"Change has come to Washington." So said our new President. I think the jury is still out on that one. Three indicators give me pause:
1. The Stimulus Bill looks more like the Making Sure the Demos Stay in Power for the Next Generation Bill to me. It is so loaded with entitlements and pork for special interests that it is hard to find the stimulants. Looks like the same-old-same old to me. More of the same tricks Congress, who by-the-way has a lower approval rating than did Bush, pulls constantly.
2. Four of Obama's appointments or near appointments have/had tax problems. Foremost is our new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. This is the guy who is so smart we can't do without him. Can't seem to get his taxes right. Hmmm? All of these folks are establishment folks, not new to Washington. No change here just more of the same. J.Q. Public can't get away with this kind of chicanery, but it's OK for the good ole' boys and girls. Tom Daschle bowed out when it was known that he had tax problems and was too cozy with the people he was going to be watching. Then there was Nancy Killefer the erstwhile Budget watchdog had tax problems. I heard another person's husband just quickly paid his back taxes today. Didn't get her name, may have been Rice. Bill Richardson/NM Governor had to bow out before he even got started A matter of a little Grand Jury investigation.
3. Most of the new Presidents appointments read like a Who's Who of Washington insiders. Not a lot of change:
Ken Salazar/Interior - Senator from CO
Hillary Clinton/Senator from NY - State
Peter Orszag/OMB - Bush holdover
Rahm Emmanuel/Chief of Staff - A Chicago Daly machine guy
Susan Rice/UN - 8 years with the Clinton machine
Eric Holder/AG - #4 Demo in the House and infamous as the guy who got Clinton to pardon Marc Rich
Leon Paneta/CIA?? - 16 years in the House & Clinton's C of S. Well he probably knows how to keep secrets.
Dennis Blair/ Dir. of Nat. Intel - Very close ties to the Clintons
Bob Gates/Defense - Bush holdover - Good man, but hardly a change agent
Judd Gregg/Commerce - Republican Senator
Congressman Hood/Transportation - Republican & Mister Earmarks himself
There are a few good ones: Steven Chu/Energy, Eric Shinseki/Vets, Tom Vilsack/Ag
OK - Change is as change does. The only change I see so far is the color of the man in the White House. He is exhibiting the flaw I saw in him during the campaign - Bad Judge of Character. I am yet hopeful and wish him well. However, if President Obama continues to play politics as usual he will fail us most miserably. His first order of business needs to be to not listen to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb (Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi).
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
On War and Warriors
A while ago I was having an email conversation about war with someone. I shared my views on this subject with them. They suggested I put this on my blog. So... here it is.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on in our nation today. And while that is nice, feel good fluff, it should not influence our actions. We must take the world the way it is, not necessarily how we would like it to be. In the world there are and always have been bad people who are willing to subject others to their will through the use of force. It is the same thing that went on in Heaven. Satan desired to rule over all of us and take our agency away. We fought him for our freedom in what was called a war. He was defeated, but he carries on his war or design against us here on Earth. In a real sense, war here is just an extension of that first war in Heaven. That goes for war at any level whether it is a little war you have with a person who breaks into your home or a world war. As long as there are men who are willing to subject others to their will and others who are willing to risk death to secure freedom there will be war.
War can cost more lives than it saves. If preserving life is your ultimate goal then you would probably save more lives by surrendering to the invader who is attempting to subjugate you and yours. He may not want you dead, but just wants to subject you to his will. Life cannot be the ultimate goal. If life is the ultimate goal to a people, they will soon be subjects to a more ruthless power.
War destroys lives, property, and often, human dignity and morality. All sorts of ills are magnified in war. Men can become monsters, doing all manner of evil they would never have done otherwise. It is evil, no doubt. But there are worse evils.
Recently, a semi-famous movie star said that, "War is not the answer!" The truth of that statement really depends on what the question is. Culturally, ask yourself, is the world better because the colonists overthrew the Monarchy in our Revolution? Or take the not so Civil War. Slaves were freed and the South was set upon a more egalitarian path. We lost 500,000 men in the process. Was war the answer when Hitler's Wehrmacht was Goose Stepping across Europe?
If I can use an analogy, the world is made up of Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves. Most of the world are sheep. They move through life taking their ease, enjoying its pleasures with really no thought of harm coming to them. Oh, once in a while they see or hear of another sheep being carried off by a wolf, but that is always so far distant from them. Even when it does happen close to home they still figure it won't happen to them or they conjure up lots of reasons and excuses why the wolf did it. You just need to be more empathetic and try to understand the wolf. Society somehow has failed him. Or they blame the Sheepdogs.
