I live in San Diego.  After the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada we started getting a startlingly insulting television spot this weekend.   

Hillary Clinton claims she “hears me.”   Apparently I want affordable health care (doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators are going to take pay cuts?).  Apparently I want affordable gasoline (we’re going to drill in ANWR now?).  Apparently I want my mortgage payments guaranteed (I have no idea how she plans to pull this one off).  Apparently she’s going to pay for my son’s college education with tax credits (not deductions.  Credits.).   

By the way, it's to be understood that she’s going to pull all of this off while ensuring that our military stays second to none (after cutting it about 20%), keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent, and meeting or expanding all other federal government obligations.   She’ll probably federalize the schools too…for the children. 

If you’re old enough to vote then you’ve got to know that none of this is free.   Medicare and other government paid health care programs are expensive enough now.  Throw in the the other 200 million people currently covered by private health insurance and put them under a guaranteed federal health care program.  The costs will be staggering.   Oh, wait!   We’re not talking about that?   Well then just what is Universal Health Care?   Who gets it and who pays for it?    What tax rates are anticipated to pay for this?   Could you just explain all of this please? 

Now that I think about it, what about food?  How can people be healthy if they don’t eat?   So now it seems as though we’ve got to nationalize health care and the food distribution industry too?   That oughta work just fine. 

Shelter, too.  We’ve got to tack that on.  You can’t be healthy without a roof over your head.   Now we’re nationalizing housing.  What about clothing?  Can’t be healthy without clothes.  Transportation?   Counseling?  Dry cleaning and laundry?   Internet access? 

Sorry.  I got sidetracked.   Where were we?   Let’s go back to making gasoline affordable.   If she is unwilling to allow oil companies to drill for more oil within the U.S. to assert a little more influence in the oil market, then I guess we’re talking about good old “alternative energy.”    You’re car needs to run on banana peels or corn or something.  How about hydrogen fuel cells or a small nuclear reactor?  

The car market will get there someday.  It’s all moving in that direction anyway and new CAFÉ standards will ultimately require that you go to work on 2015’s equivalent of a Moped.   What’s Hillary’s play?  She’ll take the credit if she’s in office.  The statistics on people getting killed in ultra lightweight vehicles will be buried.    

Let’s talk about college tuition tax credits.  I can see about a half dozen problems with this but let’s talk about the top three:
-- It won’t be enough to make much difference (for example, a $2,000 tax credit makes a pretty small dent when a year of college costs $25,000 to $40,000).  

-- We have to assume the credit is for parents sending their kids to school.  Giving a credit to a student who doesn’t pay any income tax to begin with is worthless.

-- It just generally means more federal influence over education.  I don’t see how we need any more.     

Mortgages?  I can’t wait to see how she plans to take credit for me making my mortgage payment.   Things are complicated enough without some kind of HillaryPlan for mortgages.  I have the feeling it will be something like her cattle futures venture.  It will work for her.  The rest of us need to take cover.

Back to the orignal question.  Does Hillary think we're idiots?  Probably not.  But she doesn't intend to tell us exactly what she's planning.  This is for two reasons.  First, she hasn't figured it all out yet. (She's still refining Hillary Care from 1993).  Most importantly, she doesn't think we'll ask the hard questions prior to the election.  She'll run the risk of getting elected without having to explain these things.  Because she can't.    

Have you been watching what's going on with the Osmond family lately?   They've had an amazing run of free press from the entertainment press corps.  Donny seems to be the spokesman and one of his main issues is propping up his aging sister's "Dancing With the Stars" performances while being critical of all of the other participants.   The family is also using Oprah, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and god knows how many morning talk show programs to promote some sort of 50 Years of Osmonds event.  

Now look at Bill Clinton.  He's been out defending Hillary.   He gets free press like Donny because he's Bill and the swoon factor (I never got it or understood it) is still there.  He plays the father-husband-bigbrother when Hillary's being ganged up on by those wascawy boys in the Democratic Party.  

Both Donny and Bill have made some serious judgmental mistakes.  Donny has tried to convince anybody who'll listen that Marie is a better dancer than other more deserving contestants in her celebrity ballroom dancing competition.    He does this by exaggerating her talents and criticizing the other, more talented entrants.

