A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

2006-02-17T14:09:00.000-08:00

Cheney's Negligent Discharge: This Is Absolutely Outrageous...Outrageous!!!

2006-02-15T08:32:00.000-08:00

Vice-President Cheney Stinks to High Heaven: Bottom Line...The People Who Comprise the Current Administration Are Simply Dangerous!

2006-02-08T08:20:00.000-08:00

Time for Democrats to Put Some Drive In Our Country: Why Are Americans Constantly and Consistently Voting Against Their Interests?

2006-02-05T19:21:00.000-08:00

Congratulations Pittsburgh Steelers, Super Bowl XL Champions: A Blue-Collar, Union Workers Victory!!!

2006-02-03T13:21:00.000-08:00

Denmark in the Crosshairs: Muslim World Calls for Revenge In Reaction to Offensive Cartoons

2006-01-30T14:10:00.000-08:00

Greedy, Disgusting and Downright Lewd: Exxon Reports Largest Profits in U.S. History...Capitalism Run Amuck!

2006-01-26T14:47:00.000-08:00

West Bank Gets Crunk: Militant Hamas Voted In As Official Palestinian Government

2006-01-10T16:18:00.000-08:00

The American People Have Had It Up to Here: Republicans Must Face the Fire and the Rise of a Democratic Majority

2006-01-08T16:50:00.000-08:00

Republicans: The Party of Corruption

2006-01-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

A Testament to True Courage Under Fire, My Lai 16 March 1968: Thank You Hugh C. Thompson, Jr. (1943-2006) for Your Involvement in Quelling an Atrocious Event and for Your Dedicated Service to Country and High Character...Carry On Sir!

2006-01-05T17:07:00.000-08:00

The Republic is Wobbling: Our Nation Is Way Off-Course

2006-01-05T16:57:00.000-08:00

The Coal Miners of West Virginia and Appalachia: Grit and Character...We Will Never Forget Your Bravery and Your Courage

2006-01-01T17:38:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year: Let's Not Forget Those in the Field

2005-12-24T17:54:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas Everybody, Everywhere (especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan): Peace and Goodwill Towards All Men and Women

2005-12-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

Hold and Stand Your Ground: New York MTA Union...You Are Right To Ask For Fair Wages and Better Benefits...Don't Cave...Hold The Moral High Ground and Gain Your Victory!!!

2005-12-21T07:52:00.000-08:00

New York Transit Workers STRIKE...Good For Them!!!: Support The MTA Strikers...All They Want Is Equitable Pay/Benefits That Are Humane, Economically Fair and Financially Sustaining...Only What We Would All Demand!

2005-12-19T18:19:00.000-08:00

Major Tammy Duckworth: Another Iraq War Veteran and Fighting Democrat Running For Congress-Illinois 6th District!

2005-12-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

DT, Where Are You When We Need You? The Executive Branch Has Run Amuck...Illegal Wire-Tapping?!?

2005-12-16T17:05:00.000-08:00

Molly Pitcher/Battle of Monmouth, 1778: Women in Battle...They CAN Fight...Allow Them in the Combat Arms!

2005-12-12T11:42:00.000-08:00

Warrior: First Woman Silver Star Recipient for Direct Participation in Combat, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester

2005-10-13T11:18:00.000-07:00

Rove: The Law of Universal Reciprocity
Nice pic, courtesy of BradBlog.com...an outstanding website, just outstanding. Semper Fidelis

2005-10-13T05:30:00.000-07:00

Hey Karl, The Ice Man Cometh: Indictment Fears and The End of Boy Genius' Pipe Dreams of a Thousand Year Right-Wing, Republican Reich
Good morning all. Quick post and then I'm out. This whole area (the D.C. Metropolitan area), especially inside the Beltway, is all abuzz over possible indictments being handed down in the near future in terms of the Valerie Plame/CIA leak investigation. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could drop the indictments/"legal bombs" anyday now...and the good bet is that one of those indictments will have Karl Rove's name written all over it. Oh yes, I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a long and tortured career of political espionage and sabotage that goes all the way back to "drop-out" Rove's shenanigans at the RNC during the early 1970's to his principal participation in viciously smearing Governor Ann Richards (D-TX) in terms of questioning her sexuality during the 1994 Texas gubernatorial campaign to being the chief architect of the strategies and tactics that led to the hijacking of the nation during the 2000 election debacle (and perhaps even the 2004 election) and on and on. Oh yes, the chickens are certainly coming home to roost on this one! I watched an excellent Hardball piece (Chris Matthews at his "cut the b.s." best...click and see this video, it is incredible!) that clearly and succinctly put in chronological order how we got from the 2003 State of the Union Address to where we are now: i.e., SOTU 2003 where the President boldly stated Iraq was aggressively trying to manufacture nuclear weapons vis-a-vis Niger uranium (the notorious "yellow cake" we've all heard about) to columnist Robert Novak (in an effort to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame...which back-fired in a big way I might add) unwittingly "dropping massive dimes" by revealing that two senior White House officials disclosed Plame's identity as a CIA operative to him (which is a violation of Federal law under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) to now where we are all on "pins and needles" awaiting what can be described as a deluge of possible indictments on the White House via the decision of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald (a decision/indictments that can come any day now...today, tomorrow, who knows?) that will utterly drench, soak and quite possibly wash away the GWB Administration for all intents and purposes. I'm going to close on what is sticking out in my mind: Matt Cooper's source was Karl Rove, the President's chief political advisor, chief political strategist, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff in charge of policy (and with all of those titles who knows how far and wide Rove's influence and "jurisdiction" actually stretches) and Judith "Judy" Miller's source was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby ("I. Lewis Libby"...kinda rhymes with "G. Gordon Liddy" doesn't it...but I'll digress), the Vice-President's Chief of Staff as well as the Vice President's Assistant for National Security Affairs (and Libby's function as the VP's ANSA begs this question: in this capacity, how could Libby NOT know Valerie Plame's true status and identity?). So, this not only puts us inside the White House...it also puts us inside the West Wing and the highest echelons of the WHO (the White House Office) and the EOP (the Executive Office of the President). Nixon redux? Heck, Nixon had nothing on these suckers. Take care all and Semper Fidelis

2005-10-12T16:55:00.000-07:00

An Exercise in Patience and Keeping the Faith: Gore Says No to 2008 Run, But We Loyal Democrats and Loyal Gore-ites Will Continue to Keep Hope Alive
Good evening to all of those aboard this blog. 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore has countered recent scuttlebutt that he is preparing to enter the horde of Democratic candidates who are gearing up for a 2008 run for the Presidency of the United States. Gore so stated in Sweden today that he is not planning or intending to run for the White House in 2008. His statement, albeit expected, was nevertheless a crushing blow to alot of good people out there who had hoped Gore was "chomping at the bit" to get back into the real political arena as a potential candidate for the White House. But let me say this to all of my compatriots who find themselves sad and forlorn this evening following Al Gore's recent statement: BUCK UP...BUCK UP...BUCK UP!!! If y'all check your calendars and notice, you will see that it is only October of 2005...over two years from the beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. OVER TWO YEARS folks...oh so much time for a "President-in-Exile" like Al Gore ("President-in-Exile" because Gore actually won in 2000) to buck up, toughen his political skin and change his mind in terms of running in 2008. Either way, Gore in or Gore out (I would prefer Gore to be in, for the record) the Democratic Party's 2008 bench is potent, dynamic, vigorous, and looks so good. We have Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Al Sharpton (who serves as the conscience of the campaign), Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, et al.; and that's just to name a few of the known quantities. In short, don't despair, who knows what the future holds. But, if I was a betting man (and I'm not), I'd have to say the odds are pretty good that Al Gore will make another run for the White House one last time in 2008. I just don't think he will be able to help himself, the quest to secure the White House is simply in his DNA...in computer parlance, it is his driver. Yes, Al Gore (regardless of what he says in Sweden OVER TWO YEARS AWAY from the beginning of the 2008 Presidential season) will, one last time, pick up the mantle of the Democratic Party and make a strong run for the White House in 2008. Again, you heard it here first...Al Gore WILL DEFINITELY run for the Presidency of the United States in 2008. You can bank on it! Semper Fidelis

2005-10-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

Glory Hallelujiah, Enter David Ashe: Yet Another Marine Joins the Progressive Ranks as a Democrat
Meet David Ashe, U.S. Marine, officer, veteran of the Iraq War and...by the way...a Democrat. He is running in Virginia's 2nd Congressional District race against some hapless and relatively unknown Republican. These warrior Democrats in the tradition of Smedley Butler and James Carville just keep on coming with no end in sight. The tide is turning and what poetic justice it is indeed: the very war that the Republicans couldn't wait to wage is the progenitor of those Democratic warrior candidates who will most assuredly drive the GOP from national power...maybe for a generation or more. Poetic justice in extremis that is more than welcome and long overdue. Semper Fidelis

2005-10-11T16:14:00.000-07:00

What's Going On: New Poll Clearly Shows That Majority of Americans Want GWB Impeached?!?
Good evening to all of those aboard the blog. I'm really busy with graduate school here on the East Coast and below the Mason-Dixon, but wanted to take time out from my studies and other escapades to put this tid-bit of political intelligence out there. Came across this information this evening while surfing the web and thought it should be brought to the readerships attention. Got this news via uruk.net and my jaw dropped: It seems as though by a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll. The poll was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, the poll was executed by Ipsos, the well-established and well-known non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9 with the following question: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." Amazingly, the poll found that 50% agreed with the statement! Folks, this is just incredible, fascinating, mesmerizing and earth-shattering all at the same time. Now, of course there will be naysayers and minimizers out there in the blogosphere who will say this is no big deal and what do you expect after all the negative press the President and his "clown-car" Administration have been getting over the last couple of months. But, isn't that the whole mother-loving point? The negative press didn't just pop out of the ether...the negative press is based on the actions (and/or inactions!) of the President and his decrepit Administration fumbling the ball countlessly innumerable times over the course of the last eight+ weeks. The way GWB and his group have let down this country here recently (not to mention all the let-downs since "Day One" of this bogus Administration) is not only breathtaking, but damn-near unforgivable. In closing, I say if the standard for impeachment was reached by Bill Clinton's private and personal indiscretions (yes, I know the GOoPers will say the impeachment was about the President lying...but every reasonable human being knows that it wasn't about lying at all, it was about sex and getting Clinton by any means necessary), than certainly GWB has met, re-met and over-met the standards which would make him eligible for impeachment. With GOP Congressional leadership coming undone, Karl Rove standing-by to be indicted, the Republican Party as a whole unravelling and buckling over Harriet Meirs' nomination to the Supreme Court...yes indeed, it's looking more and more like the sun is finally setting on the GWB Administation and its outlandishly perverted vision for our country. Semper Fidelis

2005-10-07T18:43:00.000-07:00

Meet Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, USMC: Another Marine Joins the Democratic/Progressive Movement and Also Comes Clean On What's Really Going on in Iraq
Truth-teller sounds off in a big way, read his story. Semper Fidelis

2005-10-07T13:48:00.000-07:00

Welcome Home Marines...May You Sail in More Tranquil Waters: 3/25, Ohio-based Battalion That Lost 40+ Marines KIA in Iraq, Finally Comes Home
On your feet...Stand to...Render salute...Bravo-Zulu for 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. Semper Fi!