The Sheepdog (another name for him or her is Warrior) really is bred for the fight. He doesn't go looking for it, but is ready and willing to deal death and destruction to any wolf that threatens his sheep, another Sheepdog, or himself. He sniffs out the dangers lurking in the sheep's world and tries to prepare himself and the sheep as best he can. The Sheep are ambivalent about the Sheepdog. On the one hand, he sure is handy to have around if the wolf gets too close, but he is just so darn aggressive. He shows his fangs at times in inappropriate ways and times. He is not always welcome in polite and elite sheep company.
I talked about wolves earlier when describing the war in Heaven. Lest I be misunderstood in what I say below, an analogy can be stretched only so far. There are many Women Warriors, but culturally women have relied on the male to protect her and the family as he is "normally" the physically stronger of the two genders.
So how about natural selection? In the past, the female human has been attracted to the Warrior. Why? He would be the most likely to protect the female and the family from predators. So women are attracted to men who have, what I'll call, the Warrior spirit. They feel safe with the Warrior. But women, speaking generally, don't understand what makes the Warrior tick. And their feminine nature doesn't really like some of the Warrior's, shall we call them, side effects. Fascination with guns, fighting, brutal competitive games, aggressive posturing, and besides they smell and leave the potty seat up! Yet women are attracted to the Warrior nonetheless. Unless culture forces the women to become averse to this type of man. This is happening, to some extent, in our nation. Boys and their natural actions are frowned on and the warrior ethic is literally punished out of him. He is made to be docile and feminine in his manner and even dress. What is a Metrosexual male except a diminished Warrior fretting about how he looks rather than how he can act. So, yes natural selection did favor the breeding of new Warriors, but I wonder if our culture will continue to honor them and therefore continue the breed. The South still retains a healthy Warrior mentality (along with what some would call the undesirable side effects). It is not coincidence that a disproportionate number of our Military come from the Old South.
Europe is working hard to breed the Warrior out of their culture. One of two things will happen to them: Islam will take over and devour them as a culture or they will rise up and drive them from Europe. I'm betting on the Muslims. In its more virulent form, Islam is not compatible with other cultures and will continue to strive against foreign cultures. If they become a majority or even a large minority they will force their will on others.
I don't like war. I hate it and what it does to people. However, it is better than losing my agency to another human. I have and will kill to preserve my freedom, my family, and my nation.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on in our nation today. And while that is nice, feel good fluff, it should not influence our actions. We must take the world the way it is, not necessarily how we would like it to be. In the world there are and always have been bad people who are willing to subject others to their will through the use of force. It is the same thing that went on in Heaven. Satan desired to rule over all of us and take our agency away. We fought him for our freedom in what was called a war. He was defeated, but he carries on his war or design against us here on Earth. In a real sense, war here is just an extension of that first war in Heaven. That goes for war at any level whether it is a little war you have with a person who breaks into your home or a world war. As long as there are men who are willing to subject others to their will and others who are willing to risk death to secure freedom there will be war.
War can cost more lives than it saves. If preserving life is your ultimate goal then you would probably save more lives by surrendering to the invader who is attempting to subjugate you and yours. He may not want you dead, but just wants to subject you to his will. Life cannot be the ultimate goal. If life is the ultimate goal to a people, they will soon be subjects to a more ruthless power.
War destroys lives, property, and often, human dignity and morality. All sorts of ills are magnified in war. Men can become monsters, doing all manner of evil they would never have done otherwise. It is evil, no doubt. But there are worse evils.
Recently, a semi-famous movie star said that, "War is not the answer!" The truth of that statement really depends on what the question is. Culturally, ask yourself, is the world better because the colonists overthrew the Monarchy in our Revolution? Or take the not so Civil War. Slaves were freed and the South was set upon a more egalitarian path. We lost 500,000 men in the process. Was war the answer when Hitler's Wehrmacht was Goose Stepping across Europe?
If I can use an analogy, the world is made up of Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves. Most of the world are sheep. They move through life taking their ease, enjoying its pleasures with really no thought of harm coming to them. Oh, once in a while they see or hear of another sheep being carried off by a wolf, but that is always so far distant from them. Even when it does happen close to home they still figure it won't happen to them or they conjure up lots of reasons and excuses why the wolf did it. You just need to be more empathetic and try to understand the wolf. Society somehow has failed him. Or they blame the Sheepdogs.
The Sheepdog (another name for him or her is Warrior) really is bred for the fight. He doesn't go looking for it, but is ready and willing to deal death and destruction to any wolf that threatens his sheep, another Sheepdog, or himself. He sniffs out the dangers lurking in the sheep's world and tries to prepare himself and the sheep as best he can. The Sheep are ambivalent about the Sheepdog. On the one hand, he sure is handy to have around if the wolf gets too close, but he is just so darn aggressive. He shows his fangs at times in inappropriate ways and times. He is not always welcome in polite and elite sheep company.