Bill has pulled out his trump card way too early in the game.  No sooner than the Democratic Party primary race has actually appeared on an average limited-interest-in-politics citizen's radar then the ex-prez accuses everybody within earshot of trying to "Swift Boat" Hillary (a reference to attacks by Swift Boat veterans on John Kerry during his presidential campaign).    The problem is, he ain't seen no real serious Swift Boating yet and by the time the open campaign season rolls around (if Hillary's still standing) he will have cried "Swift Boat" too many times at this pace.  

But, I have a couple of questions about all this.   If women are equal to men in all respects, especially two towering public figures like Marie Osmond and Hillary Clinton, then why do they need their big, strong brother/husband/father figures to defend, block, tackle, and run interference for them?  

If women are indeed superior to men, as they often claim, then why do they feel they still have to make so much more progress to be equal?    If they are indeed superior then it would seem that allowing the Donny Osmonds and Bill Clintons of the world to clear the way would actually create more problems than it solves.  Maybe it has.

There's an interesting passage in Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" when the Spartans first form up to face the Persians in battle at Thermopylae. The Spartans maintain their quiet, disciplined ranks before the battle while the Persians whoop themselves into a frenzy. The Spartans had enough warfare experience to know that they needed to save their energy for the actual engagement. By the time the Persians made contact with the Spartans they were spent. Many of the exhausted, ineffective Persian soldiers became part of a large collection of corpses pretty quickly.

That's what I’m doing right now. I’m standing by, somewhat bemused, watching the Al Gores of the world expend their hysterical energy.

My side of the argument is the "Global Warming Is Not Man's Fault" crowd. We’re also the “Global Warming is Probably a Hoax” crowd.

Here are my top five issues with regard to Global Warming zealotry:

1. The hysteria and guilt is very entertaining - especially watching that Al Gore guy (I just read where some hotel took out their Bibles and put "An Inconvenient Truth" in their nightstands). However, I will acknowledge that Al Gore accomplished something that I have not yet been able to accomplish; he got a movie produced, released to movie theaters, and out on DVD.

2. Most of the "science" being touted on the "man is causing global warming" side is not science or anything close to it. Climate models are not science.

3. There is ample evidence that there were several periods in the earth's history when it was significantly warmer than it will ever be again (and CO2 levels have been much higher). A single warm winter doesn't mean much. Katrina meant nothing with regard to Global Warming.

4. The debate is by no means over.

5. There's money to be made and power to be gained by backing the "Man Causes Global Warming" argument. At the top, there's not an altruistic bone in anybody who's a player in this game.

Please keep in mind that the global warming issue, from my perspective, is not about whether a warming trend is in operation. The earth may well be warming (as it has done many times in the past). The issue is what is causing it and, to a lesser extent, how hysterical do we have to become about it. I object to the guilt-driven assertion that man's rampant disregard for the environmental impacts of breathing and having children and driving cars is a key cause. In conjunction with this I can't buy the basic conceit that man's behavior can be changed enough through iron fisted international treaties and legislation to make a difference. However, if this is true, Hillary Clinton needs to ground her private jet fleet right now. She's been zipping across country often enough to retire Africa's debt with her frequent flyer miles.

Having a civil discussion is impossible when one side shouts down any attempt at debate as being a done deal, closed argument, no-room-for-debate kind of issue. By the way, when I see any debatable issue become a shout-down issue like this one, it's usually the least informed who do the most shouting, and it's a good sign that they know that their argument is flawed.

I guess we have to fight on without them. Senator Harry Reid informed the President in the last couple of days that the war is “lost”.  Then, in what should have been a non-event , Senator Reid held a press conference to say the same thing to those wonderful reporters in the Washington Press Corps knowing full well that he had a shot at front page press.   It's just too bad that a domestic mass murderer got in the way of Senator Reid's PR ploy. 

I'm thinking that Senator Reid could be confusing his Vegas experiences with the war.  Maybe he’s been losing lately at the gaming tables or in the Nevada real estate game.

Curious thing though, according to a Breitbart.com report, after he said the war was "lost" he then said “... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.” 

Let's get it straight, Senator Reid, shall we?  Is the war lost or not?  How can we win a war diplomatically, politically, and economically that we’ve lost already?

