I’m getting confused…it seems the Congress of this United States is spending an inordinate amount of time micromanaging our warfighting.

1) They are not the Commander-in-Chief. The Constitution gave that job to the President.
2) But…they are Democrats (for the most part who are doping this and not the business of the nation) and maybe they are just following in the footsteps of LBJ and Jimmy carter by mucking with military operations at a detailed level.

I was thinking, since we pay the Congress out of Federal funds, and they like to tinker in the affairs of national security, maybe they all need to get the big thumbs up (or down) from all of the voters, so we citizens might have a say in who runs the nations foreign affairs.

Still just wonderin’ why I have to pay them, but they’d toss my letter/email/phone call to all but a few of their offices, since I’m not in their district….

Tracked back at:
Third World County

“It is a small mind that tries to make the subjective an absolute.” – Me 1/19/2007

That being said, I’m entering the stream of consciousness mode, for this discussion will have legs. Some ground work is necessary, and I’ll openly admit, I have not done “due diligence” and located the actual documents from Congress from the late 40s that seem to be the foundation for the currently brewing discussion in our Nation.

My opening quote is to describe a philosophy I picked up from Wesley E. Jordan, Jr. He told us once to not present statements using subjective terms in our briefings, but to present the numbers (or facts) and “smart people will be able to figure it out.” There were two parts of that approach: The first was to allow the expertise and experience of others factor in (e.g. someone might see 67% this year as a vast improvement, because they knew it was 28% two years ago, but you weren’t around for that time frame), and you could also flow with the mood if the person you were briefing jumped up and said “THAT’S GREAT (HORRIBLE)!” Yes, a political dodge, but, at least you acknowledged that things can be more detailed than you are aware of and subjectivity reigns supreme in just about every venue of life. Get over it, it’s not fair….

So now we open a discussion in the public debate arena on “fairness,” but only in “media” and it’s being led by the Democratic Party. Great. First off, I’ll say the devil is in the details and I now prognosticate that the Democratic Party, if they “have their way” will, once more, fall into the deadly trap they walk into over and over and over (but I digress).

The trap? Precedent. Over 9 months of intensive academic work on a degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies, I walked away with this understanding: “It’s always (note the absolute tone) dangerous (not deadly, just dangerous, worthy of serious consideration and, I’d venture to say, a healthy appreciation for the risk management discipline in cases where physical safety is involved) to set a precedent.” That’s my line. Use it if you need to, but I swear by it, for I believe I have a comprehension of human behavior that is unassailable in this area. Why is it dangerous? Because, just as feminists have found out in the case of sexual harassment and divorce law: “Because you never know when you’ll have to live by it yourself.” (That’s the second part of my understanding of human frailties).

This brings me to the understanding that the efforts to apply “fairness” will necessarily provide lots of entertainment value in the field of unintended consequences. If the Democrats, in their efforts to moderate (being kind) or squelch (less polite terminology) or silence (maybe over the top word?) any critics by legislating “equal time,” let them see the possible firestorm of response that will bring their way. The current concern among conservative talk show hosts, notably Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and Russ Limbaugh, is the effort is not to make things fair, but to silence them, meaning the conservative talk show hosts, which dominate the RF spectrum was call AM Radio.

If I was them, I’d push my listeners to do everything they could to get this put back into law, and then, let the games begin…..You have to remember, fairness is about a two way exchange, not one side taking over. Has Nancy Pelosi managed to consider that? Much more to be discussed there…

There are many aspects of the details here to debate. on the Laura Ingraham show the day before yesterday, Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was on. He said this was a revival of the 1949 law, that came about as a result of the people seeing how the media in the nations of the Axis prior to WWII had a large effect on the initiation of the war, and the Fairness Doctrine was an effort to keep from having such narrowness being a major factor in our society. Noble concept, executed by humans (and, therein, lies the pragmatic realities, but…more later in that vein). Without doing my homework, but knowing some history of the world in the 1930-40s era, I’d venture to say that “media” (back them essentially AM Radio) in the nations of our enemies was, in fact, not commercial, privately held, entities, but departments controlled directly and completely by the governments of those countries. If anyone else knows something to the contrary, please leave it in the comments. This being the premise, then to apply a rule set to American “media,” in order to keep from having this happen here is, to be polite, a stretch of logic that boggles the mind. To be less polite, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that then, let alone now, that our government has that degree of control over “THE MEDIA!”

If you disagree with me, please send me the name of the person today who is the direct equivalent of this man pictured below:

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been posting at The Wide Awakes for a few weeks, and I cross posted an old post of mine contrasting leadership styles…Well, it has blossomed into a full blown debate, with some ad hominum attacks, but not many, considering the “sides” represented.

The post is here. If you have anything to add (but read the discussion in the comments section, for it has transmogrified (H/T: Calvin and Hobbes) to a discussion of the current strategy for the Iraq War.

For the record, I don’t think the President has carried out the war as I have. Also for the record, I’m not the President….