I talked about wolves earlier when describing the war in Heaven. Lest I be misunderstood in what I say below, an analogy can be stretched only so far. There are many Women Warriors, but culturally women have relied on the male to protect her and the family as he is "normally" the physically stronger of the two genders.
So how about natural selection? In the past, the female human has been attracted to the Warrior. Why? He would be the most likely to protect the female and the family from predators. So women are attracted to men who have, what I'll call, the Warrior spirit. They feel safe with the Warrior. But women, speaking generally, don't understand what makes the Warrior tick. And their feminine nature doesn't really like some of the Warrior's, shall we call them, side effects. Fascination with guns, fighting, brutal competitive games, aggressive posturing, and besides they smell and leave the potty seat up! Yet women are attracted to the Warrior nonetheless. Unless culture forces the women to become averse to this type of man. This is happening, to some extent, in our nation. Boys and their natural actions are frowned on and the warrior ethic is literally punished out of him. He is made to be docile and feminine in his manner and even dress. What is a Metrosexual male except a diminished Warrior fretting about how he looks rather than how he can act. So, yes natural selection did favor the breeding of new Warriors, but I wonder if our culture will continue to honor them and therefore continue the breed. The South still retains a healthy Warrior mentality (along with what some would call the undesirable side effects). It is not coincidence that a disproportionate number of our Military come from the Old South.
Europe is working hard to breed the Warrior out of their culture. One of two things will happen to them: Islam will take over and devour them as a culture or they will rise up and drive them from Europe. I'm betting on the Muslims. In its more virulent form, Islam is not compatible with other cultures and will continue to strive against foreign cultures. If they become a majority or even a large minority they will force their will on others.
I don't like war. I hate it and what it does to people. However, it is better than losing my agency to another human. I have and will kill to preserve my freedom, my family, and my nation.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
WHERE ARE THOSE CARSON BOYS NOW?
Two pictures but both taken in the same place. This may be harder than it looks. What country? (that's the easy part) What body of water are they near? What is the name of the old ruins? Is there anything interesting about the body of water itself?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
WHO SAID:
"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF."
Who said it, when, what was the subject, and what was the occasion.
Answer as many of the above as possible. Points for partial answers.
You know the rules: No peeking!
All very good guesses. It shows you have a good grasp of history to have gotten so close. Aaron got the most right. Most people would guess it was a speech given during or just before war. However, FDR had inherited a country in deep depression. People were down and out and the usual optimistic nation was suffering from a lack of confidence. FDR's first inaugural speech was designed to get the country up and moving again.
Who said it, when, what was the subject, and what was the occasion.
Answer as many of the above as possible. Points for partial answers.
You know the rules: No peeking!
All very good guesses. It shows you have a good grasp of history to have gotten so close. Aaron got the most right. Most people would guess it was a speech given during or just before war. However, FDR had inherited a country in deep depression. People were down and out and the usual optimistic nation was suffering from a lack of confidence. FDR's first inaugural speech was designed to get the country up and moving again.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
WHERE ARE THESE CARSON BOYS NOW?
Where are they and who is that kid on the far left? The year? Where were they going?
Monday, August 11, 2008
WHO SAID:
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees."
Don't Google it. Take a stab with your memory.
Extra points if you can, tell the circumstances leading up to the quote..
OK. That was a tough one. They were the last words of Stonewall Jackson, just before he died. Battle of Chancellorsville - In a wild gamble, Jackson's II Corps had flanked Hooker's Army of the Potomac in an all day march while Longstreet, with only 14,000 men, held off Hooker. Led by Rodes' Division, II Corps slammed into the Federal right flank and in a few hours routed the Army of the Potomac. This lightening strike, Jackson's trademark, so unnerved "Fighting" Joe Hooker that he refused to use the superior power of his army to stand and fight Lee. In the inevitable fog of battle Jackson and his aides became separated from the body of his Corps. And while working their way back, in the dark, Jackson was mistakenly shot by his own men. Surgeons amputated his arm, but it was not enough to save his life. He lingered several days, and died uttering the words above.
Don't Google it. Take a stab with your memory.
Extra points if you can, tell the circumstances leading up to the quote..
OK. That was a tough one. They were the last words of Stonewall Jackson, just before he died. Battle of Chancellorsville - In a wild gamble, Jackson's II Corps had flanked Hooker's Army of the Potomac in an all day march while Longstreet, with only 14,000 men, held off Hooker. Led by Rodes' Division, II Corps slammed into the Federal right flank and in a few hours routed the Army of the Potomac. This lightening strike, Jackson's trademark, so unnerved "Fighting" Joe Hooker that he refused to use the superior power of his army to stand and fight Lee. In the inevitable fog of battle Jackson and his aides became separated from the body of his Corps. And while working their way back, in the dark, Jackson was mistakenly shot by his own men. Surgeons amputated his arm, but it was not enough to save his life. He lingered several days, and died uttering the words above.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)