The logic of these seemingly self-contradictory statements escapes me, but one thing does not. The Democratic Party leadership has quit on the war. We need them out of the way. They haven’t been any help or encouragement lately (or ever, for that matter).   Recent events with Moqtar Al-Sadr and his people indicate that the Democrats are getting their ridiculous timetable ideas from Al-Sadr.  I'm not sure how the Democrats have been getting a pass from the press in their obvious agreement and sympathy with our enemies (and the enemies of the Iraqi people), but it's time to take the Democrats out of the game.   Wait...I lost my head for a second.  We're talking about the press here.  That explains it.

Somebody in the Republican Party has to call a coward a coward. If you don’t have the stomach or the fortitude for the fight, Senator Reid, at least have the courage to step down and get out of the way. Your resignation is hereby accepted.

Well, we’ve got six hundred something days until the election and it feels like it’s already the primary season for the 2008 election. Senator Barack Obama announced his entry into the fray yesterday. Barack wouldn’t dare quote President Reagan, but that’s the image he’s trying to construct. He’s currently in the process of delivering this image in carefully orchestrated events – Oprah, “Sixty Minutes”, etc. The image we’re supposed to be getting is the image of an idealist gazing upon that shining city on a hill and trying to make us believe that he’s the guy who can lead us back there.

Before I get started I want to thank all the great thinkers who engineered our present campaign finance laws which set the conditions for an infinite number of Political Action Committees, advocacy groups, and hundreds of fund raisers. Endless phone calls, mail, and internet spam are employed in an attempt to drain the average individual contributors of their maximum contributions each of which will buy approximately 1.2 seconds of local market television time. What’s really great about this is that campaign fund raising is now continuous. Why do I keep thinking of the Laws of Unintended Consequences when I think about campaign finance reform? We’ll talk about that some other day.

Senator Obama, or “The Barackster” as my friends and I refer to him, said some interesting things yesterday. He mentioned the “smallness of our politics.” He said, “The time for that politics is over.” He said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

What’s interesting about this? What’s interesting is what is not there. What is interesting is the lack of content. What is interesting is the overuse of the term “Rock Star” when referring to the guy. (I wonder if Hillary thinks of him as a rock star).

What is also interesting is that he quoted Abraham Lincoln. You may have thought, as I did, that The Barackster would have quoted our first black president, Bill Clinton. Then again, one would have to look long and hard for anything quotable from Bill Clinton that trumps his “I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman” speech.

Okay, so this is a big PR rollout. After all Senator Obama, like any other presidential hopeful, has to start spending his campaign dollars to try and raise more campaign dollars at the rate of one small contribution at a time. He should do pretty well considering Senator Joe Biden’s endorsement of his cleanliness.

By the way, if there were any justice Senator Biden’s exploratory committee would be shut down by now. But, as we all know there’s a double standard at work here. Any Republican would have not only lost his or her chance at the presidency, but would be having trouble with a lot of people calling for their resignation. Senator Biden, however, is the beneficiary of the ThreeStupidityStrikesforDemocratsOnly rule. He’s guilty of plagiarism. He’s guilty of an obviously stupid remark that has a racial taint to it – much more directly than Senator Trent Lott’s praise of Senator Strom Thurmond which resulted in Senator Lott losing his leadership post. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Maybe it will thin the field if he just gets around to his third strike soon.

Okay all you tough young reporters out there here’s the question you need to ask Senator Obama on the campaign trail -- “What will you do?” What I’m referring to is just what will Senator Obama do (if he gets elected president) and we’re still in Iraq and he sets an arbitrary deadline to “get out of Iraq.” Then we see the rapid progression of a Middle East dominated by Iran as a virulent anti-U.S. influence which by then will have not only nuclear weapons but some capability to deliver them.

I think I know what Barack will do. He’ll be dealing with the Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s of the world who will probably be appointees in his administration somewhere advising him that the racial imbalances of the country are the number one priority and a new Civil Rights bill has to be passed to solve our problems in much the same way Campaign Finance Reform has solved all of our campaign finance irregularities and problems. He’ll be listening to others telling him that health care for everybody, particularly for every illegal immigrant in the country, is our number one priority and it has to be either mandated or nationalized. He’ll be reminded by powerful interest groups who helped him get elected that gay rights and women’s rights are our number one priority and that we need a whole new affirmative action revitalization effort. Another group will try to convince him that energy independence is the answer to everything and a huge government bureaucracy will have to be established to improve the national security and global warming problems we now have because of our dependence on Big Oil which delivers Foreign Oil to our refineries. By the way, this new Energy Agency will spend several billion dollars a year and won’t produce one gallon of gasoline or ethanol.

