A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

Marines are defenders of the republic and the Constitution. That is our oath, that is our purpose, that is our calling. Many are Democrats. This is the journal of one such Marine. This leatherneck's progressive perspective is as follows...

My Photo
Location: Southwest, United States

U.S. Marine,0300 MOS,eight years in,honorably discharged,college-educated. To all the damned trolls, you better believe there are liberal Marines. Read "War Is A Racket" by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj.Gen.S.D.Butler, plus Lewis B. Puller, Jr.'s "Fortunate Son" and maybe then you'll understand. Semper Fi!

Play M.L.1775 Theme Song

Thursday, June 30, 2005

"444 Days in Tehran", Co-Starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?: Iran's New President and Allegations of His Participation and Role in the 1979 Iranian Revolution Posted by Hello
Good morning to all. This will be a quick post because I have to get ready to help a friend move this morning. The topic of the day is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad), Iran's newly elected president, and newfangled allegations that identify him as a main participant in the debacle (for us at least) that was the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis). I got up this morning around 0630 hrs. listening to NPR (www.npr.org) and was captivated by the report with Gary Sick, formerly of the National Security Council and now with Columbia University's Middle East Institute(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/RESEARCH/bios/ggs2.html) and Colonel Charles Scott, a former Army officer and one of the 52 hostages held in Tehran for those 444 days (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml). Colonel Scott said he was convinced newly-elected Iranian President Ahmadinejad was one of the main functionaries in the hostage crisis in terms of the leadership hierarchy responsible for his captivity. Colonel Scott also went on to say that no fewer than four to five of his comrade-hostages came to the same striking conclusion when they first saw Mr. Ahmadinejad's countenance on the television screen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1675088,00.html) over the last few days. It was a fascinating interview, engrossing to say the very least. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that if Ahmadinejad was in fact played an integral role in the hostage taking (and that is a big IF due to the fact there has been nothing but anecdotal evidence vis a vis a number of former hostages....although, I personally believe Ahmadinejad DID play a significant role in the crisis because of his bio, his rhetoric and how he came across during the campaign and election, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm) it give us all some idea of where Iran is heading in terms of its domestic and foreign policy. Like Michael Douglas's character William 'D-Fens' Foster in the great 1993, social-parable film 'Falling Down', Ahmadinejad (no doubt) is going to start "rolling back prices" as soon as he gets in the big chair. Oh yes, make no mistake, with Ahmadinejad at the helm of the Persian nation-state, the revolution that was radicalized by the fiery rhetoric of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, prosecuted by the Iranian student movements of the late 1970's and established the Islamic Republic of Iran (the IRI) is not over...not by a long shot! In fact, the 1979 Iranian revolution is coming around the bend once again for an encore performance, but this time with nuclear ambitions and with (more than likely) a nuclear capability. This is the beginning of a new, Islamic revolution, and (once again) Iranian-style. In other words, this is going to be a full-court press by the newly-elected President Ahmadinejad and the extremely influential mullahs (who, by the way, exert the real political and cultural power in the Islamic Republic of Iran) to advance a 21st century Iran with ambitions to export it's method and fundamentalist Islamic teachings/philosophy throughout the Middle East and (indeed) all over the world. Semper Fidelis

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Madness and Folly That Rules the Hour: America in Fits and Starts a/k/a Twilight's Last GleamingPosted by Hello
Morning to all reading the blog. Well, today's the day (or actually, tonight's the night) when our Commander-in-Chief once again comes before the American people in a vain attempt to explain our present and future course of action in Iraq. Of course, he will do this at Fort Bragg (http://www.bragg.army.mil/), one of the U.S. Army's proudest military reservations (home to the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 82nd Airborne Division, the JFK School of Special Warfare and on and on) in another vain attempt at pimping the symbolism and meaning of such a place in order to shore up his flagging and failing poll numbers. In fact, in the spirit of "pimpness", maybe he'll give a "gangsta lean" while delivering his address tonight. Hey, don't half do it...if "pimping" the American people and their armed forces is the order of the day, why not go all the way?!? With that said, this post will be an exercise in comparison and contrast. In fact, it will be a photographic exercise in comparison and contrast of two American presidents, although leading in different times, engaged in similar circumstances. Above and to the left is a photo of the 36th President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat from Texas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) obviously in deep thought, and more than likey, in deep pain as he contemplates his decision-making process concerning another failed American military campaign that is costing thousands of lives and millions upon millions of dollars in southeast Asia (the Vietnam War, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). You can almost hear President Johnson's thoughts...am I doing the right thing, is this the best way to prosecute this war, where am I taking this country, what do my fellow countrymen and women think of my leadership, etc, etc. These are the thoughts and concerns of a man with depth, a keen intellect, and (most importantly) a conscience. Also, for a little background on the photo above, the President is listening to a tape (hence the tape recorder/player in the foreground) from his son-in-law Capt. Charles Robb, USMC who was (at the time) reporting from "in-country" about the situation on the ground in Vietnam (Robb went on to become a governor of Virginia and a U.S. Senator, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robb). Now, if you will, compare and contrast this photo to the one above and to the right of the 43rd President of the United States, the current President (Republican, also from Texas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) who is also engaged (at the time the picture was taken, January 2005) in the prosecution of a failed military campaign that is also costing thousands of lives (http://icasualties.org/oif/) and millions upon millions of dollars, this time in southwest Asia (the Iraq War, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq ). Notice the difference(s)? Striking aren't they? Almost downright disturbing, huh? Indeed...yes, most certainly indeed. Ol' George, Jr...in no pain, and (seemingly) not having a care in the world. Two presidents, similar circumstances, two very different responses and attitudes concerning wars that cost thousands of lives and millions upon millions of dollars. What kind of person is this who, in all his blaseness, will come before the American people this evening to explain this war that is costing thousands of lives and millions upon millions of dollars? A question to ponder, to be sure. Semper Fidelis

Thursday, June 23, 2005

GOP Talks About War, While Democrats Actually Fight in War: All Able-Bodied Republicans Should Put Their Money Where Their Collective Mouths Are and Sign Up! Posted by Hello
Good morning to all. Here's a post on something which was already burning me up this morning, but then when reading about what GOP guru Karl Rove said last night in New York (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/), I'm just beside myself with lividness. Bottom line is this: I am sick and tired of Republicans running their collective mouths about how much they support this war, yet not getting off of their fat asses and placing their shoulders up against the collective grindstone in any real way. In other words, if they are so "behind the effort" and if they are so "for the war" then prove it by volunteering for service in one of the two branches that are really up against it (in terms of numbers) in Iraq: the United States Army (www.army.mil) and the United States Marine Corps (www.usmc.mil). I mean, why just talk a good game Republicans...why not play one too? Karl Rove's comments last night are just another example of a typical ignorant ass Republican who has never served in any branch of the armed forces, shooting off just about the only thing they have ever shot (their mouths) about something they have NO idea of which they are talking about. Again, Rove said the following horseshit yesterday at the New York state 'Conservative Party' dinner(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/):

"...Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war...".