I do, however, think there has been an overall strategic emphasis on a “forward defense,” which is quite offensive to some. Amazingly, to those who would call us to withdraw and huddle within our borders, staying quiet, so no one might notice us, are the very same people who refuse to support sealing our borders from illegal immigration.

I find that most interesting…pull out and pull back from an attack by a determined enemy, who makes no bones about wanting to destroy us, and, in criticizing the President, from both sides of the aisle, the comment is often made about how terrorists can slip across our border….

The prevailing mood appears to be that we will grant amnesty to the estimated 12 millions illegal immigrants, and the discussion about securing the border by physical and electronic means is pretty much discouraged.

I would ask: How do we leave a war, yet refuse to secure borders? Somehow the two strategies don’t match up to me. If you aren’t going to go forward to combat a threat, then you need to build a protected area to survive in.

So, I’m rambling, but, the two issues are connected and while some would try to keep them separated in the “grand scheme of things,” they are also the ones who drag out the “the President hasn’t made us safer, because the terrorists are coming across the borders” remark when it suits the purpose to derail the war strategy discussion.

I’m working through the mental hoops on my thoughts (remember: I’m not the President) on the plan to send more troops into Iraq in order to get a handle on the conflict. Between some books I read about a 20 years ago, one that was written about 100 years ago, and another I’m waiting to receive in the mail, I think we are headed on a good track, so long as the message is not the military might is the supreme force to employ.

So, here we are, 53 years later and it didn’t happen…Thank God.

So, don’t worry, be happy, until we find out “Who’s Next?”…

Stumbling around looking for a Ted Kennedy picture (you’ll see why this weekend), I find this site for dummied up pictures of news stories: Freaking News…get on it, ok?

“Proud to be everything the Right Wing hates”

This was not technically a bumper sticker, but a rear window of and SUV (Aztek) sticker and it was about 6″x6″, black with small white lettering. I’m wondering, since I had to get within a 1/2 car length to make sure I had it right for the record, how proud this driver actually was…:)

Same car, but one I can consider shaking his hand and buying him a cup of coffee for:

“THINK – It’s not illegal yet.”

We certainly could use some people who believe that right now, and actually start doing it….

Recevied via email from one of the Navy Valour-IT Team Members. He is asking the word get passed around the military community to consider signing a new appeal for redress….:

I don’t do self-promotion, and this really isn’t about that. I hope you’ll read this post – and then direct any active duty members that you know to the petition. My goal is to offset the negative effect of the liberals’ Appeal for Redress, which will be widely touted by the media, with this alternate Appeal for Redress, which asks Congress to respect our military.

[email protected] – http://www.antimedia.us/
Dedicated to exposing the media’s many lies

Antimedia’s post has a link for active duty members to sign up, but I’ll put it here.

Pass the word…time to make an appeal to the higher ups.

Last month, I was engaged in a serial posting “The Ratchet and the Governor – Tools for Today” and Part III discussed how our model of sports could help us see a manner in which we could fight the war on terror.

I attended another even a few nights back and the next day I realized something I have been around my entire life, yet it didn’t strike me as consciously as it has now, particularly in light of the political divisions, and it is tied in to sports, too.

I have never been one to watch sports much. I have played and competed in several, and even don’t prefer to sit and watch any of those, unless it’s a last resort type situation. You have to watch the Super Bowl, because it’s the Super Bowl, but other than that, I might, while channel surfing (which I don’t watch much TV, either), stop and watch downhill skiing. I think I’m attracted by the speed and adrenaline factor here.

This leads into sitting in an indoor setting, with maybe 15,000 fans. While there are great things to emulate from the experience, it also (to me) clearly points out our differences. Many there are very knowledgeable about the rules and the play, but, I’d venture wouldn’t dare to put on skates and pads to take up a hockey stick and get slammed into the boards.

So….they are relegated to observing the game. Completing this experience, many, sitting at higher angles, with a completely different, and much uncluttered view of the rink, are wont to yell out the “right way” things should be done. I’d be willing to bet, many of these people have never played hockey, or any sport at a professional level.

In any case, I feel inclined, on this end of the binary scale to place these sorts of people and call them “spectators.”

These “spectators” are the media reporters, demonstrators, politicians, and people on the sidewalks, and all seem to “know” the war is not being fought right, and is, at best, a questionable adventure at best.

The other category are those who have managed to understand there is more to life than sitting on the sidelines and offering uneducated advice. These are the competitors. It’s easy to recognize them. They are wearing a uniforms and are in, near, over, or supporting the War on Terror.

I know, it’s fairly apparent that we are becoming so clearly split into these two categories. I would note, however, the number in each category is markedly out of balance, with the spectators far outnumbering the competitors. This is the point of contention, made more striking by many who have come to believe that “self-esteem” is not just about feeling good about your self, but means you can tell everyone around you how to do things to suit you, so you can feel good. Huge difference in the two issues. One side if self satisfaction, the other is blatant selfishness, of which we have way too much of.