Somewhere down about twentieth on his list will be national security. Barack will be trying to play catch up on global security commitments with about two thirds of the military we have now which will have been reduced due to military budget cuts intended to help us reduce the accumulation of national debt. (Never mind that seventy five percent of our unfunded liabilities are related to Social Security and Medicare and have nothing to do with our military expenditures which have not exceeded 5% of GDP at anytime recently including the costs of the ongoing battle in Iraq).

That’s what Barack will be doing in my opinion. When it comes to the “Audacity of Hope” let’s just hope that when Barack gazes on that shining city on the hill that he isn't looking at some kind of radioactive glow.

Hillary’s continuing to work at having it not just two ways, but several ways. Campaigning in front of crowds in New Hampshire that are apparently more liberal than she is, they apparently want their next mommy or daddy president to make it stop. Make it go away, Mommy. Make it stop, Daddy. Take that noisy bad old war away.

So Hillary says things like: “It's very easy to go around and say, 'Let's end the war.’ If we had a Democratic president we would end the war."

And here’s a doozy: "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it.”

And finally, "The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress." All of this was said to the kind of applause a coach gets at a pep rally right before leading the team to a first class glute whupping.

What’s wrong with Hillary’s position? I’ve said it in my last two posts and believe that it is important enough to say again. This is an encouraging signal to an enemy who is not running for office in 2008. Our enemy is looking to see what kind of government we will elect in 2008.  They would prefer not to have a conservative Republican government.

Yessiree, you heard it right.   They (radical Islamists worldwide) have a preference about which U.S. administration we elect. They want Hillary’s administration (reason enough not to vote for her right there). They know that she’ll pack up and go home. Then they can regroup and plan more of their operations in our hemisphere rather than defending themselves in their part of the planet. By the way, they’ll accept Obama also if he promises the same things.

Let me add again (until it sinks in) IRAQ IS NOT THE WAR. Iraq is a battle in a much larger war. It’s an ideological war that just happens to be centered in Iraq at the moment.

Hillary doesn’t think the struggle against the monsters of terror is our number one priority. She’s not leading. She’s poll reading and consulting with her showpiece husband. She’s telling New Hampsherites and Iowans what she thinks they want to hear – universal health care, more affordable college, and reviving small town economies (none of which she can actually accomplish). She believes the American public is exhausted with Iraq and just wants it all to go away.

Maybe, but the American people can take it. They need to hear the truth and they need to be lead not appeased. They don’t need more bunk.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I watch poker players I don’t see them telling the people they’re playing against that the game will be over at midnight no matter what.

I haven’t played racquetball players who say, “Let me throw these last five points because I’ve got to get out of here by six.”

I haven’t seen too many football games where people say, “We’re not playing the fourth quarter. It’s late and we’ve got to get home to watch Desperate Housewives.”

But when it comes to warfare, many of the highly paid politicians whom we elected to represent us seem to think it is their mandate to quit no matter what the cost and to make sure that our enemy knows this.

Let’s be clear on this. As I said in my previous post HILLARY CLINTON CAN NOT STOP THE WAR ON TERROR. She can’t stop the war now as a Senator and won’t be able to stop it as President (shudder). By the way, Hillary doesn’t seem to even know where the war is. She thinks the war is in Iraq, apparently. She got this from the media.

We do have a lot of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in Iraq, and they are fighting. They are fighting in the War on Terror in Iraq, but Iraq is not the war. It is a battleground in the war. We have soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, FBI guys, and CIA operatives in a lot of places fighting the war.

So here’s the way it could work. Hillary gets elected President (shudderbarfgoodgod). She has enough Democratic buddies in Congress (barfshuddergodbarfgeezelouise) to defund (or zero the funding for) the war effort. Troops are called home (assuming we have the money to transport them home). We have a parade, declare major combat operations over, and watch as Iraq and the rest of the Middle East come under Iranian control (except for the Kurds who have had it with subjugation, oppression, and terror and are ready to tear any perceived enemy’s head off at the slightest provocation).

Hillary will begin “negotiations” with Iran, Syria, Libya, the Palestinians (not to be confused with Palestine) and East Timor in an effort to improve our approval ratings with radical Islamic countries. Doubling our approval rating in those countries would raise it to about two percent. These “negotiations” will continue while Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel, radical Islamic groups attack France (who cares), England, Germany, Italy, and Denmark. Hillary will convince the voting public that these attacks are our fault because we did not successfully curb global warming or provide universal health care.