My only response to this kind of lame nonsense is to say, Mr. Rove...shut the f**k up! See, people like this guy should be VERY QUIET when it comes to the subject of warfare or anything that even remotely pertains to warfare and warfighting. People like Rove, et al. are extremely dangerous and should be taken with a grain of salt whenever they start flapping their gums about military service, war or any other activity in which they have no real knowledge. George C. Scott (as General George S. Patton) said the following about clowns like Mr. Rove in the opening monologue of the Academy Award winning movie 'Patton' (http://www.simplyscripts.com/oscar_winners.html):

"...They don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fornicating...".

And don't forget dumb-ass VP Cheney talking about the insurgency in Iraq as being "...in it's last throes..." (http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050622-025702-4163r.htm). Really?!? Hey, Mr. Vice-President, tell that to the folks who have been blown up in Iraq this week (http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=78733). We've got good men and women out there dying and not just in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and wherever the hell else our troops are scattered throughout the globe. They have no idea what they are talking about. In fact, here's a partial list of Republicans that "talk military, but live civilian" (thanks to www.iflipflop.com):

Dennis Hastert: did not serve/Tom Delay: did not serve/House Whip Roy Blunt: did not serve/Bill Frist: did not serve/Rudy Giuliani: did not serve/George Pataki: did not serve/Mitch McConnell: did not serve/Rick Santorum: did not serve/Trent Lott: did not serve/Dick Cheney: did not serve/John Ashcroft: did not serve/Jeb Bush: did not serve/Karl Rove: did not serve/ Shit-bird extraordinaire Saxby Chambliss: did not serve/Jon Kyl: did not serve/Christopher Cox: did not serve/Newt Gingrich: did not serve/Phil Gramm: did not serve/Antonin Scalia: did not serve/Clarence Thomas: did not serve/Sean Hannity: did not serve/Rush Limbaugh: did not serve/Bill O'Reilly: did not serve/Michael Savage: did not serve. George Will: did not serve/Pat Buchanan: did not serve...and the list goes on and on.

My theory in terms of why Republicans (generally speaking) are the way they are when it comes to military service, in a nutshell, is as follows: these GOP "wannabe's" who are so "military" and yet DID NOT SERVE are like that because they never had their "cherry's busted" (so to speak) like those of us who have served (and continue to serve) in the Armed Forces. In other words, these GOP clowns still subscribe to their pre-pubescent and pubescent notions of what military service entails and/or is all about (i.e., toy soldiers in formation, pretty uniforms, 'Top Gun', immature notions of masculinity, etc.) because they don't understand military service really ISN'T as romantic and glorious as they think it is, i.e., it's scrubbing toilets, mowing lawns, desperate loneliness, mind-numbing paperwork, being away from friends and family, experiencing the unique gut pain of hoping you get a letter from home during mail-call, sharing a head/latrine with 10, 15 or more guys at the same time, being hungry, being too hot or being too cold, going dirty for days or more at a time, etc. etc. See they don't understand what it really is because they've NEVER been in it...again, I refer you to the 'Patton' monologue. So, in closing, putting magnetic ribbons on your SUV's ain't enough Republicans. Start putting your money where your mouth is my dear Republicans...sign up or sit down and shut the hell up! No one wants to hear words anymore, people are being killed and amputated on a daily basis. It's time for real action! Semper Fidelis

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

The Rise of the Dimmest and the Dumbest: America Wearing the Dunce Cap at the Beginning of a New Century Posted by Hello
Morning. The topic of the day is the diminution of American intellectual power. This is the topic of the day because, quite frankly, we are living in perilous times and woe to the United States if she continues on this perilous course. America is at war with itself; more to point, America is at war with her intellectuals and intellectualism (as the always excellent 'Christian Science Monitor' so adroitly concludes in the article 'Deep Thinkers Missing in Action' at http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p17s02-lehl.html). First, let me define intellectualism (the dictionary definition) as the: 1) Exercise or application of the intellect; 2) Devotion to exercise or development of the intellect. You know, it's interesting: there are many states, typically in the southern regions of the country (especially Texas, http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1726 ), that have subscribed to some form of anti-intellectualism or another for as long as anyone can remember. Indeed, the most virulent form of anti-intellectualism (as previously eluded to) can still be found in Texas, where there are but a few intellectuals left; and they are (for the most part) holed-up and under siege in Austin (ironically, the state capital as well as home to the University of Texas, The Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library, Sandra Bullock, Madeline Stowe, and others), the only sensible and enlightened area in the whole damned state (http://travel.lycos.com/destinations/location.asp?pid=244009). But what is even more disturbing is how this pathogen has slowly spread across America and now seems to be accelerating in its attempt to dominate the culture. Of course, anti-intellectualism's crowning achievement to date was the election and then re-election of the current president. If the Alfred E. Newman of 'MAD Magazine' fame statement "what, me, worry" doesn't apply in the current context, then I don't know when it would ever apply. Moreover, the disease of anti-intellectualism is crushing the African-American community. Once proud of it's intellectual heritage (an intellectual heritage embodied in such notables as Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. DuBois, Benjamin E. Mays, Barbara Jordan et al.), this community (sadly) now finds itself under constant threat from an element within its own ranks. This desperate community within the greater American community is under attack, slowly being decimated by a degenerate sub-culture that is determined to undermine a centuries worth of intellectual progress. The consequences are devestating, as the following 'Reuters' link attests to, http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-03-02T182443Z_01_B18425_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CRISIS-BLACK-DC.XML. Chuck D, leader of the group Public Enemy (and, quite simply, the modern embodiment of the poet/artist/scholar/intellectual warrior), touched on this very topic at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in February 2005, link is as follows http://www.uaf.edu/sunstar/archives/20050301/chuckd.htm. Chuck D stated the following:

"...This whole thing, the whole 'I've got to be a thug,' or 'I've got to follow what the television tells me I'm worth," is set up to turn you into a forever consumer. It's not real. It's as real as you thinking you're wise at 17, 18, 19."and From there, Chuck elaborated on race relations and the prevailing "anti-intellectualism that's killing [them]..." .


