull together, and we leave nobody behind. We make sure that we respond as a nation, and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure that we’re providing the help that’s necessary.<br />
<br />
And on Wednesday:<br />
<br />
We are not going to tolerate red tape. We’re not going to tolerate bureaucracy. And I’ve instituted a 15 minute rule, essentially, on my team. You return everybody’s phone called in 15 minutes, whether it’s the mayors, the governors, county officials. If they need something, we figure out a way to say yes.<br />
<br />
We leave nobody behind. Whenever an American is in need, all of us stand together to make sure we’re providing the help that’s necessary. I’ve instituted a 15 minute rule. You return everybody’s phone call in 15 minutes. The president was speaking about a hurricane, but could just as easily have his words compared to the details of the Benghazi assault. Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods repeatedly called and called for military assistance. Hours went by with no help and eventually both were killed. We leave nobody behind. That is a military phrase with specific meaning to those of us who have served. The government of the United States abandoned the staff of its consulate in Benghazi. The only reason we lost four Americans killed in action and not as many as twenty, is because Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods, without orders to do so, took up positions and fought the attackers, knowing that the odds were against them, but believing in themselves and their country. <br />
<br />
If these actions sound familiar it is because most of us know the story of Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shughart, both Delta Force Operators, who died after unhesitatingly volunteering, repeatedly, to be inserted to protect four critically wounded personnel of a downed Black Hawk helicopter during actions on 3 October, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia. They did this despite being well aware of the literally hundreds of enemy personnel closing in on the site. Both were fatally wounded and later received the Medal of Honor for their actions and their heroism is known to us all because of Mark Bowden, the author of Black Hawk Down.<br />
<br />
Much has changed in war fighting since 1993. Most noticeably, commanders can now watch, in real time, exactly what is happening on the ground. We have all seen the still photos of the Obama administration released after SEAL Team VI killed bin Laden. The photo of the President and his Cabinet all staring intently, with looks of concern etched into their faces, as the SEALs closed in on bin Laden’s lair was in every newspaper and on every news program for days after the daring raid. We were told repeatedly that they all stay glued to the action watching in real time as the SEALs extracted some “get back” for us all. Why then did something similar not happen in Benghazi? Why have there been no photos of the cabinet in the War Room during this emergency? I cannot, or maybe will not is a better term, believe that any American President and his administration would ignore pleas for urgent assistance and then, having given the order to stand down, which would be tantamount to ordering them to die, watch as Americans were slaughtered by attackers on the sovereign soil of our consulate.<br />
<br />
I know many people have stated that the order to stand down can from high up in the administration. I take that with the same grain of salt that I took from those screaming that W cared not for Americans being killed on his watch. I simply don’t believe any president could be that callus or uncaring. Instead, what I believe is that the administration was too tied up in campaigning and the calls for help simply weren’t answered due to bureaucracy. Remember Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign ads when she was running for President? Remember the phone ringing in the middle of the night? Well, the phone rang and no one was there to answer it is my best guess. That is a failure of leadership. The President of the United States has the world’s best technology with him, no matter where he may be. If he didn’t know of the dire straits Americans were in, it was because no one outside the region knew in time and those that did know couldn’t respond without guidance. That failure belongs to the Secretaries of State, Defense and the President himself. <br />
<br />
A better question though would be, why, in a world rife with Islamic terrorism, weren’t there military assets closer to Benghazi? Why wasn’t a Spooky II or Spectre gunship available? One of the SEALs apparently thought there was air support nearby, or he wouldn’t have given away his position painting the attackers with a visible laser. He must have believed support was in the air, whether it be an armed drone or some other version of American airborne death dealing. Neither Doherty nor Woods would make that kind of mistake. Not with their training and combat experience. Someone up the food chain somehow led them to believe, whether intentionally or not, that help was imminent and these brave SEALs paid with their lives for that error. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to this debacle. Hell, some of the questions are certainly eluding me, but I do know this: once the American consulate came under attack, the President, and his key Cabinet officials should have known of it within minutes, not hours. <br />
<br />