That brings up The Answer. The Answer from the Hillary Administration for responding to Radical Islam will be universal, government mandated health care. It won’t be paid for or provided by the government. Even Hillary isn’t dumb enough to try and take over the nurse’s unions. So it will be mandated rather than provided.

But, that’s not the point. The point is that the distraction of trying to provide universal one-size-fits-all health care will kill all interest in the war. At least it will kill our interest. The big question is “Will the enemy respect that we have lost our will to fight and are too busy to continue the War on Terror?”

The Other Answer is “No, you idiot. They’re still going to try to kill you.”

 Hillary’s been saying some interesting things lately. Let’s face it. The mainstream media guys are calling it for her already with only six hundred something days to go before the 2008 election.

You have to keep track of her bunk because, if she’s elected, some of t may actually happen.

First, she’s going to confiscate money from Big Oil to fund Big Government Energy Independence, whatever that is. Will Hillary’s Big Government actually produce energy? It will be interesting to see what a gallon of gasoline costs once it’s produced by Big Government. My guess I it will be about eight to nine bucks a gallon.

Then she still wants to hijack healthcare. She still loves the European healthcare model. Socialized medicine, we used to call it. I think they call it that because you spend a lot of time in waiting rooms socializing.

More recently she says she’d end the war. You’ve got to understand that she can’t do that. Even as President of the United States, Hillary would only have influence over our end of the war. What she really means, of course, is that she’d quit. Also, she’s not really talking about the war on terror. She’s talking about quitting an important battleground – Iraq. Maybe she’s thinking that after a couple of terms of her healthcare we’ll finally be healthy enough to fight the war and we can reengage.

You know, if you’re sorry enough to vote Democratic then go with Obama. At least then you’d have a “clean” guy leading you into disaster.

I live in San Diego, California.   California is the proposition state with the spectacle, every year it seems, of weirder and weirder rationalization for the twisted, upside down ideas from all kinds of lunatic fringes.

This year the dirtiest trick of all being played on California voters is from the Clinton-Gore crowd.   These weasels  don't even live here.   Bill drops in every once in a while to pick up some babe, I'm sure and Gore comes out here thinking he's a movie star. 

Now they're showing up on my TV and calling me at home.   They're calling me about Proposition 87, a tax on BIG OIL.    Bill tells me that I'm causing asthma in babies if I start up and drive my car.   Al tells me I'm melting the polar ice caps.  

I want these boneheads out of my state.  I never liked either one of them.   They share one common characteristic -- they can't seem to tell the truth.   They have other distinctly dislikable characteristics individually but when it comes to lying they're cut of the same cloth

Proposition 87 will turn the production of alternative fuels over to some tax supported state beauracracy.   Nobody I know thinks for a minute that a tax on BIG OIL won't get passed on as an operating cost to LITTLE CAR DRIVER -- me.  

I'm voting NO on Proposition 87 and encourage you, if you're in California, to do the same.   Then take a long drive and think about it.

   

I haven’t had much chance to write lately. Changing jobs at my age is one of those things that a person just shouldn’t have to do. But other people have it worse than I do, so I’m not really complaining. I’m making excuses, but I’m not complaining.

Now, to the current political scene. Representative Foley is gone. Let’s get on with the business of winning this election. Part of that means challenging this foregone conclusion that we’re going to lose Congress. We don’t have to, you know.

I have a lot of friends who claim to be disgusted with the Republicans – the War in Iraq, bad conduct in the House, record deficits, illegal immigration, blah, blah, blah.

There definitely seems to be a throw-the-bums-out thing going on right now. Three things bother me about this.

1. The entertainment value this has for the opposition (they are entirely too gleeful).
2. The lack of foresight from people who would normally vote Republican (the “I’m just not gonna vote” types).
3. The lack of will to counter on charges and counter-charges about misconduct, Iraq, illegal immigration, etc.

Entertainment Value: the tawdry nature of the Foley scandal has caught more than its share of news cycles as every cub reporter in the nation searches the blogs, chat rooms, and emails of the land high and low to come up with one more shred of titillaton to sustain the story.