If we can correct the balance, and make it more equitable for getting into the future, it requires more people step up to the plate, and become competitors, which in turn requires a total attitude change and acceptance of a teamwork mentality, and that of the need to sacrifice some personal comfort, so others may also enjoy life. Required, also, is the need to submit to the leadership and wisdom of the coach, knowing they are in that position because of the very reason they have more experience, hand in hand with responsibility as well.

How to do that? Simply put (SU)³.

Teddy Roosevelt had much to say on this topic in at least two speeches, one of which I posted here, the other the one where the oft used quote about it’s the man in the arena trying greatly and failing greatly…..

Ok, I feel better now, having brought out a subconscious pattern into my conscious world view.

Once more, the discussion in comments at Neptunus Lex does not disappoint, it makes one sit back and marvel at the intelligent conversations that occur there.

From a post, “Holiday Update” on 12/26/2006, I quote “Capt J,” in comment #1, who seems to have a grasp on a concept of our society, that I think many comprehend, yet cannot put their finger on it. He does:

# CPT J Says:
December 26th, 2006 at 9:41 am

I sometimes think we are developing into two parallel universes. The first universe is made up of family and friends. Where the world intrudes unwanted upon us, we learn the hard way what it takes to protect our family and friends. Their safety is our feedback loop. This universe is both capable of learning and teachable. It demands action. We act and we learn.

The second universe is an artificial one, created by the Entertainment Industry, with its News wings and Amusement wings. This universe is a broken record. It is incapable of learning and has nothing of value to teach. It ignores the important and trumpets the trivial. It demands passivity, and claims our undivided attention by right. When it deigns to look at all, it burrows into personal pain and then bellows that calls to reporters WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY RETURNED. You’ll see this in every news article, every broadcast. This second universe is a petty little jealous god, resentful of the real One.

The first universe will quietly figure out what it needs to survive, and do it. The second universe will be the last to know.

I’d say, in this season, I’ve stumbled across the words of a wise man…

Trackbacked at:
Thrid World County

I can’t find the exact date, but it was in 1974 sometime. It was warm, so not the winter, and my sophomore year, so it was before summer.

Vice President Ford was scheduled to make a visit to The Citadel, and we, the Corps of Cadets, would put on a parade for him.

So, in the fragile years, when military service was looked down upon, a Cadet Corps of about 2000 men, had, in one way or another, volunteered to be in uniform, and about 50% were going into the military. Future leaders for the nation, in the halls of power, and the halls of the Pentagon and on the battlefields of our future.

The first event of the visit was VP Ford having lunch with us. We formed up and marched, in company formation, to Coward Mess Hall, where we were locked in the building while every single barracks room in four battalions, were checked for stragglers by some one, I assume the Secret Service. Once that hurdle was cleared, VP Ford arrived in the Mess Hall and sat at the table with the Regimental Commander, front and center. The word was out: No one was to try to “wipe out” the VP’s shoes (this consisted of taking a bottle of ketchup, crawling under the table of the “target” and dousing the victims shoes profusely with the red, citrus based liquid. Today was not to be such a day to exercise that form of warfare.

The VP ate, and then rose to leave. Once more, the doors were locked until the VP was safely wherever, at which time, we were released to head out to afternoon classes.

In preparation for the afternoon parade, the “Tac Officers” (the active duty ROTC instructors assigned to the campus, each with a collateral duty to mentor a company or a staff) had to personally inspect each M-14 rifle of the his assigned unit, to make sure the rifles were not equipped with firing pins. All cadets, except those with ranks requiring carrying a sword, were issued a fully function M-14 rifle, sans the vital firing pin, each year for use in drilling and inspections. The concern was possession of functional firearm near a national level leader…..

Down the peninsula, the College of Charleston held a civilian student body, with a different outlook on life. Rumor had it, someone was planning t “streak” the VP, during the parade, and we were told (but, it was coming via the rumor mill) that not only were there snipers on the roofs of the campus buildings, armed with “conventional” arms, but also with rifles that cold fire tranquilizer darts, in the event that a streaker made their way onto the parade grounds. I guess they figured there was no risk of concealed weapons, so they would only have to put the offender to sleep in that event.

Now, in addition to checking all the M-14 rifles for firing pins, initially, the guidon corporals were instructed to remove the spear tip from their guidons, so there wouldn’t be a chance of a crazy sophomore, the head of their respective class among their peers, deciding to skewer the VP during the “eyes right” portion of the parade, as they passed the reviewing location. I’m not sure who brought some sanity to the equation, but before we marched onto the field, calmer heads had prevailed, and the guidons for each of the 17 companies carried the ceremonial spear tip as we paid tribute to the Vice President of the United States.

So, there we were, showing we had a degree of loyalty to the Government of the United States, in our troubled times following the Vietnam war and the social upheavel it produced, and we were looked upon with significant suspicion.

The parade went well and that’s the story of the one time I came close to any top level leader of our nation.

Today, we fly our flags at half mast for one more President. Fair winds and following seas, President Ford.

Tracked back at:
Cdr Salamander, Third World County