2005-10-07T05:23:00.000-07:00

"Was We Robbed" Again?: GWB Poll Numbers Don't Jibe With 2004/2005 Electoral "Victory"
Good morning to all aboard this blog. Quick post and then I'm out. Got up this morning to some stunning and (quite frankly) mind-shocking news: according to the latest CBS News poll, GWB is at an all-time low approval rating of 37%. Let me say that again, GWB is at an all-time low approval rating of 37%!!! That is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for this or ANY President in the history of this poll...lowest ever recorded by the CBS News poll!!! Folks, this is incredible...just unbelievable. Not unbelievable in the sense that it is not understandable, considering what's been going on over the last few weeks to a month (i.e., the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Iraq War going to sh*t, casualties mounting, the Tom DeLay indictment, the real possiblity of a Karl Rove indictment, gas prices through the roof, GOP on the verge civil war within its own ranks, etc, etc.) . I mean it's simply unbelievable in that these numbers are representative of someone who is an incumbent President who was "supposedly" victorious in a hotly contested Presidential election less than a year ago. But to the contrary, these numbers are more indicative of someone who the American people did not/do not want as President, instead of someone who "supposedly" was "victorious" in the hotly contested 2004 Presidential election. In short, I would argue that something foul (and I mean really foul) went down in Ohio, Election Day 2004. When integrating all of this new information with all of the old information, I have to at least entertain the possibility that maybe GWB didn't win Ohio after all...like J. Kenneth Blackwell and the rest of the Ohio GOP mafia would have us to believe. It certainly makes more sense GWB didn't actually win in 2004 when you look at these atrociously abysmal poll numbers (for him and the GOP, I might add...not for us Democrats/Progressives). These numbers just don't jibe with someone who supposedly won re-election in a hotly contested Presidential election less than one year ago. Something is going on here folks, in terms of the usurping and undermining of the vote in this country...in OUR country. Look, I know GWB didn't win in 2000 (know it, you understand?) and I'm starting to entertain the real possibility that we (as an American people) were once again hoodwinked and bamboozled in 2004 thanks to Diebold voting machines, e-voting irregularities, J. Kenneth Blackwell, and an unholy alliance between the Ohio GOP and the RNC. Something stinks and I ain't the only one smelling it...those sad, pitiful, limp-di** poll numbers attest to the fact that I'm not the only one who sees something very wrong here. Take care, keep hope alive and Semper Fidelis

2005-10-03T18:01:00.000-07:00

Tuskegee Experiment Redux: Concerns Federal Involvement in War Protesters Being Exposed to Tularemia
Greetings to all. Had to get this out there and help sound the alarm. News agencies throughout the country and around the world have picked up on a story that is sending shudders through the anti-war movement community, the "loyal opposition" community, as well as, communities made up of just plain 'ol folks who are just good, concerned citizens. In a nutshell, the anti-war protesters who congregated in Washington, DC over the weekend of 24-25 September 2005 may have been mysteriously exposed to tularemia a/k/a "rabbit fever" .This is frightening folks, or (at the very least) big-time sobering and extremely disconcerting. My primary question, who is behind this? In other words, are the forces we are arrayed against (the forces that are presently in control of the country...the Republican monolith) so ruthless as to somehow manage to use low-levels of a known biological agent in hopes of either: a) physically neutralizing the growing anti-war movement via contact and infestation with weaponized biological agents, or b) prosecuting psychological operations/warfare ("psy-ops" in military parlance) against the Left in order to scare the bejeezus out of anyone even thinking of attending an anti-war rally anytime soon, anywhere in the country (let alone in the nations capital)?!? I think these are legitimate questions that demand to be not only posed, but answered for the sake of the Republic. In short, is this "tularemia scare" the result of natural phenomena, i.e., so many protesters feet kicking up so much dust as to get the tularemia (which is found in soil) airborne; or are there more sinister possibilities and mechanisms behind this highly unusual occurrence, i.e., rogue elements (or, perhaps, not so rogue elements) within federal government circles perpetuating an "operation of a biological nature" against elements within the anti-war movement ("elements" means the good people who actually make up the anti-war movement). Again, these questions must be addressed and (at some point in the near future) answered. Take care and don't let them scare us off...we will be victorious. They know they are on the ropes and that the American people have just about had enough of the whole situation. As was the battle cry of years before, we ain't going to let nobody turn us around...not scare tactics...not bullying...not even tularemia. No, this movement cannot be stopped...scare tactics will not stop the momentum coming from this ground-swell orchestrated by the American people. Hang in there and Semper Fidelis

2005-10-02T15:07:00.000-07:00

Power to the People...It's Time to Ante Up and Kick In!
You have to check this post-Katrina lyrical analysis out...pretty amazing. It's the first real protest song/social message I've heard out of the hip-hop community in years. Profound and powerful. This is along the lines of what is called prophetic hip-hop as opposed to Constantinian hip-hop. Listen and ponder all of the social implications...there is still a battle to be fought and a war to be won on the homefront! The struggle for social justice and the quelling of social injustice goes on. Take care all and Semper Fidelis

2005-10-02T06:42:00.000-07:00

We Can Win Again

2005-10-02T06:05:00.000-07:00

"Big Dog" Glory Days, A Party's Resurrection and Upcoming Elections: We Can Win Again!
Morning to all aboard the blog. So much has gone on and is going on. Tom DeLay indicted (woo-hoo!), Republican-led government's anemic response to Katrina and the ensuing debacle, GWB's numbers plunging in the polls or (at least) lingering in the political danger-zone, Republican Party knocked back on their heels and reeling, President Carter sounding-off at American University (www.american.edu) and saying that "(quote) the nation failed abysmally in 2000" and that Al Gore was the actual winner of the 2000 election, Senate Majority Leader Frist underfire and under the SEC's microscope for possible insider-training/financial malfeasance, GOP leaders and strategists scrambling to pull out of what can only be described as a political nose-dive, etc, etc, etc. Sorry if I seem too overjoyed over the GOP's political problems, but the GOP is "hazardous to the Republic's health" and as soon as they are swept from the main bastions of politcal power (let's hope sooner, than later) the better it will be for our country. If this momentum continues, I don't think it's in any way hyperbolic to say that the upcoming elections of 2006/2008 will be the Democrats to lose...it seems like the GOP has reached "terminal blotation", "jumped the shark" and heading towards self-destruction. Of course, we can't count the GOP out if we are true students of history (both political and military...there are just too many examples of political and martial entities being counted out, only to come back with a vengeance and claim victory, i.e., Union forces floundering from loss to loss pre-1863 only to finally get their stuff together around mid-late 1863 and go on and defeat Confederate forces in 1865 and Richard Nixon's punishing defeats in the 1960 Presidential elections and 1962 California Gubernatorial election only to go on and win the American Presidency in 1968 ). All I'm saying is it seems as though the political trajectory is changing, the worm is turning and things are looking better for Democrats/Liberals/Progressives in the good ol' United States of America! "Republican-fatigue" has either set-in or is setting-in, either way now is the time to advance and go on the offensive...and I'm not just talking about the political big wigs...all Democrats, all Progressives, all Liberals must do their part (even if it's only rhetorical/verbal) to advance the cause! Take care all and Semper Fidelis

2005-09-22T19:28:00.000-07:00

Way to Go Donahue...You Go Phil!!!
Good evening loyal readers. So much is going on here, it's hard to keep up with the blog. But, I had to send a "shout-out" to Phil Donahue after watching his stellar performance on that bastard show that bastard Bill O'Reilly has on that bastard channel. You know, I don't watch the bastard channel with much frequency (like not at all). But while turning channels, I just happened to catch the beginning of that bastard O'Reilly's program with Phil Donahue as guest. Make a long story short, Donahue kicked butt so hard that that bastard O'Reilly is now wearing his ass for a cap. It was a beauty to behold, Donahue was on point, he was on after-point and he was on counter-point! He was all over O'Reilly like white on rice and stink on shi*!!! Again, it was a true beauty to behold. Well folks, I've got to shove off. Remember good people, a change is gonna come. Keep the faith and hold on everybody (especially those good folks on the Texas Gulf Coast holding on for this Hurricane Rita...hang in there and y'all be in my prayers). Democrats and progressives are making a comeback...in strength! I can feel it! Semper Fidelis

2005-09-11T05:42:00.000-07:00

Incompetence Run Amuck

2005-09-09T11:33:00.000-07:00

Democrats Are Looking Better and Better: America In Desperate Need of Real Leadership
Hi everybody...the Eagle has landed here at graduate school. So much has happened over the last few weeks ranging from the devastation that was (and continues to be) Hurricane Katrina to me and a good friend traveling to Crawford, Texas to visit the Peace House ( http://www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/) and Cindy Sheehan's effort to expose the fraud that is the war in Iraq before I shoved off for the eastern seaboard and school. So much is going on (like me trying to keep up with the fast pace of grad school...it is intense!) that I will have to make another post which will allow me to delve more in depth concerning current events and their implications in terms of the future of the republic and the health and well-being of our nation. Take care all. Semper Fidelis

2005-08-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

On the Verge of a Serious and Significant Social Upheaval: Cindy Sheehan, Gas Prices, the Iraq War and the Initial Signs of Stress and Crisis on the Face of a Nation on Edge
Greetings to all. It has certainly been awhile since my last post, but as stated repeatedly, I am in the process of shoving off for graduate school. For all of you good people out there who are interested, I was able to secure a substantial sum of financial aid but presently find myself fighting the V.A. (www.gibill.va.gov) "tooth and nail" for my GI Bill benefits (in fact, V.A. sent me a charming letter saying that I no longer rated my benefits...damn bureaucracy...look, I just want my little piece of money. It ain't much, but I sure as shi* earned it). Anyway, enough of that, now time to play "catch-up". The Space Shuttle Discovery returned to Earth safely on 9 August 2005 at 8:12 AM EDT and yours truly (like so many other concerned folks not only in this country, but around the world) was up and glued to the television as she landed so gracefully and flawlessly at Edward's Air Force Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Air_Force_Base) after being waived-off of landing at the KSC (Kennedy Space Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center) and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Range). In fact, today's headlines report NASA (www.nasa.gov) won't launch another shuttle until sometime in 2006 (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=346756) ...good idea NASA, it is obvious there are still a few things that need "tightening up" in terms of the shuttle fleet (i.e., big chunks of foam falling off of the shuttle as it headed into orbit, among other things) Also, kudos to devildog Paul Hackett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hackett) who wasn't quite able to secure the OH-02 Congressional seat during that district's special election on 2 August 2005. Although defeated in the election, Hackett had a fantastic showing, receiving 48.25% of the vote and giving GOP candidate Jean Schmidt a real run for her money in an election where the GOP should have skated to victory...but the GOP had to slog and scrabble for votes every step of the way...in short, Hackett brought the funk! Paul Hackett is nothing short of a hero who has inspired the Democratic Party; more importantly, he has showed that Democrats can not only bring the fight for the soul of America right into GOP territory (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7009), but can also hold their own in GOP territory. I find it ironic that this war in Iraq, the one GWB and his GOP (for the most part) cohorts were so hot to pursue and prosecute may, in fact, be the catalyst for the creation of a whole new generation of "super-Democrats", i.e., political candidates who are war veterans (of Iraq or Afghnaistan); and, moreover, are also Democrats/Democratic-leaning who (because of their military/combat experience) will have the "juice" to "rain the thunder down" on the heads of the GOP and drive the Republicans out from their current power position. In other words, the very war that was a creation of Republican ideologues is turning out to a nurturing field that is cultivating a whole new generation of tough-minded liberal/Progressive/Democratic candidates who will come home, run for office and kick the Republicans out of power. You have to admit there is a kind of poetic justice about the whole thing. Since I'm talking about Iraq and this fu**ed-up war, allow me to focus on Ms. Cindy Sheehan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan), who one might call the "John Brown of the anti-war movement" (or, what I call, "the Iraq War resistance movement"). Bottom line here is: she's a saint. Cindy Sheehan has become the embodiment and personification of a feeling and an urgency that has been without a leader/front-person since this madcap war began. Enter Ms. Cindy Sheehan and we now have a full-fledged movement, not just a bunch of protesters...but a full-fledged-movement. In short, add one screwed-up foreign policy/war that is costing thousands of young lives (http://icasualties.org/oif/), plus a frustrated citizenry who feels "hijacked" by it's national leadership and who are also willing to step up and sound-off and then add one earnest, honest and passionate personality (i.e., Ms. Cindy Sheehan) and (watch out!) you've got yourself a movement which can do nothing but grow in strength and intensity. What Ms. Sheehan and those brave Americans are doing down there in Crawford/Waco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLennan_County,_Texas ) is nothing short of American patriotism, grit and courage at its very best. What is happening down there in the Waco/Crawford area is inspiring a nation and waking-up a country that has been asleep at the switch for far too long. God bless Ms. Sheehan and the American patriots down there who have the "cojones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones) to tell the truth to power and not back down. For all those concerned the Democratic Party has lost it's will/ability to fight, let me refer you to Ms. Sheehan, the Crawford Peace House (http://www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/) and those warrior Americans who are standing tall against this current Administration's screwed-up policies right there (literally) in the President's backyard. That's guts people. You see, that's the kind of guts Paul Hackett exemplified a few weeks ago in Ohio and it's the kind of guts the American people respond to and respect (regardless of party affiliation) and it's the kind of guts that's going to give us victories in 2006 and in 2008. This is awesome, Democrats and Progressives flexing their muscles again after long last. Semper Fidelis