This story should be over. Foley resigned, but that’s apparently not enough. Clinton didn’t resign. Barney Frank didn’t resign. Foley did. Why can’t our side get the “let’s move on” message out over the cacophony?

My feeling is that we have too few credible public speakers who can frame this properly and put it back in the box. Nobody’s out selling the “Democrats have no message” theme loudly enough. Where is the man or woman who could tie this thing up and move on? I don’t know. Apparently, Speaker of the House Denny Hastert’s responses about taking action when he knew enough to take action won’t placate the sharks in the pool. Speaker Hastert isn’t a very dynamic interview, in case you haven’t heard him. He comes across as an honest guy, but a little less than sure of himself on his answers.

Oh,yeah, and if I hear one more reporter infer (as if it is fact) that the Republican loss of Foley’s seat will almost definitely tip the House election in the Democrat’s favor I’m going to lose my lunch.

Lack of Foresight: This election isn’t about deficits or misbehavior. It’s about winning the war, keeping taxes low, maintaining the safety and security of American citizens, sustaining the economy, and confirming good judges who don’t invent their own interpretations of the constitution. That’s the message. The Democrat message is “we hate the Bush administration.”

Get out and vote, will ya? Vote for national security and economic prosperity. Don’t vote for spite or stay home out of apathy. It will take entirely too long to undo a Democratic majority. It’s not worth it for payback or any other reason.

Lack of Will: We’ve got a good economy, decent employment, and a National Security apparatus second to none. Let’s get the message out. We don’t want to step backwards on any of this. If Republicans lose the House then Democrats will control the committees and a lot of needless and unproductive investigations and hearings will result in two years of another do-nothing Congress. If you don’t want Congress to do anything, (and trust me, sometimes I think that might be best) then vote Democratic or stay home. If you want more progress in the areas of the economy and National Security then don’t stay home.

Let’s get past the Foley thing, please. There’s a lot to do.

I know I haven't blogged for a while.  I've been changing jobs and it's consuming all my time and energy.

I just want to say that it is time, post-Labor Day, to get with the program and support your local Republican races be they City Council, Mayor, Governor, State Representative, Congressional Representative, and/or U.S. Senator.

I know, I know.  A lot of you are grousing about the War in Iraq and the media manipulators have said the Lie That Has Become the Truth enough that you may even believe it -- the War in Iraq is Separate From the Global War on Terror.  

Do you really believe that?  Are we fighting pitched, uniformed, organized battles in Iraq?  No.  We're dealing with TERRORISTS there.   Mr. Bin Laden, Mr. Zawahiri, and Mr. Ahdaminijaed are seeing this as the central conflict in the war and they are all hoping we will give up the ghost.  Why?   Because that will be the next Somalia...the next cut and run defeat for the West.    We have the fighting assets, the technology, and the superior forces.   They believe we don't have the will and they love to manipulate our media and our politics to test that.

Don't let 'em.  Re-elect or elect Republicans.   Elect the people who won't cut and run.   Elect the people who will back Iraq until it can stand on its own two feet.  

Get involved.  Call your local Republican Party to make phone calls, walk precincts, stuff envelopes, or support rallies.

We need to:

1.  Win the War

2.  Lower the Taxes

3.  Confirm our Judges

4.  Deal with Illegal Immigration

It's really pretty simple.  We don't need two years of investigations and recriminations.   We don't need a hidden high-taxation, left-leaning agenda to take hold.   We don't need Democrats right now other than as a useless, hypercritical minority.    We need to keep enough of them around to remind us of the agenda they would pursue if they were in the minority.   But don't support them or vote for them.  Let their people do that.

 

 

I like to collect sea stories. From time to time I will publish some here.    I was in the Navy many years ago and still hang around Navy guys in my work (former, retired, and active).

Some sea stories have a nodding acquaintance with the truth and others are just good jokes or stories.  An old joke is that the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story is that fairy tales start with "Once upon a time" and sea stories start with "This ain't no sh*t."

This one popped up again recently and I thought I'd share it. It was unattributed when I got it, so I want to extend my thanks to whoever wrote it.

--------------------------------

LUNCH AT THE OFFICER'S CLUB

One day, a Navy Captain went to the Officer's Club to eat lunch. When he entered the main dining room, he found the place was quite crowded. He did notice three Lieutenants sitting at a table with one empty chair, so he asked them if he could sit there. They promptly invited him to join them.