For days the administration parroted the bovine excrement that the attack was spontaneous and caused by an internet video that defamed the Prophet Mohammad, even though that video had been available for as long as a year. That smells of cover up to me and, has been proven time and time again, the cover up is invariably worse than the crime when politics are involved. I’ve stated before that I did not vote for President Obama, but I was proud of my country when he was elected. Unlike the First Lady, it wasn’t the first time nor, the last time I have been proud of my country, but proud nonetheless I was. President Obama has been concerned about his liberal legacy, to the exclusion of all else for too long now and Benghazi just solidifies that thought to me. We can all argue whether individually, or even collectively, if we are better off than we were four years ago, but for the families of the four Americans killed because the phone went unanswered the answer can only be no. On Election Day this year, I will stand with them. <br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-85758174225545607602012-11-02T15:47:00.001-04:002012-11-02T15:47:33.344-04:00What Benghazi Truly Represents<br />
THINGS I KNOW<br />
<br />
1. On Sept. 11, 2012, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by a force armed with RPGs, machine guns and mortars. Initially, spokesmen for the White House said the attack was an “opportunistic result of earlier protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” concerning an internet film, which Islamists claim defamed the Prophet Muhammad.<br />
<br />
2. Even in a part of the world where heavy weapons are commonplace, the attack was both coordinated and a sustained night-long siege of the consulate, casting doubts as to its spontaneity.<br />
<br />
3. As the attack on the consulate commenced, an urgent request for military back-up went out from the ambassador, and others on the ground in Benghazi, but none arrived in time.<br />
<br />
4. Four Americans, including the ambassador, were killed during the assault, which breached the consulate’s perimeter defenses.<br />
<br />
5. As the consulate was attacked, the chain of command from the Departments of State and Defense, the C.I.A., the National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, eventually, President Obama were made aware of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
THINGS I BELIEVE<br />
<br />
1. Since the 1979 Iranian Embassy attack, and subsequent hostage crisis, plans have been in effect in the event of just such an attack.<br />
<br />
2. Military assets “should” have been both immediately available and self contained in order to overwhelmingly repel just such an assault, with little or no assistance from indigenous forces.<br />
<br />
3. Since senior intelligence officials have now stated, “within 25 minutes of the compound coming under attack the C.I.A. rushed security operatives to the area, but were delayed while attempting to secure heavy weapons, transportation and an armed escort”, whomever is responsible for this type of mission and the security of that consulate should be publicly pilloried and fired immediately for gross incompetence. <br />
<br />
4. No one, including President Obama, specifically refused to send military aid to the compound that might have arrived in time to save the four Americans killed in the attack, but rather, that the response, or lack thereof, was more an institutional breakdown brought on by some misguided sense that our support for the Arab Spring in general, and the overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi specifically, assured the security of our Middle East embassies/consulates.<br />
<br />
<br />
Okay, so presupposing that anyone reading this agrees with my summation and observations, what does it all mean? It is my belief that the current administration has always been ready and, indeed willing, to kill Islamic terrorists anywhere and anytime they can be killed. One need not reference the SEALs death dealing to Osama bin Laden, but should instead look to the death of American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, by C.I.A. led Predator drone strike in Yemen earlier this year. Killing al-Awlaki had potentially serious political complications for the President and his party, while killing bin Laden obviously had none. Once it was determined that al-Awlaki had become an integral player in the Yemeni affiliate of Al Qaeda and that he was planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans, the president did not hesitate to place him on the “kill or capture” list. That doesn’t impress me as someone who would balk at raining hell down on a force attacking an American embassy. <br />
<br />
That only seems to bolster the point I made in point 4 of THINGS I BELIEVE. Had there been a Spooky II gunship, (Puff the Magic Dragon to you old timers), nearby I believe we would have seen pink mist aplenty in that consulate compound as 25mm rounds rained down from the GAU-12, 5 barreled, rotary cannon, while the Bofors 40mm auto-cannon and the M102 105mm howitzer punched big holes into any fortified, enemy positions. I just don’t think anyone in the political side of the chain of command believed there was any threat. All the reports, including those made by “senior intelligence officials” earlier today, cite the need for assistance from Libyan forces and/or the distance from Benghazi of any Special Operations-type forces who could have put down the terrorist assault.<br />
<br />
CBS News is reporting that the CSG (Counter-terrorism Security Group) was not even convened during the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The CSG is tasked with knowing what counter-terrorism resources are available, where they are and has the authority to coordinate these assets across all agencies. Since CBS is in no way an active arm of the Republican Party, as is often claimed of Fox News, we probably can all agree that there is something to the report. Why then was the CSG not convened? It can only be that a) the attack wasn’t seen as particularly noteworthy, b) the sophistication of the attack wasn’t recognized or c) no one gave a shit about the Americans or the consulate.<br />
<br />