"...America makes money off of black death, misery, and destruction. [America doesn't] want you to better yourself. They want blacks to be their entertainment. That's why you have to take it on yourself to get your education. To f**k the idea of being a 'gangsta' ...".

This is something to get passionate about, but it seems like we live in a time where "passion" equals "crazy". A prime example of this disturbing social phenomenon is when DNC Chairman Howard Dean, while running as a Presidential candidate in 2004, discovered that expressing one's passion/zeal is a social and cultural "no-no"in today's post-modern America. Case in point was when Dean was lambasted by the American press after his defeat in the 2004 Iowa Democratic Caucus for simply getting "a little excited", or "a little motivated" (as our Marine Corps brothers and sisters call it). Truly, I was certainly no fan of Howard Dean, I was supporting Wesley Clark all the way (as I've stated time and time again in previous posts) but regardless of who any of us were supporting, the kind of response Dean suffered for simply "losing his cool" and showing some political passion doesn't make any sense. The man had his a** handed to him for pete's sake and was damn near destroyed by the press for simply showing a little "fire in the belly". Can you imagine if this current bullsh**t standard was applied to our great leaders of the past? There would have been no great Presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, no great Presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman or John F. Kennedy, no great patriots like Patrick Henry or John Brown, there would be no great Americans like Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr, Malcolm X, or Robert F. Kennedy, in fact no anybody of any consequence that was about changing things for the better. All of these past great presidents and leaders were known to get a little "overheated" when discussing issues of passion and importance. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with passion and intensity? Friends, passion is the engine of progress. Folks, be advised: beware the anti-intellectuals and their insidious movement, fore they will surely place this country squarely on a death march into oblivion. Semper Fidelis

Friday, June 17, 2005

Lusus Naturae et Sequens: General Wesley Clark Signs-On with Fox News and California's Unusual Geological DisturbancesPosted by Hello
Good morning to all. I'm up early, so I might as well make a quick post. By the by, I ran into an old friend from undergraduate school yesterday. Hadn't seen her in years, so we caught up on old times and then parted ways. It was good to see her. Now, on with the dual topics of the day. G.D. Frogsdong at the 'Skippy the Bush Kangaroo' site (thanks G.D. and good looking out...his link is as follows http://xnerg.blogspot.com/) locked me on to the first topic yesterday, so here goes my two cents. First topic is Wesley Clark signing on with Fox News as a military and foreign affairs analyst (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/16/1355255). There were some rumblings about this, in terms of Clark being "a traitor to the Democratic cause" and the flurry of "how-could-he-do-it" statements and soliloquies. Heck, I have to admit to being taken aback myself when I first heard the news. But then it dawned on me as to what he was/is doing (more than likely)...and it's a brilliant manuever. Clark could have gone back to CNN or signed with MSNBC or any of the other stations that usually draw viewers of the liberal/moderate political mindset...viewers who already (for the most part) share Clark's political philosophy and vision for America. But all that would have done is place Clark squarely in front of people who already know who he is, what he stands for and what he believes in vis-a-vis his political philosophy (again, for the most part). And, while he would be sitting in front of a CNN or MSNBC camera and audience, Fox News and the other right-wing propaganda tools would be filleting and skewering Clark before their viewership (primarily conservative folks who overwhelmingly voted for Bush, Jr. in both elections, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067), in terms of who he is and what he stands for. Whereas, if Clark himself is before the Fox News camera, standing at the position of attention before the Fox viewers (Fox News viewers, as stated already, are folks who voted overwhelmingly Republican over the last four years...these are folks the Democratic Party would love to pull away from the clutches of the GOP), they would see for themselves (DIRECTLY, with no middle-man) what Clark is all about, what he stands for and what he espouses instead of having some Fox News talking-head "describe" what Clark is about...this way, Fox News viewers will see for themselves what Clark (and by extension, the Democratic Party) is all about; and chances are, they are going to like what they see and (more importantly) what they hear! Thus, Clark is positioning himself in a way where he won't be a "bogeyman" in the eyes of Fox News viewers and instead will be someone regular Fox News viewers could see themselves voting for in 2008 (because Clark IS running in 2008, http://www.hopestar.com/articles/2005/05/17/news/news3.txt). In fact (militarily speaking), Clark is implementing seven of the nine 'Principles of War', also known as MOOSEMUSS (a loosely based adaptation of the strategic/tactical theories of the great Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz. MOOSEMUSS equals Maneuver, Objective, Offensive, Security, Economy of Force, Mass, Unity of Command, Simplicity, and Surprise, link is as follows, http://www.civilwarhome.com/principlesofwar.htm) in terms of positioning himself at Fox News in correlation to the 2008 Presidential Election. The seven principles of the nine that Clark has implemented (in my humble opinion) are: OBJECTIVE, OFFENSIVE, MASS, ECONOMY OF FORCE, MANEUVER, SECURITY and SURPRISE. In summation, this is a fine example of brilliant political generalship! General Clark, my compliments sir! Now, on to the second topic: the recent California quakes. California has experienced four major geological events over the last five days (a 6.6 off-the coast of northern California the night of 16 June 2005, a 4.9 in the Greater Los Angeles area the afternoon of 16 June 2005, a 7.2 off-the coast of northern California on 14 June 2005 and a 5.2 in southern California on 12 June 2005)...alot of activity that is unusual even for the Golden State (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/). In short, the state of California has been rocked by four moderate to large earthquakes since Sunday. Also, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska experienced a 6.8 earthquake on 14 June 2005 and (not as related, although all places mentioned line the so-called 'Ring of Fire' a/k/a the Circum-Pacific belt, http://www.crystalinks.com/rof.html) Chile was dealt a 7.8 magnitude quake on 13 June 2005 (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0614/quake.html). My primary concern, as I'm sure is everyone elses (especially the good people of California), is whether or not this is merely a geophysical aberration that will pass in due course or is it something more dubious and sinister, i.e., the nascent tremors which could build into the super-earthquake known as 'The Big One' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7832219/). Either way, I don't like it. If anyone out there has any more information pertaining to the earthquakes, paleoseismology and the like please pass the info along. Semper Fidelis