He ordered his lunch and engaged the Lieutenants in conversation as they ate. At one point, the Captain said, "In my career I have observed characteristics about officers that enable me to determine the source from which they were commissioned."

The Lieutenants were eager to hear about this and asked if he could tell them each how they had been commissioned.

The Captain turned to the Lieutenant on his left and said, "You came into the Navy through the Navy's Reserve Officer Training Corps."

The Lieutenant confirmed that was correct and asked how the Captain had noted this.

The Captain replied, "Well, Lieutenant, throughout our conversation you demonstrated that you have a strong academic background, but, so far, your military experience is somewhat limited."

The Captain then looked to the the Lieutenant on his right and said, "You came in through O.C.S. (Officer Candidate School) and have prior enlisted service."

The Lieutenant confirmed that this was correct and asked how the Captain had determined this.

The Captain said, "Again throughout the course of our conversation, you demonstrated that you have a fairly complete military background and a lot of common sense."

The third Lieutenant, seated across the table from the Captain, asked if he had determined the source of his commission.

The captain replied, "Yes, I have, Lieutenant.  You were commissioned when you graduated from the United States Naval Academy.

The Lieutenant said,  "That is correct, sir.  And may I ask if you determined that by taking note of my high level of intelligence, precise military bearing, or some other superior quality that I have acquired and honed at the United States Naval Academy?"

The Captain replied, "No, Lieutenant, it wasn't any of that.  I had simply taken note of your class ring while you were picking your nose."

I just wrote a piece about some comments made by Professor John Orman of Fairfield University in Connecticut.   He has filed a complaint with the state intended to keep Joe Lieberman off the November ballot as a candidate for the U.S. Senate.  He has accused Senator Lieberman of "doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot" (including being the top polling candidate in the state, I suppose).

In the course of writing my first piece I came across an article written for the Fairfield Mirror in March 2005  about Professor Orman.    At first I didn't think it was worth commenting on.  However, one small part of the article keeps rattling around in my head.

First, some background:  It seems that the professor harbors political ambitions.  You know the type.   "Oh, I've got to run.  The people need me to take over and lead before the current criminal class in politics ruins everything."

It was a calling apparently.   Also in the article (by Ben Doody), there were other "callings."  As a matter of fact Hollywood and L.A. were calling.

Yep.   When Professor John Orman was contemplating his run he was quoted in the article as saying, "I got messages from Hollywood and L.A. saying 'Go get him!' "

Messages from Hollywood and L.A.?   About a senatorial race in Connecticut?   Does Hollywood and L.A. reach out to dictate terms to other parts of the country about who should run to represent their state for the Democratic Party?  Do we have the DNC headquarters in the wrong town? 

Well, unfortunately the answer is probably "yes".   But, I doubt seriously that Hollywood-L.A.  called Professor Orman out of the blue and said, 'Go get him!' 

It was probably more like, "Who?...John Orman?...Who's John Orman?...So what?...He wants to run for what?...Against Lieberman?...What's wrong with Lieberman?...Oh, he voted for the war and now thinks the war is the right thing.    Well, we can't have that.  Go get him."

Yep.   Go get him, Professor.   And while you're waiting to be called to do your political duty as a candidate why don't you get busy and grade a few papers? 

Democrats are such graceful competitors. The local Dems in Connecticut are pulling out their little pop guns to try and keep Joe Lieberman off the ballot in November’s senate election. The rationale is amazing, and so is the involvement of one of Connecticut’s finest political science professors, Professor John Orman of Fairfield University.  We'll get back to Professor Orman a little later, but I do want to mention that according to a WaPo article Professor Orman was one of Joe Lieberman’s challengers over the last couple of years prior to the emergence of Ned Lamont.

Now, I am not naïve enough to believe that political science professors are unbiased. They are apparently not asked by their administrators and colleagues to even fake an unbiased approach to teaching political science nor are they asked to mask their own political leanings. I guess you can get a doctorate in political science by being “appropriately” politically biased in this country.

There are some serious questions here:

1. Do political science professors, in order to become political science professors, find that the path of least resistance to becoming a professor is to copy or reflect the political biases of their mentors? (This might explain why we have such a serious problem with inbred liberalism in the average university political science department).
2. Is there a Darwinist kind of selection process here? (Only liberals need apply. Conservatives stand little chance of achieving professorial status as their philosophical posture will be a point of bias throughout the mentorship and peer review processes they must endure).
3. Is a political science professorship just a holding area for failed politicians who can’t hack it in the political light of day?
4. Is your average political science department just an amateur arena for irresponsible political ideas to last much longer than they deserve?
5. Is there any science taught in political science anymore?