I’ve already stated I don’t believe c) is a reasonable answer, and a) seems somewhat of a stretch too, especially once the urgent requests for assistance began making their way to the top of the political food chain. That, to me, leaves b) as the most likely reason why the consulate was destroyed and 4 Americans were killed. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in a mortar attack at least 6 hours after the initial attack on the embassy. As an 11-C type infantryman, I can attest that plotting mortar targets takes time and requires calculations, map skills and knowledge of trajectory. No report I have read thus far makes note of the “lucky shot” by the terrorists which killed Woods and Doherty. It appears that once the mortar attack commenced that they enemy mortar men put their rounds on target. That means they had to have been plotted on a map and probably paced off for accuracy at some earlier time. Doesn’t sound very “opportunistic” to me.<br />
<br />
All this leads me to something I have always believed; a lack of executive experience is a crushing blow for anyone wishing to occupy the White House as Commander-in-Chief. The arrogance necessary to believe you should be the President of the United States has to be tempered by the knowledge that some things, especially military things, have to be managed by those who wear the uniform and only over seen by their civilian masters. I am fairly certain that had AFRICOM’s commanding officer been made aware of the security lapses in Benghazi, which were detailed in emails that predate the Benghazi attacks by weeks, then the consulate’s defenses would have been beefed up to ensure if not its impregnability, than at least its defensibility. Whether that meant additional security forces on site, assets like Spooky and/or QRTs (Quick Response Teams) manned by counter-terrorism experts such as Delta Force, hardened architectural defenses or some combination of them all is something we will never know.<br />
<br />
I’m not now, nor have I ever been one of the vitriolic Obama haters that have appeared all too regularly. I detested that amongst the liberals when it was directed at “W” and I don’t like it any better when it comes from my side of the political aisle. I have applauded the president when I believed him to be right and purposely made a point to pen a piece congratulating him for his historic victory. Furthermore, his little girls seem to like him a great deal. That alone is no small feat, as any father of female progeny can attest. I just don’t believe President Obama has ever been prepared for the scope of the job responsibilities and his arrogance has only made that worse. He has behaved from the start as if he were only the president of those by whom he was elected and the rest of us are mere dolts too moronic to recognize how visionary he is. The “seas parting” line from his acceptance speech assured me that he saw himself as visionary from Day 1, and the battle over Obamacare solidified it.<br />
<br />
Does all this mean I hold President Obama personally responsible for the deaths of 4 brave American patriots who saw public service as a calling? No. Does it mean I see President Obama as an evil man? Again the answer is no. What I do see though is a man who had four years to learn multiple lessons, but was too concerned with his lasting liberal legacy to give a damn. At the much publicized memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base, the father of one of the SEALs killed in the attack compared the President’s handshake to that of a dead fish and his apology as “totally insincere” and without eye contact. That is NOT the comportment I expect from the President of the United States. <br />
<br />
When I was an 18 year old infantryman, I was drinking a cup of coffee in the field one morning with my then grizzled, 35 year old 1st Sgt. We were discussing combat and the respective responsibilities. 1st Sgt Gates said something to me than that I have never forgotten. He told me, “The only true responsibility your country has to you is to not waste your life needlessly and to make sure we bring you home if you die in battle.” It seems to me that the first of those responsibilities was not met, when it comes to those killed in the Benghazi attacks and, as Harry Truman so eloquently said, The Buck Stops Here, when it comes to the presidency. I am sure President Obama was saddened by their deaths, but that does not absolve him of the Buck Stopping with him. I didn’t vote for him last time and I won’t this time either, but even though I hope he is not re-elected I truly wish him well, just not as my president any longer. <br />
<br />
Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-76829177367170406252011-07-09T20:08:00.001-04:002011-07-09T20:21:27.199-04:00Drawn to the Dark Side of True ReligionFor the better part of 10 years I have worn Lucky Brand jeans exclusively. As a tall, wiry guy they fit me without making me seem stick-figurish. I recently read an article in "The Wall Street Journal" about True Religion brand jeans and, since the stores are in the same block, I decided to drop in and try on a pair of American made jeans that retail for between $240-320.00. <br /><br />I admit to being somewhat high maintenance and possessing more than a bit of metrosexual DNA. It's an interesting dichotomy for the members of my veteran's motorcycle club that I ride a Harley, have been in my share of street fights, and revel in transitioning from shanty Irish to Lace Curtain, (only difference is that Lace Curtain Irish take the dishes "out" of the sink "before" they pee in it) but still care about designer jeans and hair care 'product'. <br /><br />While lunching outside on pate and salad Nicoise I decided that I HAD to have a couple pairs of True Religion jeans. Of course spending $569.00 on two pairs of jeans may seem outrageous to more than a few people, but who am I to argue with the price of American made products? After all, I can wave the flag with the best of them. God bless America I always say.