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Nuclear Terrorism: We Must Act Now to Counter the Threat Posted by Hello
Greetings. Quick post and then I have to jet. Came home to see I finally got the video I ordered from NTI about two months ago (NTI is the 'Nuclear Threat Initiative', www.nti.org) ...on second thought, I really shouldn't be complaining since the video was free. NTI is an organization I heard about while watching CNN's 'Lou Dobbs' a few months ago. It's an awesome organization made up of eggheads, supernerds and people with real pull who know what they are talking about (examples include Senators Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici, former Senator Sam Nunn, mogul and social activistTed Turner and on and on). Their primary "front-man", multi-billionare Warren Buffett, was (while I was watching the Lou Dobbs program) talking about the free DVD they had created in order to give some tangible understanding to the American people of the dire straits we are in concerning the real threat potential for a nuclearized terrorist attack. So, after watching the show, I called NTI the next day and ordered the DVD. As stated previously, I got it yesterday, watched it and was very impressed. The video, although only 45 minutes in length, was almost as penetrating (pound for pound) as 'The Day After' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/), the 1980's TV movie about nuclear war and its after-effects, in regard to its impact and scope. After the movie, there's a kind of short wrap-up with Tom Brokaw hosting and experts on the subject of nuclear terrorism discussing the film. The bottom line is I walked away from the film clearly understanding that the United States continues to be EXTREMELY vulnerable when it comes to terrorists smuggling in a nuclear device and detonating it in a major population center (i.e., Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, etc.). In fact (and in my opinion), the most frightening character in the film wasn't one of the assortment of heartless Europeans and Russians trying to ply highly-enriched uranium (HEU)/plutonium from the cold, dead fingers of the former Sovet Union (which is, for all intents and purposes, the 'Toys R Us' of quasi-weaponized or outright-weaponized nuclear material) nor was it one of the swarthy"super bad guys" running around South Africa, northern Africa and the Middle East trying to do roughly the same thing. The most frightening character was the nerdy, skinny, contemptuous and radicalized Canadian terrorist who drove a nuclear device over the Canadian-US border in a minivan heading to points unknown...very chilling. This character was thin, pasty, bitter and just oozing with contempt for the United States, Canada and (more than likely) all of Western civilization. He didn't have much dialogue (in fact, he might have had 2-3 lines), but it's "muthers" like that bastard who are the real linchpin in any endeavour to bring a nuclear device on American soil. In essence, they are flying below the radar! Yes, there are brown-skinned Middle Easterners (to be sure) who are out there wanting to do real harm and great damage to the security and citizenry of the United States, but we must also understand there are some pasty-looking white kids (both home grown and in Canada) running around with the same spirit and "warpedness" that McVeigh, Koresh and those Columbine kids embodied...and these Canadian/American white kids want to stick it to the United States in a nuclear kind of way to boot! And I believe that was the point of this character in the film, to enlighten people to this disturbing and unsettling fact. In closing, all reading this should check out NTI's website at www.nti.org , order the DVD/video and see what NTI is all about. Semper Fidelis