Apparently, Professor Orman’s status as a professor gives him the portfolio to offer profound commentary about Joe Lieberman regarding his forming a “fake” political party and “doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot.”   Apparently Professor Orman file a complaint with the state trying to keep Joe Lieberman off the ballot.   Yep, sure wouldn't want anybody on the ballot who might win.

This sounds like something Stalin/Lenin/Hitler/Kurschev/Pol Pot/Saddam Hussein would do?   Is that where you get your political philosophies, Professor Orman?    From guys like Stalin/Lenin/Hitler/Kurschev/Pol Pot/Saddam Hussein?

Is there something wrong with doing anything you can to get your name on a ballot, Professor Orman? Isn’t that what politics in a free country is all about?

And what about the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that polling shows that Joe Lieberman is preferred by Connecticut voters over any other current senatorial candidate? Is Connecticut some special place where democracy can be circumvented by some obscure political-legal-technical maneuver? Do we have to have some higher political authority actually “authorize” a candidate? Just who would that be? You, Professor Orman? What about the will of the people, Professor Orman?

First, Professor Orman, Joe Lieberman is not pulling a political stunt here. He is currently the most popular candidate for that senate seat in the state of Connecticut. That alone should qualify him for the ballot. In fact, I don’t believe that any ballot that would exclude Joe Lieberman could be considered legitimate at all.

We all know what this is. It is the Democratic Party trying to cover up a mistake. They made the mistake of allowing a small, incredibly left-leaning group of voters determine the outcome of Connecticut’s senate primary. They are now shocked to find out that once Joe Lieberman was free of the yoke of official Democratic Party horsepucky, he has a broader appeal with Connecticut’s voters than N.L. does. His general popularity in the state could well torpedo the “legitimate” Democratic candidate.   Labor Day's coming up and we haven't seen the full blown Democratic Party-Ned Lamont media extravaganza yet, so you can be sure that there are more tricks to be played.

What’s fascinating about this is that a well adjusted Democratic Party would see this as a win-win. They have two candidates in the race and there is little chance that one of them won’t win. But they don’t want to play it that way. They want Big Joe out and Little Neddie in.

Joe backed the wrong horse, they think. He wanted to defend this country -- his country.

As all of you know our military has different branches of service made up of different people with different backgrounds and training.   One could even say these branches of the service have different cultures (if one were stupid enough to refer to himself as "one" and at the same time be stupid enough to refer groups of people as "cultures").   

I personally am a veteran of the Navy (not retired, just a vet).   My father was a Navy vet also (WW II).     I still work with Navy folks here in sunny San Diego.    

The writeup below is from an anonymous, unattributed, mysterious but highly entertaining email that describes how some of our military branches differ.   Once again, I DID NOT WRITE THIS, but if you are the author please comment or write to me and I'll attribute the piece to you.

---------------------------------
RULES FOR BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY  

US Marine Corps Rules:

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.
5. Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral & diagonal preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your intention to shoot.

US Navy SEAL's Rules:

1. Look very cool in sunglasses.
2. Kill every living thing within view.
3. Adjust speedo.
4. Check hair in mirror.
5. Wait for the the Marines to deploy off amphibious ships.

US Army Rangers Rules:
1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound rucksack while starving.
2. Locate individuals requiring killing.
3. Request permission via radio from "Higher UP" to perform killing.
4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.
5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.

US Army Rules:

1. Select a new beret to wear.
2. Sew patches on right shoulder.
3. Change the color of beret you decide to wear.

US Air Force Rules:

1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.
3. See what's on HBO.
4. Ask "what is a gunfight?"
5. Request more funding from Congress with a "killer" PowerPoint presentation.
6. Wine & dine 'key' Congressmen and invite DOD & defense industry executives.
7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.
8. Declare the assets "strategic" and never deploy them operationally.
9. Hurry to make 13:45 tee-time.

US Navy Rules:

1. Go to Sea.
2. Drop off SEALs
3. Drink Coffee.
4. Deploy the Marines.
5. Sit off shore and watch the fire works
6. Drink Coffee