2005-08-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

Who Is This Fat Lady and Why is She Singing?: Ohio-Based, 3rd Battalion/25th Marines Suffers Devastatingly Brutal Losses While Americans Begin to See Iraq War as Unwinnable
Good morning to all. This will be a moderately quick post touching on the events of the past week. First, 3rd Battalion/25th Marine Regiment (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/3-25.htm). Covers off and "huzzahs" to the bravery and service of 3rd Battalion/25th Marines. The losses 3/25 has suffered over the last week (3/25 suffered 20 devildogs KIA in 48 hours!!! http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/12286648.htm) are felt and shared by so many of us who have served in or are serving in the United States Marine Corps (be they USMC active-duty or USMC reserves, it doesn't matter...they ALL bleed red). In fact, the latest polls are illustrating how the majority of Americans are beginning to believe that the President's ill-advised and ill-planned war in Iraq was a bad idea and is now unwinnable (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/12311599.htm). 3rd Battalion/25th Marines is a Marine reserve infantry battalion made up of the following components (thanks to John Pike's Global Security.org for the breakdown, www.globalsecurity.org):

H&S Company, Brookpark, OH
INDIA COMPANY BUFFALO, NY
KILO COMPANY MOUNDSVILLE, WV
LIMA COMPANY COLUMBUS, OH
WEAPONS COMPANY AKRON, OH

3/25's H&S (it's headquarters) is located in Ohio, as are two more of its combined five companies. Bottom line here folks is that Ohio is hurting, and I mean in a big way. I can't really describe how I feel about their losses. You know, I served with 1st Battalion/23rd Marines at one point (another reserve Marine infantry unit, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/1-23.htm), and it was some of the most enjoyable service I'd ever rendered in the naval service of the United States. Those Marine grunts are something else (http://archives.cjr.org/year/03/3/dillow.asp), you really got to hand it to them. Again, make no mistake, Ohio is bleeding folks; if we non-Ohioans are feeling the pain, you can only imagine how the loved ones of those fallen Marines are feeeling about these exorbitant losses. To all the loved ones...God bless. Other points: speaking of Ohio, Paul Hackett (www.hackettforcongress.com) really went for the gusto, and although he was defeated in the OH-02 special election, Hackett pulled in 48% of the vote versus Schmidt's 52% (that's a difference of a mere 4 percentage points in a Congressional district that has historically been known as a GOP stronhold mind you, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/03/011318.php). In other words, Hackett definitely went down standing up and in a blaze of glory. There's just no question Hackett held strong throughout the campaign and all the way up to the hilt, making Jean Schmidt really fight and scratch for every point in what can only be called a "pyrrhic victory" for the Republicans (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05217/549119.stm). Hackett's defeat was actually a victory for Democrats and Progressives throughout the country (especially for Democrats/Progressives in Ohio)...Hackett's campaign is a testament to the reality that the Democratic Party is a long ways from gutted and that the elections of 2006 (House and Senate) and 2008 (regaining the White House) are still in play and may, in fact, be the Democrats to lose. The tide is definitely turning (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899754/), stand by for more details. Also, the citizens of Detroit (although not excusing him completely from the stage as I had hoped) placed "soon to be ex-mayor" Kwame Kilpatrick in the "number-two column" as former city government official and front-runner Freman Hendrix (http://www.fremanhendrix.com/) defeated Kilpatrick by gaining the most votes in the Detroit mayoral primary conducted this past Tuesday, 2 August 2005 (http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw119339_20050803.htm). Yes, Detroit's long local nightmare, within a broader national nightmare, will soon be at an end when (this coming 8 November 2005) they throw the wannabe thug Kilpatrick out of City Hall and onto his 300 lbs. keister. Another point: columnist and political commentator Robert Novak stormed off of the CNN (www.cnn.com) set after fellow political commentator (and former Marine, http://www.answers.com/topic/james-carville) James Carville turned to CNN cameras and said (in response to an earlier Novak comment):

"...He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."

In response, Novak then swore "bullshi*t" and stormed off of the set. Folks, Novak is ridiculous, he really showed his a** during 'Inside Politics' (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/inside.politics/) yesterday....what a jerk. And for all of those who believe Carville was a wimp for not preventing Novak from throwing a tantrum and exiting prematurely from the program (i.e., namely the clowns who make up Don Imus's support team on 'The Don Imus Show', http://wfan.com/imusinstantreplay/) allow me to set you straight: Carville conducted himself in a most appropriate manner and was completely professional. If Bob Novak (who is 74 years old, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak) wants to act like a six-year old who didn't get his way in the local community grocery store, then the joke is on Novak not Carville. Last point is that Space Shuttle Discovery has been given the green light to come on home; Discovery is scheduled to return around 0400 hours on 8 August 2005 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/08/05/space.shuttle/). My question is this: why is NASA bringing Discovery home so early in the morning (when it is still dark outside) when hardly anyone will be up (although I imagine alot of people who are interested in Discovery, her crew and the space program in general will more than likely be up to monitor the re-entry)?!? Is it because NASA doesn't want anyone to witness another potential shuttle disaster as clearly as we did on that beautifully clear morning of 1 February 2003? Is this NASA's way of conducting P.R./disaster control? Why not let Discovery re-enter the Earth's atmosphere when the sun is out, the North American continent is brightly lit and when the American people can see clearly what is happening? A close and dear friend of mine says he doesn't believe they're going to make it...I pray that he is wrong. I suppose we are all on stand-by mode. Take care and Semper Fidelis

2005-08-02T14:27:00.000-07:00

All Eyes on Space Shuttle Discovery and Her Brave Crew, or, What is Going Wrong with American Leadership?
Good afternoon to all of those aboard the blog. It is hot as all get out here in the American Southwest this afternoon...it has to be over 100 degrees out there. Once again, I'm posting an unusual afternoon addition to the blog, but as mentioned in previous postings, my life has become a swirl of activity as I get ready to head to graduate school in the eastern portion of the United States. Still need to secure more financial aid (www.fafsa.ed.gov) /VA benefits (www.gibill.va.gov) as well as secure my housing status, but most of those things should be reconciled by this coming Friday. With that said, many things are on my mind concerning the present state of our nation and this devildog needs to put them down before I pop. In all honesty, this is going to be a bit of a rant, so just bear with me. Folks, first off, the trickle-down theory of economics does not work. Regardless of how badly our Republican "colleagues" wish that it did work...it just doesn't. Don't take my word for it, just ask David Stockman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman), President Reagan's budget director and (at one time) one of the main proponents of the trickle-down theory. Stockman finally woke-up and is on record declaring the economic theory of trickle-down simply doesn't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect). In fact, the only thing that does "trickle-down" folks is leadership. In other words, the vision and character of leadership trickles-down throughout all aspects of an organization, institution and/or society. Good people, as far as I'm concerned, our country is in the middle of enduring eight years of failed leadership...an eight year blight of anemicly weak leadership. Let me give you an example of what it is I am talking about: the President just had his annual physical and his numbers look good (http://i-newswire.com/pr39560.html). But my question is this, Mr. President...you're in shape and that's great. You love to PT (Marine jargon for physical training/physically train)...that's also great. You're physically fit...wonderful. So why, pray tell, is the rest of the country (generally speaking, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm) overweight, overfat and all out of shape? Don't blame the previous Administrations, Mr. President, this is your watch...you're in charge now! So how about using your bully-pulpit and advocating the reintroduction of physical education into the elementary and secondary educational systems across the country (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/education/02gym.html)? How about leading your nation, Mr. President? So what if you're fit Mr. President, what about the rest of the country? How about following JFK's lead, advocate physical fitness in this country ( http://fitness.gov/physical_activity_fact_sheet.html) and frame physical fitness and physical education as a national security issue (which, in fact, they are). See, the President reminds me of those candidates at OCS (www.ocs.usmc.mil) who would have their lockers squared away for inspection but not help the next candidate with his/her locker or (what's worse) he reminds me of the candidate who would find out there was a surprise inspection coming down the pike and not say a word about it to his/her fellow candidates...he just made sure his junk was in order. In other words, he would just have his stuff squared away but not lock on his fellow candidates in terms of how to succeed. You see that's called being one selfish son-of-a-bitch and it goes to the very heart and essence of a person's character and sense of involvement with their fellow human beings. Hey everybody, guess what...the President is in great shape...wonderful...who gives a shit?!? What about the other 299,999,999 Americans that he is supposedly leading? Mr. President, are you making sure the rest of the country is as physically fit as you are? Unfortunately, we all know that the answer is, in fact, an unequivocal "no". Leadership and the lack of it is what I'm talking about this day and it's also what has me so hot and livid. The Space Shuttle Discovery is another example of how we are, in what can only be called, a "leadership vacuum" at this juncture in American history. Good people, the bottom line here is that NASA (www.nasa.gov) rushed back into space and the recent events surrounding this "mishap of a mission" are bearing this out to be (oh so sadly) the case. My goodness, stuff was coming off and striking the craft as it was hurtling out of Earth's atmosphere and into space! This isn't suppossed to happen folks! Have we (or really the operative word is "they") not learned anything since/from the Columbia tragedy (STS-107 on 1 February 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia) two and a half years ago that took the lives of seven promising and brilliant astronauts? What is this? Am I the only one perplexed, agitated and highly irritated by the stunt NASA has pulled, this rush to judgement (there's alot of that going on...I refer you to the months leading up to the Iraq invasion) that could once again (Lord forbid) end the lives of seven brave astronauts and set the space program back for (quite possibly) a generation (can you say no more manned space travel for a long time to come, perhaps for 15 to 20 years?) just because NASA "leaders" couldn't be patient, take their time, fix the problem and then head back into space?!? Gee whiz, the astronauts are trying to repair the heat shield while in space!!! That seems just a little nuts to me (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12284462.htm), but perhaps my logic is faulty. It's kind of like trying to fix a flat tire or adding oil to the engine while the car is in motion! My advice to NASA is to not even try for re-entry this coming Monday, 8 August 2005, it just isn't worth it (that's my humble opinion...seven more dead astronauts just isn't worth it, especially if you can prevent it). Instead, put the Discovery crew in the International Space Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station) and either: (1) send Space Shuttle Atlantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis) up to get them (that is, if Atlantis is "sea-worthy" and at the rate NASA is going, it's anybody's guess), (2) ask the Russians to go up and get them (although humiliating for NASA, the Russians would jump at the request all the more to save the stranded Discovery crew because IT WOULD BE humiliating for NASA...the Russians have loved to stick it to the American space program since the 1950's/1960's), or (3) use the escape pod on board the ISS to get the Discovery crew back home safely (that's if the ISS even has an escape pod and also assuming, if it does indeed have one, that the pod can hold seven astronauts). We'll see what happens. Leadership and the lack of it now takes me to Michigan and today's Detroit mayoral primary election (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164314,00.html). In short, I'm really hoping the city will anoint former city government official and mayoral front-runner Freman Hendrix (http://www.fremanhendrix.com/) as their main candidate for the November ballot and kick Mayor Kwame Kilaptrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick) and his thuggish crew to the curb. Kilpatrick, son of U.S. Congresswoman, Congressional Black Caucus member (http://www.cbcfinc.org/) and all around "good-guy" Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (http://www.house.gov/kilpatrick/), entered into office four years ago in 2001 with a whole lot of promise as the youngest mayor in the history of Detroit, as well as the youngest current mayor of any major city in the United States. Wikipedia states the following concerning Kilpatrick's abhorish behavior while in office and his subsequent fall from grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick):

"...Recently, the Detroit media has been reporting on the issue of Mayor Kilpatrick's overspending of city funds. One example is a $25,000 lease on a new Lincoln Navigator which Kilpatrick initially disavowed any knowledge of but that eventually he admitted was for his wife.
In May 2005, the Detroit Free Press reported that over the first 33 months of his term, Kilpatrick has charged over $210,000 on his city-issued credit card for travel, meals, and entertainment. Kilpatrick has also been under scrutiny for an allegedly inappropriate party at the mayoral mansion".

and,

"...As of April 2005, Kilpatrick's approval rating in Detroit has been declining due to the scandals and the perceived lack of improvement in the city. As a result, the April 17, 2005 issue of Time Magazine listed him as one of the three worst big-city mayors in the United States. The other two mentioned in the article are Dick Murphy of San Diego and John F. Street of Philadelphia".