Monday, June 13, 2005

Michael Jackson to District Attorney Tom Sneddon: Who's Bad?Posted by Hello
Newsflash/Dateline, 13 June 2005: Michael Jackson found not guilty of all charges and acquitted on all ten counts. Folks, District Attorney Tom Sneddon is a clown of the first class who has been on a witchhunt for Michael Jackson for the past decade or more, looking for any and all opportunities to fulfill his personal vendetta against the 'King of Pop'. Maybe this defeat will finally shut him up, shut him down and convince him to leave Michael Jackson alone. The only redeeming thing about Sneddon's botched case against Jackson is that he and his cohorts DID PROVE Michael Jackson to be an extremely disturbed adult who needs serious psychiatric therapy and care. However (and unfortunately for Tom Sneddon), being a disturbed adult is NOT against the law; indeed, in today's society you can't throw a handful of stones in any direction without hitting a disturbed adult. I don't usually make a practice of commenting (either verbally or in written form) on the entertainment world (nor the sports world, for that matter). Mainly, because they really aren't all that important and simply pale in comparison with the more serious subjects and issues of the day. All who come aboard this blog on a regular basis (and I thank all of you that do come aboard on a regular basis!) already know this site is dedicated to the discussion and analysis of U.S. domestic/foreign policies, military affairs and how these policies and subject-matter impact the nation and the world as a whole. However, this story is too big and I wanted to comment in terms of how Michael Jackson (as an individual) in conjunction with his outrageous behavior (excusable or inexcusable) and the case against him tells us more about where we are as a nation than it does about Michael Jackson as an individual. Whether or not he actually did what he is accused of doing (and I for one don't believe he did those things), although extremely important, is not really relevant to the overarching point I hope to make. In my humble opinion, Michael Jackson is clearly saddled with more psychic scarring and emotional baggage than any of us would want to deal with (or, quite possibly, COULD deal with); and yet...we laugh, we belittle, we scorn. His wealth, (fortunately or unfortunately...I lean toward unfortunately) has allowed him to barricade himself in a Potemkin Village-like "world of fantasy", or (as he named his own home) in a kind of "Neverland" that has shielded him from the realities of his own mental deterioration and, indeed, may have actually played a role in facilitating and/or hastening his psychic deterioration. With his useless cadre of paid yes-men and yes-women around him, yes-men and yes-women who have provided a real disservice more than a service to him (again, in my opinion), Jackson was allowed to spiral into an abyss of reality distortion and, ultimately (as I think we have beheld on our TV screens), a downright breakdown and separation from what most people would consider reality. In short, I think Jackson's behavior created a rich and fertile environment for a "frenzied prosecution festival" and that his close call with the criminal justice system is a clear, red flag warning for Michael and his family (as big as life) that something is seriously wrong with him, in the psychological department...but maybe I'm way off the mark. And, if this is in fact the case, than do we (as an American people) believe philosophically it is better and more humane to send our psychologically ill citizens to prison, or do we think it is more advantageous (to all parties involved, including our collective soul as a nation) to send them to a medical center where they can get the care they need? You see, this is the real question, this is the philosophical question that is on trial here.The bottom line is Jackson, who is (without question) an extremely talented artist who has brought pleasure and joy through his music and artistry to hundreds of millions around the world (perhaps even BILLIONS of people) during a career that spans almost four decades, is now being cruelly paraded before the American public (and the world) and lambasted mercilessly by the American press. In comparison, Clarence Thomas (no hero of mine, but his comments find new creedence in light of the present situation) once compared his public shalacking as a "high-tech lynching" when he was the "fodder" of the month (http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ClarenceThomas.htm). Now, the same terminology can be sadly applied to Michael Jackson. What we are witnessing is a tragedy of Greek proportions, an epic requiring an author like Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides to adequately weave the tale with all of its sad hues, nuances and "shades of gray"; their insightful talent and genius is urgently needed to bring forth an adequate understanding of what is going on here. However, I think it would go something like this: a talented and sensitive youth, blessed by the heavens with the vocal and musical gifts that SO MANY would die and, perhaps, even kill for; cruelly scorned and berated by his father, emotionally and physically abused by his parents (especially his overbearing, menacing and physically threatening father); paraded before the community (always with a "forced smile" feigning happiness) for coins, money and trinkets like a minstrel-artist/crank-organ monkey; all the while, being pimped and prostituted by those who are supposed to be his primary guardians and caretakers. The tragic tale would continue: a pariah among his peers, alienated from "the Group" ("the Group" meaning his contemporaries, or, his generation of young people) vis a vis the "prison" of his celebrity and fame, the youth finds himself delving into a fantasy world blown all the hell out of proportion when compared to reality. All the while, even with his accumulated wealth, the hollow pain and ache of loneliness and isolation sets in and takes hold; his childhood and mind arrested in a kind of "Peter Pan" like state which, mimicking a child, causes him to see nothing wrong with sharing his bed with his children-friends and (more telling) CONTINUES to cloud his judgement in terms of seeing nothing wrong with sharing his bed with children-friends even though he is now 46 years of age (he'll be 47 on August 29 of this year!). In my humble opinion, this man is not a criminal. He is, instead, an emotionally tortured (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149992,00.html) and, I dare say, mentally ill person who needs medical help as soon as possible more than incarceration in the California penal system (a penal system in which he probably would not survive). His illness has (quite possibly) caused him to become a serious social concern, in terms of his interactions with children, as the allegations about his behavior allude. This is not his fault mind you, no more than it is the fault of the individual with tuberculosis that they are sick (through no fault of their own most of the time) and, in coughing, are spreading the disease and harming others. Michael Jackson, like the tuberculosis sufferer, needs immediate medical care and attention to arrest the disease, be cured of the disease and go on to live a normal life as a constructive and vital member of society. My final point is this: we must also understand, the Michael Jackson case is like a mirror before the American public, showing for all to see how we (as a collective people) treat those we once admired and loved when they "fall to Earth"... when they fall to Earth and show us that they are really mere mortals like the rest of us. Michael Jackson is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest talents this country has EVER produced (http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/jackson_michael/bio.jhtml); and yet, (like the veteran that serves the community and is dismissed after his/her services are rendered and are no longer needed) when the cumulative effects of the psychological damage done over the years takes hold, we lampoon him and castigate him for all the world to see in the public square of television. The world sees this and repulses in horror, wondering how Americans (generally speaking) can talk about "compassionate conservatism" and yet demonstrate a callousness and ugliness unabated and without mercy toward an individual who is obviously writhing in a psychic hell? You see, in our convulsions of laughter at, and finger-pointing condemnation of Michael Jackson, we THINK we are making fun of someone else, when in fact we are REALLY condemning ourselves for our lack of compassion and empathy in trying to understand the machinations that could bring someone once so high, to such low levels of desperation and despair. Like the great English poet and preacher John Donne (http://www.incompetech.com/authors/donne/bell.html) put it so many years ago, "...for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee". Semper Fidelis

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Glory, Honor and Lord Nelson: Reflecting on Trafalgar and the Resonating Lessons of Character and Discipline That Are Still Applicable Today Posted by Hello
Good day to all aboard the blog. My thoughts this morning are on Admiral Horatio Nelson (quite probably the greatest naval commander in the history of warfare, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Nelson), the Battle of Trafalgar and how the inspiration of both entities reverberate through the centuries...even to this day. One must understand first that the Battle of Trafalgar (and the subsequent English victory over the Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar on October 21, 1805) was of paramount importance because it ensured England's security in terms of neutralizing Napolean's certain invasion of the British home islands (Napolean by late 1805 had become a real threat to the security of the realm and to Great Britain as a whole) and (moreover) gave England dominance of the high seas for the next century. In essence, the Battle of Trafalgar was (without a doubt) the most decisive naval victory in the history of warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar). Thus, Admiral Nelson (through his martial leadership and his almost impeccable sense of character) is thought of, to this very day, (by the English and the world over) as having made the most significant impact on naval warfare in all of Western history. His legacy IS quite simply (and in a word) "profound" (http://www.war-art.com/nelson.htm). Indeed, it was Horatio Nelson who once said the following pearls of wisdom and inspiration:

"...Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon..."


"...No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy..."


"...Recollect that you must be a seaman to be an officer and also that you cannot be a good officer without being a gentleman..."

and finally,

"...If we have talents, we have no right to keep them under a bushel, they are ours for the benefit of the Community..."