<br /><br />Okay, so by now you've all figured out a few things about me, so it will probably come as no surprise that I am a city kid born and bred. I don't like nature, windy country roads, dirt, fresh air or trees. In fact, if I never saw another tree unencumbered by concrete I'd be perfectly content. So, lest someone decide to comment that $300 jeans are worthless as work wear, please note that I do not intend to wear them anywhere but out on the town. I am an urban, rather urbane sort and True Religion and I are well matched for a lasting relationship. After all, my penchant for black coffee (the same as I like my women, hot and bitter) and Marlboro Red cigarettes needs some refinement. I am Truly Lucky to have found jeans that completely fill that niche. <br /><br />But what about the Lucky Brand you say? Well allow me to assure you that they will not be relegated to Goodwill or engine repair. Thank goodness because I truly don't like getting dirty. My Lucky jeans will remain in the rotation. So, if you see me ambling about town or roaring around on my bike you could wager that I'd "probably" be clad in Lucky Brand. That is, unless I hit the lottery which will find a new mistress, 7 for All Mankind jeans to mesh with the others. Just think of me as a crazy "Big Love" kind of Mormon and designer jeans as my wives. For now though, True Religion will become the expensive girlfriend to my Lucky Brand wife. Ah, it is good to be so free.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-31407828708893171092011-03-11T23:27:00.001-05:002011-03-11T23:27:42.561-05:00Fare Well My Brother-in-ArmsBack in early February 2007, before GoE was even remotely what it has become, I received a phone call from a Vietnam veteran who had somehow gotten one of my emails about the impending A.N.S.W.E.R./ Code Pink, et al announcement that they had plans to "occupy" the Vietnam Wall. In one of the last sentences of that email I said something to the effect of I have always thought of The Wall as mine too because my father took me there over the Christmas break of my senior year in high school. I remember my old man pointing at The Wall and saying, "You wanted to be in the infantry. That's the infantry. Do not f@#k this up." Immediately after that I bought the POW/MIA bracelet I still wear today. Coincidentally, the date Curtis R. Smoot was reported missing is March 10, 1971. Well, yesterday March 10, 2011, that Vietnam veteran who accidentally got into my email string, Sal Lanzetta, 4th ID US Army, Vietnam, passed away do to complications from A.L.S.<br /> <br />In the email that Sal had gotten I also said something to the effect of, "If I have to stand at The Wall all by myself to keep these bastards from desecrating the memorial marker to our dead, I will, but I know I won't be alone." Sal called to say, "Well Chris I guess if it turns out to be just you and me we'll go down fighting." As you all know, it didn't turn out to be just us. Literally tens of thousands of veterans and troop supporters turned out that bitterly cold St. Patrick's Day in 2007. We stood as one and reversed the 40 year trend of the anti-American forces being the only ones yelling in the streets, and Sal stood within an arms length of me nearly all day.<br /> <br />Since then Sal has been at every event GoE has undertaken from the counters of Code Pink at Walter Reed to the support of the Coast Guard Academy to the defense of the A.E.C. He was never far off my six and told me once, "Don't worry brother. I won't ever let charlie creep up on you. You just worry about what's in front of you. The Ivy's on station." All of you know of my deep respect and unmitigated love for my 'Namies. As much as I love the men and women serving now, the 'Nam vets will always be my Gold Standard for warriors. Sal Lanzetta was the embodiment of the true American spirit and patriotism of the Vietnam veteran. He told me once that he volunteered to serve in Vietnam, "because the country has given me so much. How could I not give back to her?"<br /> <br />When I received the call of his passing, and as I write these words, I find my self getting more than a bit misty eyed. No GoE action will be quite the same without Sal just off my left shoulder and several paces to the rear. I shall miss him terribly, but have to believe he will be greeted on the other side with a hearty WELCOME HOME from our brothers and sisters who have gone before. Second Brigade MC will be riding escort for Sal on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, and we welcome anyone who would like to ride with us. If any of you are in the neighborhood, please stop by and say goodbye to one of our own. I believe his family will appreciate it and know that I will. All the details are below and, as I said back in 2007, if I have to stand alone to wish Sal fare well I will, but I know I won't be alone. Good bye Sal. Thank you for your service, both in Vietnam and after, and, as always, WELCOME HOME. Manchu<br /> <br />Relatives and friends are invited to his Funeral Mass on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM at St. Anthony of Padua Church, 259 Forest Avenue, Ambler, PA 19002. The viewing will be held on Monday evening from 6:30-9 PM and Tuesday from 8:30 – 10 AM at the Emil J. Ciavarelli Family Funeral Home, 951 E. Butler Pike, Ambler. Interment will be in Rose Hill Cemetery, Ambler. Donations in Sal’s name may be made to The ALS Association of Greater Philadelphia Chapter, 321 Norristown Road, Suite 260, Ambler, PA 19002. Condolences may be made at www.ciavarellifuneralhomes.comChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-58245426391985559672009-11-10T13:23:00.004-05:002009-11-10T14:28:38.441-05:00A Muslim Terrorist Named Nidal Malik HasanThe murders at Ft Hood have provoked all manner of response from people. Nearly everyone is united in a feeling of horror, but many have been hesitant to call this what it was; an act of terrorism. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. I have heard all manner of people from our Commander-in-Chief, to senior generals, to media pundits caution us to wait until we have all the facts before we rush to judgment. Well, I for one have enough information. An American Muslim, of Jordanian parents, (no he's not Palestinian, even though he listed himself as such), committed, by definition, an act of terror, while screaming Allah Akbar. That makes him an Islamic terrorist. That he did so while in uniform on an American military reservation only makes it all the more jihadist. <br /><br />Hasan, the beneficiary of all that is good about the United States decided that his God was more important than his oath to defend the Constitution of his birth country. He cared not that the soldiers he gunned down were unarmed, nor that the United States military has "liberated" tens of millions of Muslims in Bosnia, Kuwait, and yes, Iraq and Afghanistan and provided humanitarian relief to hundreds of thousands more in Somalia, Indonesia and elsewhere. Hasan was apparently following a strict interpretation of the Koran, although I have my doubts that there is any other interpretation. Before anyone reads me the riot act about the Bible's viciousness, know two things, 1) I'm an agnostic at best and 2) when discussing the fire and brimstone passages the Bible details events that have happened, whereas the Koran gives instructions as to how a Muslim should act for all eternity. <br /><br />I am personally acquainted with an American Marine who is Muslim and currently serving in Afghanistan. A more stellar human being one could not find. He is my personal definition of an American fighting man. He, and many like him in uniform, have gone about the business of war with honor and professionalism. I am not calling for the internment of Muslims or for them to be removed from the ranks of the military. I am saying though, that just like when several ardent white supremacists were dishonorably discharged from the Army for espousing their hatred, so too should have Hasan been similarly treated. Had the culture of the military not been so penetrated by political correctness I am certain 13 of my fellow Americans, murdered at Ft Hood, would still be alive today. <br /><br />When Professor Gates had his run-in with the Cambridge Police Department, our President informed us all, without anything approximating the facts, in total, that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." I didn't agree with the reasons the Cambridge Police used for arresting Professor Gates, but that does not diminish the notion that the President could not have known all the facts when he made his remarks. Somehow though, he wants the rest of us to refrain from labeling a Muslim terrorist as such, apparently less we offend any more of the followers of the religion of peace. <br /><br />I am sick and tired of tip-toeing around the sensitivities of the Muslim community. They have rioted over cartoons and they danced in the streets of the West Bank after 9/11, but I cannot call into question their apparent disregard for human life. It is high time that the American Muslim community at least rallies together publicly, and in substantial numbers, to decry the acts of jihadists everywhere. I want to see Muslims in the streets carrying the American flag proudly, as opposed to burning it. Then, I will consider the notion that most Muslims simply want to live their lives peacefully. <br /><br />American Muslims are not fully to blame for their startlingly sensitive natures, although CAIR and its Islamaphobia campaign are a large part. Media personalities such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews are also to blame. On his 9 November broadcast of Hardball, Matthews said, "See - we have a problem. How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it” If we have truly reached the point where the President of the United States won't immediately respond to a Muslim terrorist attack inside the United States, a TV journalist doesn't know if it's illegal to call al Qaeda, (note to Matthews: It is!) and the Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. can say, “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” then the country as a whole cannot stand. <br /><br />A Muslim monster used the uniform of the United States Army to murder 13 soldiers in cold blood and to wound 30 more. Hasan became, by definition a jihadist and a Muslim terrorist. This after his parents had immigrated here to find the American dream and he benefited from our education system. I no longer care what his problems were, or that he had been picked on for his faith. When I was a child we all learned, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That is still true today and any attempt to make Hasan into a victim is not only disgusting, but beyond rational comprehension.<br /><br />The one highlight from this entire event is that this Muslim terrorist, who considered women to be so far beneath him that he would not even have his photograph taken with them at functions, was himself brought down by Sgt. Kimberly Munley, 34, a civilian Department of Defense police officer at the base. Even after being wounded by Hasan, Sgt Munley pressed the attack and stopped Hasan's murderous rampage. There are two things to say about that: 1) I hope Hasan recognized that an American woman brought him down, and 2) I only wish she had double-tapped Hasan to the head after dropping him and finished the job. That is better than any Muslim terrorist deserves, and Hasan is nothing more than that.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-19117092826653719142009-08-04T13:10:00.002-04:002009-08-04T13:12:57.343-04:00A Hollywood Good Guy Makes Good<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcWO6gPdY19JEy4nTd9IiBuDL5TAnsyVxTFj6z4mJQEgzEh4xxcYvSc7bnIfCnrq_mbFYvhW5VdpBOp07TcDZx2xUsGmclcLMQOtseGz5n3f_TOOD_PN4RHomY3WiIWf_4RF8i/s1600-h/First+Drink.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcWO6gPdY19JEy4nTd9IiBuDL5TAnsyVxTFj6z4mJQEgzEh4xxcYvSc7bnIfCnrq_mbFYvhW5VdpBOp07TcDZx2xUsGmclcLMQOtseGz5n3f_TOOD_PN4RHomY3WiIWf_4RF8i/s200/First+Drink.