Kilpatrick has squandered all of the promise he enjoyed at the beginning of his term in office in exchange for dressing like an overweight gangster, hanging around nightclubs, rolling around in Escalade SUV's and having large entourages that come and go with him at all hours of the day and night. In short, this "bling-bling" mayor has disappointed not only the citizenry of Detroit with his small-mindedness and lack of vision, but he has also let down the entire African-American community as a whole. Look, we as an American people need leaders dammit..men and women with vision who are (at the very least) trying to take us to a higher level. We DO NOT need wannabe pimps, hustlers and thugged-out "civil servants" who want to imitate the dreg elements of our society. In closing and as stated previously, it is my most earnest hope that Detroit will knock Kwame Kilpatrick and his crew of nitwits off of the ballot and allow a civil servant with vision, experience, imagination and high intelligence to come in and steer Detroit into more safe and more serene waters in terms of its health and status as a major American city (because, let's face it people, Detroit is one American city that has certainly lost its luster over the last few decades, http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/default.htm); and Kwame Kilpatrick should pull his head out of his gargantuan ass and start trying to emulate the BETTER angels of our nature instead of the worst. My thoughts on leadership and the lack of it now steers me to the recess appointment of John Bolton to the position of U.N. ambassador (http://progressive.org/?q=mag_wx080105). When I first heard the news, the first word that came to mind was "mothersnucker"! Folks, this is outrageous, just outrageous. All the testimony before the U.S. Senate in terms of Bolton's temperament and character and how he is simply NOT the right person for the job...GWB just discarded and flushed down the commode. As is GWB's modus operandi, he just forced it through roughshod and without any thought of how he was disrespecting and usurping the authority and coherent counsel of the United States Senate. Again (as usual) GWB, in all of his stubbornness and hard-headedness, rammed Bolton down all of our proverbial throats. Yeah, that's a leader for you...who cares what my advisors tell me, it's my way or the highway. See, the sad thing about GWB (and people like him for that matter) is they really think their stubbornness and hard-headedness proves that they are "tough", "firm" and "true leaders". When, in fact, it proves the opposite: it actually proves that somewhere along the way (during their childhood development more than likely) they were seriously hurt and wounded emotionally and that their supposed adult displays of "decisiveness", "persistence" and "doggedness" are really classic indicators of an immature and poorly developed mind uncomfortable with rejection of any kind that has a long way to go before attaining psychological maturity. John Bolton is the last person we need representing us at the U.N. during these highly-sensitive and perilous times. The only silver lining in this thing is, since it is a recess appointment, Bolton will only be able to "stand and deliver" at the United Nations until January 2007 when he will once again have to "stand and deliver" before the United States Senate in order to get legitimate approval to hold the position he was just given via recess appointment. Hopefully, he won't do too much damage by then whereas the Senate will slam dunk him come 2007 and replace him with a real ambassador with diplomatic skills, intelligence and grace. Leadership and the lack of it now takes me the hottest race in the country right now...the special election in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District between Marine Major and Democrat Paul Hackett (www.hackettforcongress.com) and GOP mouthpiece, rubberstamp and overall shill Jean Schmidt. Although in the American Southwest and thus not a citizen of Ohio, I'm still behind Paul Hackett 110%!!! Yes, it's going to be a tough race especially since the district in question is strong GOP territory and since a Democrat hasn't won in this district since John J. Gilligan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Gilligan) in 1966. However, stranger things have happened and with seven Marines killed today (six of whom were in fact from Ohio, http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/12286648.htm) and the number of KIA in the Iraqi campaign now over 1,800 killed and fast approaching 2,000 killed (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/44212.html), perhaps the good citizens of OH-02 will finally wake up and smell the coffee. If Paul Hackett wins this race, it will not only be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP (and I mean devastating), the ripple effect of a GOP defeat will be felt all over the country...especially in those so-called GOP strongholds throughout the nation. With veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan coming home everyday; and with more than a few of these veterans coming home with slightly different political mindsets than before they left, i.e., they were Republicans or GOP-leaning before they left, began to realize while overseas that the GOP really doesn't give a damn about them in the long run and, as a consequence, returned home as either Democrats, Democratic-leaning or sympathetic to the views of the Democratic Party...in other words, the GOP will be beaucoup concerned if Hackett pulls off an upset victory over Schmidt in today's special election. Let's all hope and pray Paul Hackett will win this day in the OH-02 race and today will be recognized as the day America returned to its liberal heritage and declared before itself and the whole world that we want our leadership back...leadership that knows what it's doing and leadership that has intelligence, good sense and a vision for a better tomorrow for us all. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-28T18:19:00.000-07:00

Days of Callousness: Why are Republicans So Mean?
Good evening to all reading this blog. Once again this post is an unusual evening post in that this is the only time over the last few days where I have had the time to squeeze in a post. First, let me apologize for not being able to make regular postings like I used to do. My life has become a swirl of activity as my main focus of attention is preparing to head to graduate school. In fact, a bit of good news on the graduate school front is that I have been able to secure a bit of financial aid (www.fafsa.ed.gov) through a Federal Stafford loan (www.staffordloan.com). However, there is still a need to secure a bit more financial aid in order to completely clear the "money hurdle" (as it were) and advance unscathed into the ivy-leaved-entwined columns of post-graduate academia. With that said, I'm also feeling like a little cold or something is coming on, in that my behind is seriously dragging. Oh well, we are all dealing with something or another, thus (in the spirit of Churchill) we must all take heart in this knowledge and press on. This entry is a re-observation of a post made awhile back concerning the character traits of those who belong to the opposite party. The question of the day is why are Republicans so mean? Generally speaking, it seems like every Republican I've met and/or seen/heard on TV/ radio is always a real mean and ornery son-of-a-gun! You know, I'm talking about always out to get somebody, chip on the shoulder, axe to grind, mean-spirited, etc. Why is that? I mean you can feel the meanness just resonating, just oozing from their very being? Here's an example of what I'm talking about, provided by the great 'Daily Kos' (www.dailykos.com) website, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/5/211218/4946. This is ridiculous, a Republican pastor running his liberal congregation members out on a rail simply because they are down with the Democratic struggle?!? That's just crazy...can you imagine?Is it me or do others out there dig what I'm talking about? The picture above is one of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice while she was serving in the capacity of National Security Advisor. Why is she looking so mean? Why are Republicans (generally speaking) so mean? What is the deal with the sheer nastiness, bile and emotional hardness Republicans exude from their very core. In short, why is it that the biggest jerks around tend to be Republicans. Let me put it this way: Darth Vader would be a registered Republican if he had the opportunity to exist in reality and register to vote. Now, of course there are mean liberals/Democrats/progressives out there; but, in general, I haven't run into too many a**hole progressives, in fact they tend to be very sweet, generous and nice people. You know, the kind of folks who bleed for their fellow man. It's funny, I like to tell my GOP "friends", when they call progressives "bleeding-heart liberals" that Jesus was a bleeding-heart too...that usually shuts them up. To shed some light on this phenomenon, I read a book a few months ago about the psyche of the the GOP "Big Kahuna" himself, titled 'Bush on the Couch' by Dr. Justin Frank, a psychiatrist at George Washington University Medical School (http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html); as the title suggests, Dr. Frank breaks down the psyche of the President and I think his observations (at a certain level) can be applied to Republicans in general (and the Republican mind-set) as a whole. I suggest all those reading this blog check out the book; although the book made me squirm a bit in terms of the gravity and seriousness of the subject matter (namely, the mind of the current President of the United States), it is still a fantastic and worthwhile read. To think that an individual as screwed-up as GWB could be running the big show (a/k/a our country) is beyond me. Now, in all fairness of course, this is just one psychiatrist's analysis...but it sure does ring true once you start getting into the book. Again, this is a short post, but folks please offer your perspectives on this phenomenon of Republicans tending to be mean bastards, why this is and (more importantly) what are the overarching consequences/implications of such a reality on our national character and national well-being. Take care. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Political Ranks Continue to Swell with Progressive Marines: Iraq War/Marine Veteran Runs for Congressional Seat as Democrat
Greetings to all aboard the blog. This is truly a good morning. Just got wind of this story via 'The Raw Story', an outstanding website that is both refreshing and insightful (www.rawstory.com). See, this is what I'm talking about...we're reaching a tipping point here folks...a tipping point where the American people are finally beginning to wake up from their collective slumber and critically reassess the current Administation, the neoconservative agenda and the Republican Party's lackluster idea of American government as a whole (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/). Here is a snippet from the Yahoo/AP News piece on Hackett written by 'Associated Press' writer Dan Sewell found on the 'Raw Story' site:

"SEAMAN, Ohio - A few months ago, Paul Hackett was flushing out insurgents and avoiding ambushes in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in Iraq. Today, the Marine is trying to round up votes in small southern Ohio towns like this one. Hackett, a Democrat, is running in a special election Aug. 2 in a bid to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress".