This is powerful stuff ladies and gentleman, and I only hope that we can apply these same principles and ideals to our present Democratic cause and to our present struggle to regain control of this great nation; in other words, ours is a struggle to put our "ship of state" back on it's proper course. Now, although our campaigns are political in nature, there is much to be said for injecting these same lessons of warfare and lessons of character into the current political arena. Our victories, in terms of regaining the levers of national policy formulation and national policy execution, will be no less important than those victories gained on so many fields of battle that have spanned time immemorial. And, in closing, it is my hope to be able to attend (in England) the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the great battle this coming October (http://www.seabritain2005.com/server.php?show=nav.004018). However, if I am unable to attend what will certainly be a memory-making and awe-inspiring experience, I will most definitely pay tribute (in some shape, form or fashion) to the greatness of the great naval leader Lord Horatio Nelson; a great leader who secured a great victory (a victory secured aboard the 'HMS Victory'...a coincidence?) for King and country some 200 hundred years ago this October. What a warrior, what a leader...we can learn much from this warrior-leader of the first class. Take care and Semper Fidelis

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

A Dearth of Young, Bright, Eager Faces: The Recruiting Nightmare of 2004/2005, It's Impact on the Future of the Republic and the Inevitability of a DraftPosted by Hello
A good morning to you all. Got a documentary on DVD from Blockbuster last night titled 'Super Size Me' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/combined). In short, it was genius. The film delves into the obesity crisis that is sweeping the United States and how the fast-food industry is playing a herculean role (McDonald's especially, hence the title) in facilitating this crisis in American health by placing profit margins over the public well-being and the public welfare. The brain-child of Mr. Morgan Spurlock (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041597/), the film points a damning finger in the courtroom of ethics and social responsibility squarely at the pre-packaged/fast-food industry as a whole. For his efforts (and at great personal risk to his health I might add...he ate McDonald's three times a day for thirty days...folks, you have got to see how this impacted his health), Mr. Spurlock deserves a medal in that he has done a great service (from a sociological perspective) in shedding light on an obesity crisis that can only be described (and indeed, MUST BE described) as a genuine threat to our national security. I recommend this documetary to everyone and anyone aboard the blog. In short, it is simply a riveting and fascinating piece of quality documentary journalism that certainly delivers the goods. Now, on to today's topic which is the lack of manpower inflow vis a vis the Armed Forces of the United States; an armed forces that is (unfortunately) not lacking when it comes to a lot of manpower "out-go", i.e., (1) not many going into the military, (2) many leaving the services prematurely a/k/a attrition and (3) the KIA's and WIA's that are taking place in those areas of operation even as we speak. In fact, the Army finally came off of their most recent recruitment numbers after delaying their release as long as they could and let me tell you, the number aren't good (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08recruit.html). Even AFTER lowering their recruiting standards (which in itself is certainly not good, http://slate.msn.com/id/2120146/ ), the numbers are nothing to write home about. These are troubling times for the U.S. Armed Forces, to be sure (and the country as a whole) due to the hyper-extension of American forces to far-flung theaters around the globe in the prosecution of the so-called 'Global War on Terrorism'. "Global" is the key word, you see. In other words, this is a huge endeavour of massive logistical and personnel proportions. The strain on the military with its overheated operations tempo (or OPTEMPO, as it's called in-house) is enormous. I really feel sorry for the warriors whose primary mission is to make and mold new warriors for the Republic, i.e., the Marine drill instructors and Army drill sergeants (et al.). These good folks are charged with the already incredibly difficult responsibilty of turning undiscipined globs of human slobbery into hard-edged, hard-razored warriors of the first class ready to protect and defend the Constitution and soverignty of the United States of America. Did you notice I didn't mention anything about being utilized in "wars of pre-emption"? But, alas, that is a subject for another time. Like the saying goes, "...an artist is only as good as his/her material...", and the material these drill instructors are getting (in my opinion) ain't much to work with, both physically and in terms of character. Before I press on, allow me to first define what it is meant by the term "young people". The term "young people", as far as my understanding of the definition is concerned, means all of those Americans (males generally, but if it gets as bad as I think it will, it can easily apply to females as well) between the ages of 18 and 35 years of age. In fact, 'Stars and Stripes' (the American warriors newspaper of record since 1918) reported a short time ago that, for the second time in a row, the Marine Corps has failed to reach its recruiting goals (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27556). This is an extermely disturbing trend, in that the Corps has always served as a kind of barometer in terms of how popular the military, or a protracted military operation, is at a particular time. In other words, if those fanatical-types of young people the Marine Corps has ALWAYS attracted...you know the type, those that are the backbone of the "warrior-class" or "warriordom"; those young people that are definitely NOT in it for the money; but are in it for something more intangible, something more magnanimous...like the ability to stand before the world and declare oneself a Marine, knowing that just about EVERYONE on the face of the Earth knows what a U.S. Marine is; succinctly, I am talking about the EXTREMELY motivated...the ones whose military locus of control is BIG TIME internal, as in "uber self-motivated"...or, in a word, fanatical. You see if THOSE young people, who are by their very nature attracted to the Marine Corps, if these same young folk are second guessing their enlistment into the Corps for God and country...than trust me, things are REALLY, REALLY bad! The Army isn't faring much better either quite frankly, with their numbers coming up slack as well, as the 'New York Times' article reports in the following link, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/politics/04recruit.html. The bottom line here is that the current Administration, in their zeal and lust for offensive operations and strategic pre-emption, has bitten off way more than it could possibly chew by having this country engaged militarily around the globe in a way unseen since the days of the Vietnam War. But, unlike the Vietnam War, the pool of recruits that today's armed forces must get their conscripts from is dangerously fat-nasty and NOT PHYSICALLY FIT. This pool is unsatisfactory, VERY UNSATISFACTORY. In short, they are simply out-of-shape (as the 'Super Size' documentary referred to at the beginning of this post makes so painfully clear). Seriously, our American young people (generally speaking, because there are some fit kids out there...just not nearly as many as there should be!) are not up to par when it comes to military service (don't take my word for it, read Alison Stein Wellner's 2003 article for more on the subject at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GDE/is_6_23/ai). Furthermore and even more disturbing, many of the young people of this country are unable to run, jump or lift anything of any consequence for any pertinent amount of time (http://www.femalemuscle.com/wilkins/seds.html). Folks, if I can see this and if I am understanding the gravity of this crisis within the American draft pool, than you know our enemies around the world are well aware of this and smiling with glee. They know our pool of recruits is lacking and not fit for duty. With the mission continuing to get tougher day by day for our recruiters (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=51303, http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_151094121.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08recruit.html), Bush and his neocons will have no choice but to reinstate the draft in order to fill the critical manpower shortages that are always a consequence of war and the continued prosecution of a war effort (and perhaps "woman-power" shortages too, if it becomes necessary to draft young women as well); for more on the subject, read Rodney Voger's brilliant 1 March 2005 article titled 'Inbox: Students Should Prepare for Imminent Military Draft' at the following link, http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/SEC/Commentary. In other words, at this rate, a military draft is simply inevitable (http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3030). With the young folks of this country immersed in an apathy unprecedented in American history, plus not having the physical fitness capabilities which would allow them to do one pull-up, let alone engage in the physical strenuousness that is modern combat, I can just feel the frustration that must be permeating from the very core of most (if not all) drill instructors/drill sergeants around the country. God bless them, because we have certainly given them a mission that will require from them a performance above and beyond the call of duty. The country will be looking to them to turn soft, young Americans into the warrior razors that are needed to fill the inevitable "gaps in the ranks" created by Bush II's war against the world. What we're asking of our drill instructors, I dare say, is a "Medal of Honor"-esque endeavour of effort...what a mission! It's a sh***y deal, but the drill instructors/drill sergeants will rise to the occasion (as they always have) or die trying. Semper Fidelis