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366157744262558450" /></a><br />Back in February I had the high honor to meet an Iraq vet who lost a<br />leg while serving with the 1/25 Marines in Al Anbar Province. Neither<br />he nor the triple amputee who accompanied him to a Fischer House<br />Benefit as the guests of Second Brigade and Viet Nam Vets MC exhibited<br />anything other than the warrior spirit. In fact, they insisted that<br />the first drink of the evening had to be drunk from their prosthetic<br />legs. Now that was a sight to see.<br />Several months later, that same vet approached me for an assist. He<br />has been fighting with the V.A. over medical bills related to his<br />wounds. Bills were mounting. I put him in touch with Al Gambone, an<br />attorney I’ve mentioned on this site to get that problem in check.<br />Unfortunately, he was also behind on his mortgage through no fault of<br />his own. I tried various avenues to come up with cash to prevent the<br />foreclosure, to no avail. This morning I was listening to Dennis<br />Miller’s radio show and he mentioned his participation with USA Cares<br />as a spokesman and proponent (http://www.usacares.org/). Figuring I<br />had nothing left to lose, I ponied up the $18.00 to join the DMZ,<br />Miller’s premium subscription package, so I could email him<br />personally.<br />In my email, I explained about our wounded Marine and the trials he<br />has been forced to withstand since returning home. I explained how we<br />had found an attorney, but had to prevent this Hero from losing his<br />home. I simply asked him to put me into contact with someone from USA<br />Cares and let me plead the case. If this fails I said, “We’ll have to<br />start selling blood,” because there’s no way I’m letting one of my<br />heroes lose his home, especially with a new baby on the way.<br />Anyway, within an hour, the retired Sgt Major who started USA Cares<br />called me personally. He took down our Marine’s phone number and<br />promised to help. The Sgt Major also insisted that in the future GoE<br />and USA Cares would collaborate to reach and assist more of our<br />heroes. Dennis Miller, who was on the air at the time, had read my<br />email, contacted the Sgt Major and my phone rang. While all this was<br />happening, Miller’s show never missed a beat. In this day and age<br />when we have come to expect Hollywood celebrities to kick us when<br />we’re down, Dennis Miller took up the colors and charged into the<br />fray.<br />I urge you to recognize both Miller and USA Cares for this wonderful<br />act. Our Marine’s house was set to go into foreclosure on 12 August.<br />Thanks to two very good men that will not happen. God bless you both<br />gentlemen and know that our veteran’s community owes you one for the<br />solid you did one of our own. That debt is payable upon demand, just<br />yell out. Thanks, you guys. Manchu.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-84092646236269797702009-03-10T05:49:00.003-04:002009-03-10T12:39:34.732-04:00On "Taking Chance"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjVCR-WqTqo_V0r47H7E-ddZHNedVieiPz-ZeJE3qB3GqZPgySct27k06he68WZ_hk092gePck5vFtj08hvMd9KKJV9xot7742mPOKhFfHDwWWncO55BZdnVZ_we5al97n8MsP/s1600-h/Chance.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 125px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjVCR-WqTqo_V0r47H7E-ddZHNedVieiPz-ZeJE3qB3GqZPgySct27k06he68WZ_hk092gePck5vFtj08hvMd9KKJV9xot7742mPOKhFfHDwWWncO55BZdnVZ_we5al97n8MsP/s200/Chance.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5311495434181001442" /></a><br />The photo is of L Cpl. Chance Phelps who was killed by enemy fire outside Ar Ramadi, Iraq on 9 April, 2004. He is the subject of HBO's movie <em>Taking Chance</em>. I had resisted watching the movie for several reasons. I mainly resisted because I had <em>absolutely</em> no faith that HBO would treat the subject matter with the dignity it deserved. I was also afraid that HBO would take the opportunity to put in multiple anti-war digs. Then, when uniformly good reviews started coming out I resisted because I was afraid of how it would effect me. The first couple of reasons turned out to be unfounded, and the last was exactly as I knew it would be. All of which is a reason to watch it. <br /><br />Kevin Bacon plays the part of real-life Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, whose account of the escort was the genesis for the movie. I freely admit that there were multiple occasions when tears literally streamed down my face as I sat watching the movie. It was a pleasant surprise to see America's warriors treated with the reverence they all deserve. It was also moving to see Col. Strobl portrayed as multi-dimensional and not some automaton. There were many times when I was moved by what, to some, would be the inner workings of the military. <br /><br />In one scene Col. Strobl is told that Chance will stay over-night in a hangar and a taxi has been called to take him to a nearby hotel. Col. Strobl responds that he will spend the night in the hangar with Chance because, "I don't want him to be alone." The airline workers aren't quite sure how to respond, but they understand and do what they can to make the Colonel as comfortable as possible.<br /><br />In a later scene, Col. Strobl is at a VFW talking to a Korean War Marine. The Colonel tells his fellow Marine of his guilt at not being in Iraq. How he is nearly ashamed that he is safe behind his desk, while men such as Chance are in the fight. The Korean vet tells him that his feelings are unfounded because he had his day for that and what he is doing now is all the more important because of it. The scene resonates with me because I have shared that feeling since both our current wars have commenced. Not a day goes by that I don't feel as if I should be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. No amount of conversation with other veterans can change my mind on that, and I'm fairly certain that Col. Strobl feels likewise. It is a version of survivor's guilt and not a little envy, at least on my part. All I ever wanted was a C.I.B. and there's no way that will ever happen.