So, Major Paul Hackett, a United States Marine field grade officer and veteran of the war in Iraq, is running for the House of Representatives by way of Ohio's 2nd Congressional District (www.hackettforcongress.com). Now, we all know about Ohio and what Ohio represents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) ...if Kerry/Edwards had won Ohio's 21 electoral votes (which they probably did, but that's a subject for another post), we'd have an entirely different Administration in the White House right about now. Alas, we were outflanked in Ohio and lost the state...but, we'll get the bastards next time. Anyway, my point is Ohio is a tough nut to crack and Ohio's 2nd Congressional District (located in the southern portion of the state) is notoriously conservative and Republican. In fact, when he wins, Major Hackett will become the first Democrat to be elected in Ohio's 2nd District in thirty years. Again, we are reaching a tipping point where veterans are returning home from Iraq en masse and realizing that the Republican talking points being belched out incessantly from the GOP "windbag machine" are nothing more than empty rhetoric...full of volume and heat, but without any semblance of substance. Good folks, a number of Iraq War veterans are returning home (in fact, returning home as we speak) and if they didn't leave the United States as Progressives, they are certainly returning as Progressives. A large percentage of our veterans are coming back to the United States from the Iraqi desert with the stunning realization (at least for those whose eyes weren't opened before they left for southwest Asia) that the current Administration's expedition in Iraq in particular, and its foreign policy in general, is lacking at best and bankrupt at worst. Yes, bottom rail is beginning to inch its way to the top now. I love this!!! Republicans are spinning, I mean how can they square up against not only an Iraq War veteran, but also a U.S. Marine who is also a Democrat. This is like their worst nightmare. Marines who are Democrats...*gasp*...what's more, Marines who are liberals?!? I can just imagine those GOP political consultants hoping against hope that the gallant warriors returning home from Iraq, the majority of whom are regular voters and the hand full of those veterans who will be political candidates one day (maybe sooner than later, like Major Paul Hackett, www.hackettforcongress.com), would all get off the boat/airplane as loyal Republicans, in lockstep with the views and philosophies of the Republican National Committee and the current Administration. Guess again. These great veterans are returning home and beginning to understand what Shakepeare meant in 'King Lear' when he wrote (Act III, Scene 6, Lines 19-21): "He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf...". In other words, it's beginning to crystalize in their minds (generally speaking) that you just can't trust those GOP bastards...they'll zap you everytime. Oh, this is awesome! Major Hackett, as stated previously, is running for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District in a special election which will be held on 2 August 2005. When Major Hackett becomes Congressman Hackett, he will be the first Iraq War veteran to become a member of Congress. His will be a strong and refreshing voice in the halls of Congress, a voice of one who has been on the ground and had the full experience of what the war in Iraq really means, not in terms of the cotton candy-like slogans, tin-plated lapel pins and magnets obnoxiously plastered all over the backends of too many lumbering SUV's, but in the more real and visceral terms of the blood being spilled, lives being lost and progress being made on the ground. Major Hackett, as Congressman Hackett, will lead his Ohio district just as he led his magnificent Marines in the field: with a strong sense of duty, responsibility, concern and compassion. You see, Major Paul Hackett not only understands in the abstract the meaning of the Marine Officer Candidates School (www.ocs.usmc.mil) motto, "Ductus Exemplo" (Latin for "Lead by Example")...he has lived it! And I have no doubt Major Hackett will continue to lead by example when he represents the good people of southern Ohio in Congress, just as he did when leading his Marines in garrison during peacetime and just as he did leading his Marines within the furnace of battle during war. Good luck Major Hackett and Semper Fidelis

2005-07-20T05:49:00.000-07:00

We Ain't Forgot You Boy: Karl Rove and his Despicable Actions are Still Front and Center
Good morning to all aboard the blog. It is a lovely morning here in the American Southwest (although it promises to be another scorcher) as I listen to the Crosby, Stills and Nash song 'Carry on/Questions' (CSN rocks, now that's what I'm talking about). So, the President has chosen Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.) as his guy to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Outstanding. But don't think for a second we're going to allow these Supreme Court activities to in any way distract us from Karl Rove, what he did and how he should either be prosecuted, sent packing or both. More on this later. Anyway, it's been awhile since I lasted posted and so much has been going on both in the world and on the homefront. The reasons for my lack of postings are as follows: late last week my surge protector/back-up battery went on the blink by way of turning on and off all by itself and, as a result, causing my computer to turn on and off at the most inconvenient times. When I finally got the time to deal with the problem (which was over the weekend), I was able to rectify the situation by getting another surge protector (not as high-speed as the other surge protector, but it fits the bill). I've also been trying to rustle up some financial aid for graduate school via FAFSA (www.fafsa.ed.gov) as well as through the VA (www.gibill.va.gov) ...and folks, this ain't no easy process...very time consuming and (at times) exasperating...but, it's worth it. I've also been helping a close friend square away her new apartment and that has also been time consuming. Plus, logging onto the blogosphere has been hit or miss (at least for me) for some unknown reason for the last few days. What's going on with Picasa and Blogger? Who knows, but I still love 'em. OK, I'm done complaining, now on with the topic of the day: Karl Rove, his insidiousness and how his presence corrupts the American political system. But before I go there, allow me to acknowledge the passing yesterday of General William C. Westmoreland, former MACV commander (1964-1968) and Army Chief of Staff (1968-1972). General Westmoreland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Westmoreland), although tainted by his lack of success in terms of the Vietnam War, was nevertheless the quintessential soldier's soldier/warrior's warrior in that he deeply loved this country and her armed forces and demonstrated his love of country by selflessly serving in the United States Army for 36 years. In fact, General Westmoreland graduated from the United States Military Academy (West Point, www.usma.edu) in 1936 at the age of 22 and, while serving in World War II, attained the rank of colonel by his 30th birthday. That's remarkable folks and very telling in terms of his competency, warrior genius and leadership capability in that most warriors don't make full colonel until their early to mid-40's (traditionally speaking). Unfortunately, during his stint as MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACV) commander, Westmoreland never did understand Vietnam in terms of being able to wrap his mind around the big picture; and, because of this, American overall progress on the ground in Vietnam was lackluster during the years 1964 to 1968 in terms of overall strategic/socio-psychological (the "winning of hearts and minds") success. Of course, this culminated in the strategic/socio-psychological defeat of American forces vis a vis the Tet Offensive(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive) of early 1968, while although a tactical victory for American military forces, Tet was a devastating blow to American morale (especially back in the United States) that was also a disastrous and overarching defeat in the strategic arena. The Tet Offensive debacle was the main reason Westmoreland was "excused from his responsibilities" as MACV commander and brought back to Washington, D.C. to serve out his career as Army Chief of Staff until his retirement in 1972. General Westmoreland went on to become a vocal advocate for veterans (especially Vietnam veterans) and, although a Republican, he seemed to really care about the plight of all veterans after the bugles blared and the trumpets had long since faded. An interesting sidenote is how General Vo Nguyen Giap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap), General Westmoreland's "opposite number" and arch-antagonist during the war (as supreme commander of North Vietnamese military forces and orchestrator of North Vietnam's subsequent success), continues to outlast his nemesis (even on the battlefield of life) in that he is alive and well in Vietnam and aging gracefully at the ripe old age of 93 years old (http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/giap.html). Render salute to General William C. Westmoreland and thank you sir for your dedicated service to the Republic. Now on with the topic of the day: Karl Rove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove), his unscrupulousness and his need to step aside and move into the shadows and margins of American politics. I say back into the shadows because, let's face it, this fu**ker may leave the White House (which would be a good thing), but he will always be included in this President's tight, little circle of close advisors. Although he will more than likely pull a "Karen Hughes" (you know, he's-not-there-but-he-is-there for all intents and purposes), I'll still consider it a great victory if we can run his ass out of his West Wing office (and out of the White House altogether) on a rail. Listen, I don't hate Karl Rove...in fact I admire and respect his political saavy, dexterity and prowess (the guy is a political tactical/strategic genius with rare talent of the first order); but he is the enemy as far as I'm concerned and there is no getting around that. I encourage all to read "Bush's Brain" (www.bushsbrain.com) by James Moore and Wayne Slater. It is truly a revealing expose into the mind and motivations of this maniacal political genius. Not since the days of Rasputin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin) and Cardinal Richelieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu) have we seen someone with this much influence over a nation's chief executive and who has so effectively (and disturbingly) melded the worlds of politics and policy into one big conflagaration...in other words, to the point of not knowing where politics ends and policy begins. Again, the crux of the matter here is that Karl Rove has got to go, meaning he must exit the White House and be pushed as far away (albeit, geographically) from the White House as is possible. I'd like to see him return to Austin (capital of Texas) and although (like I've already stated) he will forever be a close advisor (the closest, more than likely) to the President, at least he won't be slithering around the White House with his evil thinking cap on, stinking up the place. Put another way, whether or not Karl Rove broke the "letter of the law" (which is certainly debatable) he most definitely broke the "spirit of the law" and for that infraction, Rove (for the sake of the country and for the sake of all that we, as a collective American community and nation, hold dear) should be excused from the White House and sent on his way (whether that way is to the private sector or to prison doesn't really matter to me, as long as he is out of the White House). In a nutshell, Karl Rove (whether knowingly or unknowingly) has a corrosive and toxic effect on the American political system. Karl Rove has proven time and time again that his scruples and sense of decency go right out of the window when he is playing "hardball politics". I mean exposing a CIA case officer (http://slate.msn.com/id/2122393/) just to get back at her husband?!? Not even considering nor caring what the overarching and overall ramifications/consequences would be if such a thing was done?!? Folks, we've got a journalist languishing in jail because of Rove's actions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8417075/), a promising CIA career in rubble because of Rove's indiscretions and who knows how many people's lives/Valerie Plame's contacts around the world were placed in jeopardy (or, Lord forbid, extinguished) by way of exposing Valerie Plame's identity as CIA?!? Folks, bottom line here is Karl Rove is a loose-cannon and extremely dangerous. You see, Karl Rove is like a razor blade in terms of his intensity and zeal for the game of political hardball...finely sharp, cold, clinical and without remorse. And like a razor blade, the danger is in the fact that he can cut both ways...and, like a razor blade, his cuts can be extremely deep and damaging. Karl Rove, for the sake of this republic, should come on out of the White House and move on to new pastures. And if he doesn't do this voluntarily (which he won't), he should be forced out with a swift kick in the ass. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-12T15:38:00.000-07:00

NASA Rushes, Throws Caution to the Wind and the Possibility of British Army Elements Being Involved in London Bombings
Hello, once again, to all those reading this blog. This is an unusual double-posting, but I had to put my thoughts down concerning two points of interest: (1) tomorrow's hare-brained (in my estimation) "rush-launch" of Space Shuttle 'Discovery'/STS-114 along with her brave crew of seven astronauts (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/) and (2) tracking down the killers/perpetrators responsible for the wanton destruction caused by the London bombings of 7 July 2005. First, the space shuttle. Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that this is a reckless attempt by NASA (www.nasa.gov) to regain its "juice" without first doing everything necessary to exponentially increase the safety parameters one would expect of America's premier space agency. Folks, in a nutshell, NASA is rushing... they're rushing to get back into space whatever the cost (materiel, human life, whatever) and just about everyone recognizes this to be the case (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12035214.htm). In fact, I just heard a CNN and BBC newsflash (please tell me it's not true) that one of the cockpit window protectors fell out and crashed into the tail of the space shuttle, damaging some of the protective tiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4677495.stm). Come on man...this is egregious people...just totally and completely unsatisfactory. Listen, I know "going throttle up", escaping Earth's gravity and attaining orbit is the "muscle-flexing", "high-octane", "beefy", "steely-eyed missile man" stuff NASA just loves and lives for (you know, just like in the Marine Corps it's all about the infantry, in the Navy it's all about surface warfare, in the Air Force it's all about the fighter jocks, etc., etc.). In other words, at NASA you better believe they love their solar sails (http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/) and slamming space machinery into comets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4672157.stm), but in it's "heart and soul" NASA is all about going "go for launch", "lighting the candle" and putting heroically brave men and women into space to explore the cosmos a la the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs of the space administration's heyday. Let me be clear, we've got seven super-bright, super-intelligent Americans (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/) who are willing to put their lives on the line in the name of America, in the name of science and in the name of idealizing and personifying the hopes and dreams of how space exploration can benefit all of mankind. NASA should not put these good people in harm's way simply to "save face" and because NASA can't wait to get back into space. Look, chances are space isn't going anywhere soon...why not take the time to cross-all-the-"t's" and dot-all-the-"i's"...I mean, what's the rush NASA? Don't we owe these brave astronauts as well as the American people as a whole that much in terms of safety and precautions?!? I mean, I understand space travel is inherently dangerous, but gee whiz, we've got window protectors falling out of cockpits and damaging protective tiles less than 24 hours before launch...is that the soul of caution? Is that wise? Let me say this: I think it is too early to return to manned space flight, I think NASA is jumping the gun and recklessly throwing caution to the wind in the name of "face saving" and glory seeking (and now that I think about it, probably because it also has alot of corporate contracts in regards to sending stuff into space and placing things in orbit that are just collecting dust on the proverbial shelf, i.e., companies like Raytheon saying "...hey we paid you all 'x' amount of dollars to put 'x' amount of things into space, so you all at NASA better hurry up, pull your heads out of your a**es and get your ships back up into space ASAP...". Corporate capitalism once again rearing its ugly head at the potential cost of human life). Even with all of that said about NASA's brass and their recklessness (or, perhaps in spite of it), I still say good luck and godspeed to Discovery and to the brave crew of STS-114! Second thing I want to address is the London bombings and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings). Quite frankly, I'm really concerned this terrorist operation included elements of the British Army (http://www.army.mod.uk/) who have served in Iraq, returned to the U.K. and either: (1) have "gone native", or (2) are irate with the policies of the Blair Administration and are resorting to terrrorism/violence, or (3) both (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1411075.htm); or, perhaps it's a situation where elements within the British Army provided "indirect" assistance to the terrorists by serving as advisors (i.e., technical assistance, providing bomb-making material, providing tactical knowledge, etc.) . The latest reports are that the bombs were lightweight and yet packed a devastating wallop in terms of their explosive power which equals explosive devices that are more along the lines of military explosives moreso than simple homespun, homemade devices (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php). Heard reports today stating most or all of the bombers were suicide bombers killed in the blasts(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677509.stm), but I don't believe it. In fact, I spoke with a Marine officer buddy of mine this afternoon and he doesn't buy that explanation either. We both believe those devices were timed to detonate and the perpetrators were long gone and out of harm's way when the bombs exploded, wounding upwards of 700 civilians and killing more than 35 (http://i-newswire.com/pr35445.html). As I've already stated, it is my opinion we are dealing with (quite possibly) elements of the British Army (again, British soldiers who have served in Iraq, much like Timothy McVeigh having served in the U.S. Army during Gulf War I only to come home and blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City) who are now sympathetic/leaning towards the philosophy of al-Qeda/al-Qeda sympathizers and are using their battle skills to wreak havoc and advance the terrorist philosophies of al-Qeda vis-a-vis terrorism in the capital of their country as well as (more than likely) beyond the confines of London. I also spoke with a close and dear friend today who is a British citizen who believes (as I do) that the perpetrators have NOT fled the country and are (in fact) still in-country and planning more attacks in a campaign of terror to be waged across northern and southern England. Also, the Administration's recent decision to ban American troops from visiting London was chickenshit (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0712/london.html) ...THIS IS NOT how you support your friends and allies during a time of crisis. Hell, when Hitler was bombing the stuffing out of London in 1940 during the Battle of Britain, what if FDR had said no American service people can go into London? Yeah, Churchill would have really loved that one. Alright, end of unusual evening post. Take care and Semper Fidelis