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Slowly, But Surely This War Is Expanding By Way of Gradual Encroachment: Bush Administration Hell-Bent and Determined to Move On Damascus as U.S. Forces Inch Closer and Closer to Syrian Border Posted by Hello
Good morning to all of the faithful. It's been a pretty long four or five days for me, alot of melodrama swirling in my area of operation such that I've been distracted (in terms of current events) for the past few days. Allow me to get back in gear with today's topic, which is the gradual expansion of the Iraq War into the surrounding regional area, i.e., Syria and how such a step will pan out when it comes to future implications and potential consequences. The current Administration's insistence on encroaching onto the Syrian border (which common sense tell us such a move will only INCREASE the possibility of "mistakes" and "misunderstandings" that could very easily escalate into open hostilities...on second thought, maybe that's what the neocons have wanted all along, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002420.php) is clear, especially with the latest offensive taking place in the town of Tal Afar, located in western Iraq and roughly 40 to 50 miles from the Syrian border (http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441008). Folks, this is not good from a diplomatic (nor from a military) point of view. The situation in the region is very tenuous (at best) and explosive (at worst). With the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri on 14 February 2005 (http://www.answers.com/topic/rafik-hariri), the status of the region has devolved from bad to worse and (in fact) is becoming even more amplified, aggravated and intense as the days go by. Indeed, political pressures between the United States and Syria have never been higher, so much so that the American ambassador to Syria (recalled 15 February 2005 , http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/upulls16.htm) has still not been returned to post in Damascus (especially since there is mounting suspicion that Syrian intelligence elements had something to do with the assassination of al-Hariri, http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5542168). What also adds fuel to an already overstoked fire is the Russian's determination to sell Syria advanced missile systems in defiance of the outrage and protest directed against them by Israel and the United States. The United States and Israel have strenuously urged Moscow to drop any such plans, saying Russian arms supplies would only strengthen militants in the Middle East (link is as follows, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7647769). The 'Reuters' article states:

"...Moscow is looking to sell Syria its flagship Igla shoulder-fired missiles, widely used by militants around the world...".

Moreover, to increase the bellicosity to practically cataclysmic levels, Iran and Syria have formed a common front or an "alliance of support" to counter the mounting challenges and threats both nations face from the United States and Israel (link is as follows, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7648646). With all of this swirling in the international ether, I decided to revisit a post I made awhile back, explaining how I believed (as I still do) that the United States (or, perhaps a joint US/Israeli operation) is preparing to strike Syria sometime this year; more than likely, sometime in the summer months. Like the the Bob Dylan songs say, not only can I can feel this "...blowin' in the wind..." but I also "...don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...". Ladies and gentleman, this Administration IS GOING to attack Syria sometime this year. In fact, if I had to bet (and I'm not a betting man) the odds are far greater the U.S. will attack Syria than attack North Korea. So, my questions are these: when the current Administraton finally attacks Syria, will the primary mission be to: (1) neutralize and eradicate insurrgent platforms/bases of operation?, (2) neutralize Ba'ath leadership and elements in exile?, or (3) facilitate the dismantling of the Bashir Assad regime?; or, will it be some kind of combination of all three? Of course, none of these three goals will be easy, but it is the third goal that will make this affair an extremely difficult "nut to crack". The bottom line here is this: trying to extract Assad and his regime out of Damascus and out of power ain't going to be easy. In closing, Bush and the current Administration had no idea what they were doing when they invaded Iraq in the early spring of 2003 and they still don't know what they are doing. I'm afraid they have set in motion events that are tragically spinning out of their control (or, for that matter quite frankly, anyone's control). Like the stellar GlobalSecurity.org website postulates (link is as follows, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/syria-intro.htm):

"...Should Syria and Israel drift into war, what would the United States do? With a full army in nearby Iraq and Mr. Bush's conviction that Syria is a pipeline for Islamic terrorists who are attacking Americans in Iraq, who knows? There are many scenarios. But it seems clear the US could drift into the equivalent of a World War -- an all-out conflict of the Arab world against the US and Israel...".