<br /><br /><em>Taking Chance</em> made me remember another 19 year old patriot who was killed too young. He was a friend of mine and one of the sweetest people on the planet. We went to Basic and A.I.T. at Ft. Benning, GA together, caroused together and he was killed providing covering fire so that others would live. I know he believed in what he was doing, and that he loved being a soldier. I also know he would not want me to feel guilty that all these years later I am here, while he isn't. I know he would want me to live happily, secure in the knowledge that I did my part. That doesn't make me miss him any less, nor wish that I could trade places with him. I miss my fiend and think of him at least every week.<br /><br />I never knew L Cpl. Phelps, and have never met Lt. Col. Strobl, but I have known them all my life. I was a soldier at five and will remain one until I die. I hope everyone who has ever worn the uniform sees this movie. I further hope that they all remember their own Chance, for it is through memories that they live on. The movie concludes with a passage that will stay with me forever, <em>"Chance Phelps was wearing his Saint Christopher medal when he was killed on Good Friday. Eight days later, I handed the medallion to his mother. I didn't know Chance before he died. Today, I miss him." - LtCol Michael R. Strobl, USMC (Ret.) </em> Semper Fi Sir, and for what it's worth, though I never knew Chance either I miss him too.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-80812156784114681042009-02-20T11:31:00.005-05:002009-02-20T13:38:56.707-05:00Nation of Cowards<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfvwEh3ruCu4XO8rtsWmUJtnNIZVLq3SeMy0q7ZMN8XZzU7W6C5W_GVTBuLjaCosH0xPwB-O15kZC28MF2NBfMUurTgNdP01ynbqxvwz2UlgVGqAfEUKMmxwtXzfm_2v1UeCR/s1600-h/cartoon.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 136px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfvwEh3ruCu4XO8rtsWmUJtnNIZVLq3SeMy0q7ZMN8XZzU7W6C5W_GVTBuLjaCosH0xPwB-O15kZC28MF2NBfMUurTgNdP01ynbqxvwz2UlgVGqAfEUKMmxwtXzfm_2v1UeCR/s200/cartoon.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5304919916004158450" /></a><br />In case you missed it, our newest Attorney General, Eric Holder recently spoke at an event for his staff in honor of Black History Month. In part, he said, <em>“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards.”</em> In case you doubt the veracity of that quote you can find the full transcript at the Department of Justice website. Of course, many will say I have taken the quote out of context, but before any of you prepare the pitchforks, proverbial rail or burning oil know that I agree with the quote; just not for the reasons the esteemed gentleman suggested.<br /><br />I attached the editorial cartoon above precisely because I agree with Attorney General Holder. We have become a nation of cowards. We are afraid of charlatans like Al Sharpton who posture and preen the second there is any chance for him to display his plumage to a camera. And yes, I am well aware that I gave Mr. Sharpton no title. I've never seen him in a pulpit and in this age of <em>you tube </em> everything I am fairly certain something would have presented itself by now if any such footage existed. No one can say anything in the least related to race if you do not believe the way Mr. Sharpton does. I'm not certain exactly who made him the arbiter of <em>all</em> things concerning liberal Black America, but that is as it is.<br /><br />Mr. Sharpton, in his normal style, rounded up 500 people to protest outside the offices of the <em>The New York Post</em> until he extracted an apology of sorts for suggesting that our new President is a chimp. That the editors of the newspaper meant nothing of the sort is besides the point. What is important is that Mr. Sharpton has once again earned his Rolex watches and $1,500 suits. Somehow I always thought men of God were supposed to be less flashy, but as an agnostic I could be mistaken. I am all but certain Mr. Sharpton knew that the <em>Post</em> meant no disrespect to President Obama, but intended to ridicule the United States Congress for coming up with the inanely named <strong>Stimulus Package</strong>. Unless of course Mr. Sharpton believes that President Obama sat down at his desk in the Oval Office and composed better than 1,000 pages of nonsense. Whatever I think of Mr. Sharpton I do not believe him a fool, and nor should you.<br /><br />For the record, if I were on the Editorial Board of the <em>Post</em> I would have said this in response to the false uproar over the cartoon: In so much as we have heard the repeated race baiting epithets over our recent editorial cartoon, we would like to explain it to the rest of you. You may not know, because it was passed and signed so quickly that no one could have read it all, but Congress recently passed a bill they wishfully call a Stimulus Bill. The bill is nothing more than nearly $800,000,000,000 (looks amazing with all those zeroes doesn't it?) in pet projects and political payoffs and will do very little, if anything to stimulate <em>new</em> jobs. We were certain though that everyone <em>had</em> heard of the 200lb chimp who recently chewed the face off of an unsuspecting woman. Putting two and two together we were convinced that everyone who saw this cartoon would rightfully get the point: All the clowns in Congress who signed off on the gargantuan bill, which our grandchildren will be paying off, are nothing more than crazed primates. In fact, our mistake was in attributing that much cognitive development to the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. So, too all primates everywhere we say, "We are wholly apologetic for likening you to humans who are obviously so far beneath you intellectually." <br /><br />Unfortunately, the newspaper chose not to publish my apology as written, or anything close to it because Mr. Sharpton, once again used the bullying tactics which keep him in such nice attire. There have been all manner of truly offensive editorial cartoons suggesting that former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was nothing more than an Aunt Jemima caricature or that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom. Of course those cartoons are not truly offensive because neither Secretary Rice nor Justice Clarence believe as Mr. Sharpton does. You have to be "down with the struggle," (read <em>his</em> struggle) to be worthy of Mr. Sharpton's outrage on your behalf. If you are in any way at odds with what Mr. Sharpton believes concerning the plight of Black Americans then you are simply part of the problem. Remember, Free Speech is only a guaranteed right if you spout the ultra-left party line. Otherwise, you are an imbecile, just don't get it, or a racist.