2005-07-12T07:43:00.000-07:00

'Grant': An Inspirational Story That Must Be Produced and Made Into an Epic Film with Robin Williams in the Starring Role
Good morning to all those reading this blog. Will make this post quickly and then I'm out. I'm running late, been on the phone most of the morning with the VA (www.gibill.va.gov) trying to get my educational benefits squared away for graduate school (for all those not "in-the-know", I've been accepted to graduate school, just got the letter middle of last week) ...and let me tell you, dealing with the bureaucracy that is the VA is no easy task. In fact, I'm starting to break out with hives! The topic of the day concerns an idea for a movie that I've had for quite sometime. Bottom line is I want to see an epic picture about the life of Ulysses S. Grant produced in the near future and I want to see Robin Williams in the starring role. Not only is Robin Williams a great, GREAT artistic and dramatic talent whose range could certainly reach what is required to play the military savior of the Union and 18th President of the United States but he is also a dead-ringer for Grant (at least in my humble opinion). After reading Grant's memoirs a few years back (got the book as a Christmas gift, started reading it immediately and didn't finish until the May-June time frame. The book is in one of my footlockers right now, but if memory serves I believe it is a little over 770 pages...just an awesome, awesome read, http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page165.html). In fact, if you look at a picture of Robin Williams and compare it to one of Grant, I'm sure you can appreciate the physical similarities vis-a-vis Grant and Williams. And, I'd also like to see Captain Dale Dye (http://www.warriorsinc.com/) in the picture as well. Captain Dye brings a wealth of knowledge and espirit de corps that would certainly help bring added flavor to a film of this magnitude. Again, someone out there please make this happen...an epic picture (on the scale of 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Glory', 'Saving Private Ryan', etc.) that covers Grant's life from 1822 to 1885 (with the Civil War, of course, having the lion's share of the film time...or perhaps, focus the entire film on Grant's Civil War experience of 1861-1865...regardless, it would be a wonderful production). Either way, it is time (especially now, in this perilous age when we need to see great, epic films about courage, character and strength of heart) for a great movie about a great American, General Ulysses S. Grant, to be produced and put on the big screen...again, with Robin Williams in the starring role. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-07T06:19:00.000-07:00

URGENT-URGENT/The Sum of All Fears: London Absorbs Devastating Strikes and Coordinated Terrorist Attacks at Height of Morning Rush Hour
Not a good morning folks, not a good morning at all. Got up around 0500 hrs., turned on NPR (www.npr.org) and heard the shocking news. Couldn't believe it then and can't believe it now. In fact, I hit the rack listening to the BBC (www.bbc.co.uk) on NPR around 0200 hrs., and the discussion/conversations were still focused on London's excitement at being chosen the host city for the 2012 Summer Olympics (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8476616/). Then I got up four hours later, turned on NPR and hear that over the course of four hours the situation had gone from one of absolute celebration to one of absolute horror. Here it is in a nutshell (http://www.itv.com/news/index_100560.html): London was struck by multiple terrorists attacks (at least seven coordinated attacks on the London public transportation system) which have inflicted, at last report, some 200-300 casualties including at least forty fatalities (unfortunately, the fatality figure is most assuredly going to rise). My first thought when I heard the news was this was al-Qaeda (probably like most everyone else thought); then I started to think this might be Provisional IRA activity (Provisional Irish Republican Army, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army) which (although not ruled out) I de-emphasized almost immediately because the IRA hasn't gone operational in London for nearly a decade (no IRA activity in London proper since at least 10 February 1996 when IRA attacked the South Quay DLR station, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Quay_DLR_station). Then I started considering radical environmentalist organizations and anti-G8 summit anarchists...these groups haven't been completely ruled out (as of yet) in terms of their potential culpability (i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_organizations). CNN is now reporting a group calling itself 'The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda Jihadists in Europe' has claimed responsibility for the attacks (www.cnn.com). It is also being reported Prime Minister Blair, who is attending and hosting the G8 summit in Scotland, is heading back to London to assess the situation. This is outrageous and tragic to say the very least. Again, it is amazing how just yesterday, London (and England as a whole) was celebrating the fact it was chosen to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games; and within a span of 24 hours the situation has gone from one of celebration to one of tragedy and horror. Alright, let me break down my concerns (in the form of two questions) in terms of the overall geopolitical/security situation:

I.) How does this impact the security of the United States and is this a coordinated assault on all or some of the G8 nations (U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Russia and Italy)?: The explosions began around 8:50 a.m. (3:50 a.m. ET) which is the beginning of rush hour and the morning commute for most Londoners...a "target-rich environemt" in military parlance if there ever was one. My main concern is whether or not this is an internationally coordinated assault designed to be "cleared hot" during rush hour times around the globe (especially here in the United States). Let me put it this way, Great Britain is a relatively small, island nation and if MI-5, Great Britain's superb and world-renowned domestic intelligence and security agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI5), was unable to foil such a well-coordinated and (obviously) well-planned assault in the country's capital of London/London proper what does that say about our ability in the United States to protect our country (which spans an entire continent) from a series of well-coordinated and well-planned terrorist strikes? Again, MI-5 is definitely "no slouch" when it comes to domestic security, counter-terrorism and intelligence operational procedures, so I am scratching my head on this one. What went wrong in terms of British governmental entities not being able to neutralize the bastards BEFORE they executed their horrific plan? Hopefully, we'll soon find out what went wrong and learn how to counter these insidious threats more effectively.

II.) Is this proof al-Qaeda is "born-again hard"? Has al-Qaeda thwarted international law enforcement (et al.) and established within its organizational matrix a new and improved 'Table of Organization/Equipment (T/O & E)' which gives it the flexibility, capability and capacity to project itself in ways not seen since Madrid, 11 March 2004 and NYC/Penn./D.C., 11 September 2001?: This is an essential question (and perhaps, THE essential question as far as I'm concerned). If this is al-Qaeda's work (and it more than likely IS al-Qaeda based on the modus operandi of the attacks, although this in no way rules out the anti-G8 summit anarchist elements/radical environmentalist organizations I'd mentioned earlier), are we witnessing a resurgence of the operational capability/lethality of al-Qaeda? In other words, al-Qaeda has been relatively dormant for the last few years (not counting the big Madrid bombings of 2004) and instead of "having its back broken" as so many neocons/"political-Pollyannas" would have us to believe, is it possible al-Qaeda has (instead) been refitting and preparing itself to execute a new, offensive campaign, i.e., a campaign which equals a new and more formidable wave of attacks around the globe?

Those are my two, big questions concerning the implications and ramifications of what happened in London this sad day. Although, I'm sure there are numerous other questions, these are the ones of paramount importance (at least, as far as my thinking is concerned). But the bottom line is this: there is no question the war in Iraq has been more of a hindrance than a help in terms of overall global security in that it has proven to be a source of angst and motivation for those who wish to do great harm to the United States and her allies. The war in Iraq has done little more than prove itself to be the ultimate training ground and inspiration point for future generations of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who can't wait to put what they've learned on the battlefields of Iraq into practice on the streets of Western capitals/cities...the Iraq War has done nothing but foment a new form of terrorist monstrosity that may have (for the first time since the Iraq War began) reared its ugly head on the streets, buses and subways of London this very morning. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-06T07:37:00.000-07:00

Jarhead General Says Marines Impervious to the Relentless Stress of Killing/Combat and (as a result) Can't Suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Greetings to all aboard the blog. First, I want to acknowledge the passing of Vice-Admiral James Stockdale at the age of 81, who exited the stage yesterday as reported by the press (http://www.10news.com/news/4687960/detail.html). Admiral Stockdale is probably most recently known as Ross Perot's running mate during the 1992 Presidential race as well as his somewhat befuddled performance during the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate held at the Theater for the Arts on the campus of Georgia Tech and moderated by Hal Bruno of ABC News, a debate which also included Al Gore and Dan Quayle (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92d.html). Yet, Admiral Stockdale was more than his unimpressive 1992 Vice-Presidential performance...much, much more. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stockdale) describes Admiral Stockdale as follows:

James Bond Stockdale (23 December 1923 – 5 July 2005) was one of the most highly decorated officers in the history of the United States Navy. He was the highest ranking naval officer held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Stockdale led the U.S. air squadron during the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. He was awarded 26 personal combat decorations, including the Medal of Honor and four Silver Stars. Stockdale is also remembered as a Vice Presidential candidate in the 1992 election on Ross Perot's independent ticket.