Oh boy, this is bad. Feedback and analysis are always encouraged. Semper Fidelis

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Saluting a Great American: Mark Felt Deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom Posted by Hello
Good morning. This is an unusually early morning post, but I'm up so let me put down some thoughts before I start the day. This will be an addendum/update to yesterday's s subject matter, W. Mark Felt and his decisive role in toppling the corrupt, corroded and fetid Nixon White House. It dawned on me last night that Mr. W. Mark Felt a/k/a "Deep Throat" deserves to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is our nations highest award (http://www.medaloffreedom.com/), for his great service to the nation in terms of his functioning as the ultimate inside "whistle-blower" and providing the "insider-intelligence" necessary to take on, take down and defeat Richard Nixon's pathologically covert campaign to "consolidate power" and gut the political opposition (i.e., the Democratic Party, the Progressive Movement, the anti-war and labor movement, etc.) vis-a-vis usurping the United States Constitution and undermining the very fabric of the American Republic. Yes, Mr. Felt most assuredly deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with any and all other accolades (be they material, financial, historical, etc.) that coincide with the kind of extraordinary service that he rendered this nation during the Watergate years. Of course, with the current GOP clown posse holed-up in the White House (Republicans that actually admire and wish to emulate the mindset and style of the Nixon White House...good grief), the chances are nil to zero that our current, misguided President would so much as send a letter of thanks to the Felt home, let alone even consider awarding this great man an auspicious and esteemed award such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Heck, to give you an example of what I'm talking about, the President couldn't even bring himself to call Mr. Felt a hero when questioned by the press yesterday during his meeting with South African President Thabo Mbeki (here's a copy of the transcript, http://allafrica.com/stories/200506011518.html). The President just sat there, "hemming and hawing" and squirming in his chair like an elementary school student unable to bring himself to formally recognize the selfless deeds and noble service reflected in what Mr. Felt did in his capacity in the early1970's as "Deep Throat". As far as I was concerned, the President's performance in terms of answering/not answering the question of whether or not he considered Mr. Felt a national hero, was a particularly embarrassing and (quite frankly) disturbing moment. Mr. Felt helped preserve the sanctity of the United States Constitution and, in doing so, helped save our country. Does this not rise to the level of national hero, Mr. President? In this instance and in light of his lukewarm performance in terms of his response to the question of whether or not Mr. Felt should be considered a hero, the President squarely put his cards on the table (for all to see) when it comes to where he stands on the issue...and the current President clearly stands with the all the other self-deluded 'Nixonites', right next to Chuck Colson and Gordon Liddy. You see, one has to understand that our current President and his lackluster Administration actually respect and admire the Nixon Administration (in terms of their pathological style, their lust for loyalty, their deluded sense of discipline and their maniacal drive for, what I call, the "consolidation of power). You better believe the current President and his Administration so desperately wish to duplicate the Nixon White House here in the early 21st century; and in my humble opinion, they're off to a great start in their quest to bring the Nixon White House back from the dark coridors of history. Again, I doubt this current President, as leader of the group of Nixon-wannabes that are (unfortunately) running the country, will step up and do what is right by honoring Mr. Felt with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Alas, no...Mr. Felt and his family will probably have to languish a little bit longer and wait until a Democratic/Progressive, one that admires, understands and appreciates what Mr. Felt did (by standing in the breach in the early 1970's between civilization and what can be easily decried as "political savagery"), reclaims the White House in the near future. It will take a Democratic/Progressive President to do what is right by recognizing this great American and awarding him what he so richly deserves on behalf of a grateful and thankful nation...the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Semper Fidelis

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

"...Because Only If You've Been in the Deepest Valley Can You Ever Know How Magnificent It is to be on the Highest Mountain...": W. Mark Felt, an American Patriot, Comes Forward as "Deep Throat".
Posted by Hello
Wow, this is incredible. The news came down yesterday afternoon in dribs and drabs and then came crashing down like a ton of bricks when "Woodstein" and the 'Washington Post' confirmed...and took practically everyone by surprise. The news was as follows: W. Mark Felt, a retired FBI agent/official and the #2 man at the FBI during the Watergate imbroglio, came forward yesterday (before the world) and proclaimed that he was, in fact, the Executive branch insider known as "Deep Throat" who served as the main source of information for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4598983.stm). Mr. Felt, now 91 years old, guided Woodward, Bernstein and their paper, the 'Washington Post', through the byzantine machinations that was the Nixon White House; and ultimately to a truth which culminated not only in the neutralizing of what White House legal counsel John Dean ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean) referred to as a political "cancer" growing on the government, but also in the resignation of the 37th President of the United States. Again, this is absolutely incredible. The longest-running journalism mystery in American history came to an end yesterday afternoon when an elderly gentleman, now living with his college professor daughter and her children in the sleepy town of Santa Rosa, California opened the door to their home and entered legendom as he told a gaggle of press representatives that (in an earlier time) he was indeed the individual who helped save the Republic, in the dark alleys and underground garages of Washington, D.C. and the surrounding metropolitan area, from a political cancer that (if not checked) would have arguably destroyed the very essence of our constitutional government (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/). Now, as if on cue, the remaining Nixon loyalists and die-hards (you know the usual suspects, i.e., 'Nixonites' like Pat Buchanan, G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Colson, Monica Crowley, etc., http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/06/01/deepthro.htm) all came out yesterday afternoon with their long-knives in hand in a sad and collective (and impotent, I might add) attempt to slice and dice this sweet-looking old man to ribbons; vis-a-vis obnoxiously declaring, with saliva sputtering from their snapping jaws, that he was either disloyal, dishonorable, a snake or some combination of all three. The funny thing was in their maniacal efforts to demonize Mr. Felt, they in fact were just making Nixon look more ugly, as well as, making the Watergate debacle stink even more. Their deluded efforts to lambaste and gut this American patriot reminded me of a saying we have in these parts: it's like mixing ice cream with cow shit, doesn't do much to the cow shit but it ruins the ice cream. Look, whatever they were trying to do, the only thing the pro-Nixon pundits DID DO yesterday in their grotesqueness (and probably as they'll continue to do, ad nauseum, as this story continues to burn brightly on the journalistic horizon) is show the world once again how self-deluded and Machiavellian Richard Nixon, his White House and his "loyal" disciples were at the time and continue to be to this very day. See, in the end, regardless of Mr. Felt's motives (and let's face it, in the political game hardly anybody's above reproach. Like the character Trip said in the movie 'Glory': "...we're all dirty, I mean ain't nobody clean...", http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/g/glory.html), in his capacity as "Deep Throat", Mr. Felt provided an indispensible service to the nation that can never be truly appreciated nor repaid. Those fascist Republicans (to be fair, not all Republicans are fascists, but oh so many are...it's just ingrained in their psyches...the drive for the "consolidation of power", it's what makes them tick in other words) who get-off on jack boots and Sam Browne belts (you know the type...G. Gordon Liddy's kind of people), are all over the TV and radio talking about how Mr. Felt was disloyal this and disloyal that...disloyal?!? Be advised, Mr. Felt's first duty was NOT to Richard Nixon and the Republican establishment or even to his much beloved FBI. His first duty was to the Constitution and people of the United States. You see he, like so many others (including yours truly, http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm), swore an oath to defend this great Republic against all enemies both foreign and domestic...see this is a point of fact the "Gordon Liddy's of the world" conveniently forget. Tragically, Nixon (with all of his brilliance, talent and potential) in conjunction with his madcap insidiousness had , in fact, personally become the greatest threat to the very survival of the Republic since the formation of the Confederacy...a threat that had to be dealt with and arrested before its malignancy spread to every branch of government. Yes, there was conflict in Mr. Felt's heart, to be sure (he admits that, http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3411778); but, in the end, Mr. Felt made the right decision and because of this he has the undying thanks of a very, very grateful nation. Semper Fidelis