<br /><br />All that leads me back to my initial comment agreeing with Attorney General Holder. We have become a nation of cowards regarding race because we allow sham artists like Mr. Sharpton to dictate the parameters of any discussion regarding race. Black men are still being incarcerated at a rate higher than their numbers in the population would dictate. In all our nations' cities, black men are more likely to die violently and ever younger at the hands of other black men. Black females are having more and more children out of wedlock, with less and less men around to provide any means of support. That means more and more black children are suffering below the poverty line and the cycle repeats. Mr. Sharpton doesn't care about that though. What he cares about is face time in front of network cameras and we are all too cowardly to call him on it because we don't want to be called racist. Well, since I am certain I am not a racist I will call him on it. Mr. Sharpton you are a fraud who is making a very comfortable living off those you pretend to defend. You are intentionally keeping people ignorant to benefit your own selfish ends. You do not have any one's best interests, besides your own at heart. You sir are part of the reason, a very large part why we cannot come together as a nation in the greatest country on Earth. Shame on you Mr. Sharpton, and those who knowingly assist you in this travesty. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr must be rolling over in his grave at the way you have perverted The Dream of many of us, both black and white.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19840959.post-9103922353120684932009-01-15T20:25:00.003-05:002009-01-16T11:45:18.492-05:00Farewell to A Good Man<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMbO_RQGsa4HaVGFQ05xs4tzFbtCCa-9CCakY6ZoOpZ0VvlmRKy5NVlMZByb9bqgZhBRf04jQ3gUGlBu7t1MDTEU-buCRxw3X-e2RTJIrLThsGzr05OKgraSFK5cJefFSDEhqG/s1600-h/whitehouse_back.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMbO_RQGsa4HaVGFQ05xs4tzFbtCCa-9CCakY6ZoOpZ0VvlmRKy5NVlMZByb9bqgZhBRf04jQ3gUGlBu7t1MDTEU-buCRxw3X-e2RTJIrLThsGzr05OKgraSFK5cJefFSDEhqG/s200/whitehouse_back.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291933602578292226" /></a><br />I have just finished watching President George W. Bush's final address to the nation. I have not always agreed with his decisions; most noticeably on illegal immigration and the failure to control government spending. I have though, always thought him to be a good man who was doing what he thought was right. I was honored to meet him on the White House lawn and felt like a kid at Christmas when he knew my name. He shook my hand and thanked me for my service as an infantryman and as a veteran's advocate. I was cheered to see him defend himself, finally, last night for the things he did get right. Whatever else the Bush haters will say, we have not suffered another terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 2,684 days. <br /><br />That is absolutely not a coincidence. Should the veracity of the statement be called into question I would suggest that we simply listen to the President-Elect's current positions. He has decided to keep SecDef Robert Gates. He has said it will take time to close Gitmo and that we need to move cautiously in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are all positions maintained by President Bush. Gone is President Elect Obama's rhetoric concerning a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Why? Because he has finally seen the intelligence reports that President Bush has been privy to for all these years. <br /><br />I did not vote for President Elect Obama. In fact, I worked hard for his opponent, Sen. John McCain. I, like most American citizens, though will be proud and cheered to see President Obama sworn in next week. It will, indeed, be a good day for the country to have a black man become President. It will go a long way to soothing wounds that have long festered. I can only hope that the smooth transition, which has been solely because of the outgoing President, gives our new President pause for thought.<br /><br />I know President Elect Obama is a bright man, and I believe he will be thoughtful. I only ask that as his days get ever harder that he look back on the man he replaced and realize that the tough decisions will have to be made, regardless of public opinion. I am certain W has told our incoming President to call and I hope he will. I am hopeful for the country because I am on <em>our team</em>: the United States of America's team and I support my Commander in Chief. On the day after the election, I got up and saluted the Flag as I do every other day. Next Tuesday will be no different. So, as one President goes home to resume his life and another begins the hardest task on Earth I say to them both: Thank you for shouldering the responsibilities gentlemen. Goodbye Mr. Bush, private American citizen, and Hello President Obama. Remember our brave men and women in uniform because they belong to you <em>both</em> now.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00824511864241201489noreply@blogger.com0