Admiral Stockdale was the highest ranking officer/POW during the Vietnam War and endured years of torture and abuse at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors during his long captivity in NVA prison camps, an experience he shared with fellow naval aviator and now Senator John McCain (R-AZ, http://mccain.senate.gov/). In fact, Admiral Stockdale rushed to his warrior-brother's defense during the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries when brutally malicious and vulgar accusations and disparaging remarks were made concerning Senator McCain's overall health status by the Bush Jr. campaign (most especially in South Carolina, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/31/148237). Admiral Stockdale stood up for his friend ("friend" really isn't the word for it, their relationship was so much more than that) and wrote a beautifully moving article which was run in the 'New York Times' titled 'John McCain in the Crucible' (http://www.farfromglory.com/admstockdale.htm). Outside of his illustrious and honorable service in the armed forces, this was probably his finest hour...what character, what integrity. There is no question that we owe much, as a collective American community and as a nation, to individuals and true patriots like Admiral James Stockdale who gave so much and asked for so little in return. Thank you Admiral Stockdale and sir, may you only know fair winds and following seas. The second thing I want to report is that I have been accepted to graduate school! Just got the letter yesterday and I'm extremely excited about it. Wow, graduate school...can't believe it, but I was accepted! Now, on with the topic of the day: stupid-ass comments from a Marine general officer. I touched on this subject a few months ago, but think it's appropriate to touch on it again. In World War I the condition was called "shell-shock", in World War II and Korea it was called "battle fatigue" or "war neurosis". Then, in Vietnam, the modern term of "post-traumatic stress disorder" was created. My point is this: the phenomenon of post-traumatic stress disorder as a culmination of the breakdown of the human psyche resulting from prolonged and intense (or, a combination of the two) external and internal pressures vis a vis the stress and carnage produced by combat actvities is UNDERSTOOD to be a given. In other words, PTSD (as a real psychic syndrome) is no longer up for rational debate within the medical community. In fact, if one was to suggest that PTSD was not real, they would not be taken seriously and would probably be laughed out of house and home. Yet, there is a bone-headed leatherneck general out there who is actually suggesting PTSD is NOT a factor in the human equation in terms of human combat and human coping capability. I caught wind of this by way of the 'Draft Zinni' for U.S. Senator blog (http://draftzinni.blogspot.com/), an excellent blog dedicated to get a Marine general, Gen. Anthony Zinni (a Marine general who ACTUALLY has some sense) into the political arena. Anyway, this kind of stuff (and the sheer ignorance of it) burns me up; here we are in the 21st century and we actually have to spend time talking about the efficacy of PTSD in relation to veterans (combat veterans, no less) as to whether or not PTSD really exists...this just chaps my hide! The Marine officer who made the jackassed comments to the 'Marine Corps Times' concerning PTSD and its "non-existence" (as far as he is concerned) is Brigadier General Joseph Dunford USMC, who is the assistant commander of 1st Marine Division. Brigadier General Dunford, quite simply, dismisses wholesale the study in the 'New England Journal of Medicine' (a weekly, medical journal that is considered the world's leading medical periodical, http://content.nejm.org/) that has found "...17 percent of Iraq combat veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". The article link is as follows, (http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-750444.php). You see, this is the kind of dead-headed, pseudo-intellectual thought process that is going to hurt more people then it helps and perhaps even get some people killed. While reading the general's official Marine Corps biography (http://www.marines.mil/genbios2.nsf/Act_Brig_Gen_Bio, go to Brig. Gen. Dunford), I found the following:

"Brigadier General Dunford was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1955. He was commissioned in June 1977 after graduation from St. Michael’s College. He was subsequently assigned to the 1st Marine Division where he served as a Platoon and Company Commander in 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines and Company Commander in 1st Battalion, 9th Marines..."

and

"...Brigadier General Dunford is a graduate of the U. S. Army Ranger School, Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, and the U. S. Army War College. He holds a M.A. in Government from Georgetown University and a M.A. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy...".

OK, all of that is outstanding....extremely motivating. His accomplishments are unquestionably impressive, to say the very least. However, I see nothing in his bio that suggests he is a medical doctor or a medical professional in any way, shape or form. In short, Brigadier General Dunford (with all due respect, sir) should stick to the tactical and strategic analysis/warfighting and leave the medical understandings and physiological, psychological and psychiatric analysis to the medical professionals. The general's comments are insensitive, ignorant and a slap-in-the-face to ALL veterans; especially to those veterans who laid down NOT ONLY THEIR LIVES, but also to those who have LAID DOWN THEIR MINDS in the naval services (or any service for that matter) of the United States. Not only is it a disservice to those who have served for Constitution and country, but his jaw-dropping ignorance simply borders on recklessness; but, in any event, his lack of knowledge coupled with his high leadership position make for a situation that is (most assuredly) dangerous. Dangerous in that his belief/attitude will "trickle-down" (so to speak) to all ranks below him, just as the SecDef's lax attitude towards torture "trickled-down" to Abu Ghraib personnel...and we all know how beautifully that turned out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse). To be sure, the Marine Corps is an extremely macho organization, just ask any "W.M." (or, "Woman Marine"...that's what they're called). Macho and machismo have always been a part of the Corps' motif and macho/machismo have their place in a warfighting organization; just as long as it doesn't facilitate gender discrimination, i.e., making sure women who want to participate and are CAPABLE of participating in the combat arms/non-combat arms are allowed to be just as "macho" as the next guy (and believe me, there are women in the military who not only CAN pull the load just as well as men, but there are also women who can pull the load BETTER than quite a few men...I've seen it folks, time and time again...learned that lesson for the first time at OCS...more on this subject in a future posting). But, sometimes that macho crap warps reality. The bottom line is this: regardless of what the good General may think, he is actually undermining the recoveries and potential recoveries of Lord knows how many Marines (and all veterans, for that matter) who are suffering untold heartache and pain (through no fault of their own) as a result of their service in the 'Global War on Terrorism'. My open message to Brigadier General Dunford is this: again, with all due respect sir, secure that nonsense...you simply don't know what you are talking about. This is just another glaring indicator of how desperately our country needs real leadership, intelligent leadership and NOT bone-headed braggadocio. Intelligent leadership that either understands human realities/human nuances or, (at least) is willing to pull together teams of bright people who DO understand these nuances; teams of bright folks who not only want real answers and want to reach for real solutions, but will rigorously work their intellects to get those solutions. We need bright leaders who are not afraid to address the realities of these issues instead of leaders who stick their collective heads in the sand a la denial. See, denial is like a spreading malignancy...it does nothing but destroy the host in the end unless it is aggressively confronted and checked. The sort of ignorance Brigadier General Dunford displayed and espoused for all the world to see in his statements to the 'Marine Corps Times' must be resisted by any means necessary fore that kind of attitude and mindset does more harm than good. PTSD does exist, if you don't believe me, go visit your local VA...do your own research and see for yourselves. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-04T06:14:00.000-07:00

The Parchment a/k/a the United States of America's Most Enduring and Endearing Contribution to Mankind: the Apex Essence and Genius of Our National Democratic Experiment
Good morning and Happy Fourth of July to all. Yes, indeed, Happy Fourth of July to everyone reading this blog! There seems to be something very special about this July 4th, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Of course, ALL July 4th's are special, no question...but there seems to be something different about this one...something very different. Does anyone else out there feel the same way about this year's Fourth or is it just me? I'm open to any and all feedback. I got up this morning and turned on NPR (www.npr.org), as usual. They were doing their annual reading of our Declaration of Independence in order to mark the day's special significance and relevance. It was really moving and I enjoyed and appreciated the gesture thoroughly (as, I'm sure, the vast majority of other listeners did). So, as a salute to National Public Radio's kind gesture and (more importantly) to mark this great day, I have decided to post the Declaration of Independence in the same spirit NPR read the Declaration since that is what the day is about: the American colonists extolling, through Thomas Jefferson's genius and inkpen, what needed to be said to Great Britain and the whole world in terms of explaining their noble actions vis a vis their desire for independence and the establishment of a new country and government on the North American continent. This is truly the most awesome political document ever conceived in any language in the history of all humankind. This 18th century document is a stroke of verbal and critical analytical genius that continues to stand the test of time, some 229 years after its inception. Please read and Enjoy!:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Powerful, just political prose and poetry that is like honey and nectar to the minds and hearts of all those who yearn to be free and stand for freedom. This document, in a metaphorical nutshell, declared to the whole world 229 years ago that America was "open for business" and our business was (and still is) freedom. Again, Happy Fourth of July everyone. Semper Fidelis

2005-07-02T07:26:00.000-07:00

Age Quod Agis: The High Court, the End of an Era and the Upcoming Battle Royale
Good morning to all reading this blog. *Whew*, helped a friend move into her apartment last night around 2200 hrs and didn't get back home until about 0300 hrs. No, I don't like rolling around the big city at 0300 in the morning...way past my bedtime. Now, with that said and before going on with the topic of the day, I want to tip my hat to the great crooner and balladeer Luther Vandross who passed on yesterday at the age of 54 (http://www.kten.com/article.asp?id=8873). The news came down like a ton of bricks...just couldn't believe it. Vandross's lyrics and singing simply took the listener to a higher plane of emotional understanding and (at times) deep introspection...he was without a doubt in a class by himself. What a voice, what soulfulness, what a talent...he will be sorely missed. Although his voice was silenced, his music will continue to resonate unobstructed through time to be appreciated by future generations who will enjoy the lushness and beauty of his vocal talents. On to the topic of the day: which is the surprise resignation and stepping down from the highest bench in the land of the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/), as well as the political ramifications and reverberations which will be a result of Justice O' Connor's resignation. Folks, to say Justice O'Connor's bombshell announcement was unexpected and "out-of-left-field" would be a gross understatement. In fact, I was on the road yesterday late morning when a good friend of mine called on my cellphone and alerted me to the news. We both couldn't believe it since we, like most political junkies, believed it would be Chief Justice Rehnquist who would bow out well ahead of any other Supreme Court justice (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/rehnquist.future/), ...but we were certainly mistaken. Anyway, the bottom line is Justice O'Connor is out and who know's who's coming in. I have to tell you, THIS IS IT...in other words, this is going to be a political and ideological battle royale the likes of which none of us have ever seen. I mean this is the "big enchilada", i.e., a Gettysburg-esque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg) and Midway-esque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway) political confrontation. Concisely, this will be a watershed event/confrontation that will simply change the course of history and determine the direction of American jurisprudence and Constitutional interpretation for Lord knows how long. Both sides are gearing up for the 'Tombstone'/'High Noon'-like showdown (shucks, they've been gearing up for sometime now, although the main battle schematics were drawn up around a Rehnquist retirement, not an O'Connor departure...but that's just "sauce for the goose"). The President stated yesterday he would move "decisively" and be "deliberate and thorough" in terms of deciding on who his nominee will be, but that it would be after his trip to Europe around 8 July (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4644243.stm) before he rendered such a decision. So, in the "meantime, in between time", the pundits and pontificators will be spinning their heads off (me included) trying to figure out the identification of said nominee. Be advised, I am certainly not a legal eagle nor a legal expert. But I want to play this parlour game too, so in my humble opinion here are three predictions for who will fill the now vacant seat on the Supreme Court (in order of highest to lowest possibility/probability):

1.) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales- My #1 pick. He's a good ol' buddy of the President and has been with "W" as a loyal supporter since those "Texas and tumbleweeds" days in Houston and Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales). Gives off the vapors of a political moderate, but is more than likely (deep down inside) a conservative/strict constructionist/Federalist along the lines of a Justice Scalia or Thomas. He's also Hispanic, which would be damn near like a bullet-proof vest in terms of him making it through the Congressional nomination process...I mean who in Congress, especially with the Latino population rising and gaining all kinds of political strength and clout, wants to stonewall or shoot-down a guy who would become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice in U.S. history...and Justice Cardozo doesn't count (even though he was an awesome Supreme Court justice, no question, an awesome jurist) because he was Sephardic-Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi) and his heritage was Portuguese versus Spanish, so he's not Latino/Hispanic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hispanic, more on Justice Cardozo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo). Also, as a bonus, Gonzales has already been (and recently too) vetted by the White House and FBI for his current position as Attorney General...in other words, no skeletons, bugs, or embarrassing zingers (a la Linda Chavez and Bernard Kerik) are in his closet which might dislodge or derail his nomination process. If he's nominated, he would more than likely be a lock.

2.) U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) Judge Janice Rogers Brown- Although recently appointed to the Federal bench (and quite possibly because of it), Janice Rogers Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown) could/would easily make the transition from the U.S. Circuit Court to the Supreme Court (and would be more than happy to do so in all likelihood). She's an African-American conservative (think a female Clarence Thomas...on second thought, don't think that...but you get my point) who has strong credentials in the conservative movement. Her stance on affirmative action, social programs and the culture war between the "Red and Blue" states (she has stated on record, as a government official, that she believes the country is on the verge of civil war, http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=718) is nectar and ambrosia to GOPsters...and all of this coming from the mouth of a Black Republican makes conservatives squeal and swoon with delight. She too would be a tough nut to crack in terms of the nomination process in the same way Alberto Gonzales would be hard to derail, i.e., she would be the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court in U.S. history...who wants to block that? Yet, as a caveat, it would probably be easier to block her nomination than Gonzales's because there would still be a woman on the high court in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if Rogers-Brown didn't get the nod from the Senate; moreover, because Rogers-Brown's record is so glaringly "right-wing ideologue" she would be a catalyst for a really viscious political battle in the Senate, not to mention across the country (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=32149). In short, with all of that said, I believe she would still make it to the Supreme Court...but just barely.

3.) Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) - The junior United States Senator from Texas (Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior Senator), John Cornyn served on the Texas State Supreme Court and was the state's attorney general before he won the Senate seat vacated by Phil Gramm after defeating former Dallas mayor and Democratic candidate Ron Kirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kirk) in the 2002 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornyn). Bottom line, the guy is a loyal soldier to the GOP who just spews and gushes conservative ideology and will do the bidding of his handlers with zeal. A virtual unknown quantity on the national stage, he doesn't seem to have too many skeletons in his closet (in fact, he might not have any...but time will tell if he's chosen as the nominee). In short, Cornyn would probably make it through the process without much static principally because he is a U.S. Senator and the U.S. Senate is the most exclusive "100-member club" in the country, in other words (and I know this is sounds cynical as hell), U.S. Senators will take care of one of their own. Again, he would make it through the nomination process but not without a little turbulence.

Alright, those are my three choices...Gonzales, Rogers-Brown and Cornyn. Please feel free to share yours. Also, stand-by to stand-by...if the ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist also determines now (meaning sometime this calendar year) is an appropriate time to step down from the high bench, Bush will have a "two-fer" opportunity that would be unprecedented in modern American history (if not all of U.S. history) to stack the bench however he and his fellow conservatives want it. Oh, the conservatives are working themselves up into a real frenzy and a good ol' lather over this possibility...to replace two Supreme Court justices would be an ideological jackpot and right-wing coup de grace of epic proportions. Food for thought fellow Progressives. It's fighting time. Take care and good hunting. Semper Fidelis

2005-06-30T06:36:00.000-07:00

"444 Days in Tehran", Co-Starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?: Iran's New President and Allegations of His Participation and Role in the 1979 Iranian Revolution
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

2005-06-28T05:38:00.000-07:00

The Madness and Folly That Rules the Hour: America in Fits and Starts a/k/a Twilight's Last Gleaming
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

2005-06-23T06:37:00.000-07:00

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!
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

2005-06-22T06:59:00.000-07:00

The Rise of the Dimmest and the Dumbest: America Wearing the Dunce Cap at the Beginning of a New Century
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]..." .

and,

"...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

2005-06-17T05:40:00.000-07:00

Lusus Naturae et Sequens: General Wesley Clark Signs-On with Fox News and California's Unusual Geological Disturbances
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

2005-06-16T07:02:00.000-07:00

Nuclear Terrorism: We Must Act Now to Counter the Threat
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

2005-06-13T14:58:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson to District Attorney Tom Sneddon: Who's Bad?
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

2005-06-09T06:53:00.000-07:00

Glory, Honor and Lord Nelson: Reflecting on Trafalgar and the Resonating Lessons of Character and Discipline That Are Still Applicable Today
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..."

and,

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

and,

"...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

2005-06-08T06:31:00.000-07:00

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 Draft
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

2005-06-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

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
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

2005-06-02T05:48:00.000-07:00

Saluting a Great American: Mark Felt Deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom
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

2005-06-01T06:55:00.000-07:00

"...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".

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

2005-05-31T06:59:00.000-07:00

Bush Administration Like A Bad Episode of 'Green Acres': The American Republic, Our Rich Tradition of Leaders with Vision and the Need to Earnestly Focus on the Re-Establishment of America's Liberal Political Leadership
Good morning to all. It's a little overcast here, but hopefully the sun will come out later. By the by, I'm going to get the new book, 'The Survivor' (authored by 'Washington Post' national correspondent John F. Harris, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/books/31kaku.html) as soon as I can. In the book, Harris reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY and future Democratic candidate for President of the United States), as First Lady at the time, told then President Clinton that his advisors were "...wimps..." for not going on the offensive and sticking it to the GOP at every turn during what can only be called the 'Whitewater Inquisitions' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal), or, the pathetic and fruitless attempt by the conservative establishment to bring down and discredit a young, vigorous, brilliant and popular Democratic President through manipulation, distortion of facts and just downright lying in terms of an old land deal that (in the end) proved unwarranted and without merit. Sen. Clinton also went on to say that "...JFK had real men for advisors..." (http://www.nysun.com/article/14612). When I heard about the comments, I have to admit...I got motivated (as any red-blooded American liberal should)...this lady is hard as nails...she's awesome. I'm a Clark guy (www.securingamerica.com), and I hope he secures the 2008 Democratic nomination (and I will give all that I've got in that endeavor); but, I would love to help Hillary Clinton win the White House in 2008. She's talking about fixing bayonets and going on the offensive...she understands, like so many other Democrats/Liberals, that going on the offensive and taking the fight to the enemy is the only way we're going to win elections! Shifting gears and FYI, looks like the President is going to have a press conference this morning in the Rose Garden around 1045 hrs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8046041/). Wow, a press conference...a rarity in terms of this President. However, I must say it's certainly interesting he's having the press conference in the late morning when most people are at work or on their way to work. The funny thing is this guy really thinks he's fooling people. Well, based on the 2004 election he is certainly fooling some, but definitely not all, of the American electorate (51 million for GWB versus 49 million anti-GWB respectively, http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/). With that said, I'm really getting sick and tired of the current Administration's sad practice of "blowing smoke" and trying (oh so deperately) to bamboozle the American public; in other words, talking a whole lot of baseless and factless smack (directly or through their "official" mouth-pieces) in a disturbing and failed effort to placate the American people into a somatic intellectual slumber. Examples run the gamut: from saying Bin Laden will be captured soon (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007787.html) to obnoxiously playing up the story Iraqi insurrgency leader al-Zarqawi has been seriously wounded (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/29/zarqawi/; quite frankly, I still can't make heads or tails of this story...because now, it's being reported the injuries al-Zarqai were "minor" and not at all as serious as had been previously reported, http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3204250) to Saddam Hussein will be put on trial in the near future (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3411210 ...two years have gone by and still no trial date set), etc. The latest one to come down the pike is Vice-President Cheney saying that the Iraq War will be over by 2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html). This is outrageous! What is he talking about? Can anyone please explain to me how Dick Cheney (or any mortal for that matter) can possibly predict when the war is going to end? Folks, is it me or is this just the absolute height and pinnacle of arrogance and hubris? This Administration will say and do anything in their sad, misguided and pitiful attempt to keep the bad poll numbers away. However, based on recent data and evidence, it's looking more and more like the American people aren't buying it (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0505/052405op.htm). Now, with that said, on with the topic of discussion today which is actually a series of questions concerning homeland security and it's inadequate funding and the GOP/conservative establishments inability to lead. How can we protect "the Homeland", when the country is broke, and the economy wrecked thanks to the Presidents massive tax cuts? The President continues to fumble the ball when it comes to adequate funding, and here we are almost four years removed from the attacks on 9/11. Here is a link from the 'Bangor Daily News' that addresses the issue in more detail, http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=108936. Here is a portion from the article:

"...President Bush's proposed budget worsens this problem by not specifically allocating money to the security of U.S. ports, rail lines and other non-aviation infrastructure".

Former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman’s think-tank released information, as far back as 28 June 2003-29 June 2003, stating that state and local authorities are sorely lacking the funds needed to adequately prepare for and counter any forthcoming terrorist attack or attacks on the United States; CNN link is as follows, http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/29/rudman.report/. So, how can the Bush Administration promote unneeded and unwarranted tax cuts, while homeland security programs at the state/local level (seriously lacking in revenue) continue to languish in neglect? The two main questions (in my humble opinion) are these: (1) how can President Bush can give away billions/trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, while the homeland security program (especially at the state/local level, something the Bush Administration pushed when it realized how much political capital the concept was worth) is left languishing and dangerously under-funded? (2) Why is the Bush Administration shoveling, at break-neck speed, money into the bank accounts of the wealthy instead of passing those financial resources on to the police officers and firefighters that are in desperate need of funding? The 'Seattle Times' has syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne's op-ed article which examines these very questions, titled 'President's Compassionate Conservatism Gone Astray', at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion. Really Mr. President, what’s more important in these perilous times? A huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, or protective equipment and gear for state and local authorities? Democrats must start asking these questions loudly and with great strength and vigor. If we slam these questions home to the American public, they’ll see the inconsistencies, get the point and (hopefully) begin asking the very same questions themselves! Semper Fidelis

2005-05-30T06:57:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day 2005: Lest We Forget , as well as, Remembering It's All About A Republic That's Of the People, By the People and For the People
Good morning to all aboard the blog. I hope all of you are well on this fine Memorial Day Monday. Before I begin, I first want to bring something to the fore. A friend of mine told me yesterday that after reviewing my blog, this friend of mine believes the blog to be (in my friend's words now) "...very partisan, angry and creepy...". Needless to say, said remarks caused me a fair amount of distress and consternation in that, although I can admit the blog IS partisan (I have no problem with that representation, since yours truly IS a proud Democrat/Liberal...and I make no bones about that), does it really rate the characterization of "angry" and "creepy"? I'd like to get some feedback from the loyal readers of the blog in terms of whether or not it's fair to call this blog angry and creepy? If so, I am more than happy to take suggestions in terms of how I can tamp down whatever excesses take away from the message I'm trying to convey. Again, I'd really appreciate any feedback that would facilitate this endeavor. OK, now on with the show. Today is Memorial Day 2005, a time to reflect on the common sacrifice of so many that have died in the struggle to maintain this grand socio-political experiment and this grand Republic. It is a time to understand that freedom isn't free and that many a gold star (so to speak) have been placed in many a window in the name of maintaining this Republic since the very inception of this great social experiment called the United States of America back in 1776. In fact, to give us all an idea of the magnitude of said sacrifice, here's a breakdown of the sheer massiveness of the American sacrifice placed on the altar of freedom over the past 229 years ("major" wars only; information via wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page):

Revolutionary War (1775-1783)/ 6,824 killed in action
War of 1812 (1812-1815)/ 2,260 killed in action
Mexican War (1846-1848)/ 1,733 killed in action
Civil War (1861-1865)/ 359,528 killed in action*
Spanish-American War (1898)/ 2,446 killed in action
World War I (1914-1918)/ 126,000 killed in action**
World War II (1939-1945)/ 405,399 killed in action***
Korean War (1950-1953)/ 54,000 killed in action
VietnamWar (1963-1975) 58,000+ killed in action****
Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)/148 killed in action*****
Iraq War (2003-???)/ 1,657 killed in action******

*: only counting the Union lost, not concerned about Confederates in any way, shape or form.
**: WWI began in 1914, but U.S. didn't officially put "boots on the ground" until 1917.
***: again, WWII began in 1939, U.S. didn't get involved (really) until 1941.
****: Vietnam had been at war for a thousand years, and had been battling the French since 1945 (with U.S. assistance). French got out in 1954 (after fall of Dien Bien Phu), U.S. took their place and sent in "advisors" under President Eisenhower, but President Kennedy really ramped it up when he sent even more advisors in 1963. However, it went "full-tilt" in 1965 when President Johnson had the Marines land at Da Nang marking the beginning of the American "full-court press".
*****: hostilities didn't officially kick off until January 1991, but (for all intents and purposes) the war began with Operation DESERT SHIELD in 1990.
******: the Iraq War sadly continues, thus the KIA toll continues to rise.

Grand Total of U.S. KIA = roughly 1,017,995 Americans killed in action (and these are only those Americans killed in what are called the "MAJOR" wars...doesn't include the sacrifices made during the smaller wars, i.e., the Barbary Pirates conflict, the Black Hawk War, all the Indian Wars, the Banana Wars,Grenada, Panama, etc).

And the sacrifice continues, every day in Iraq...every, single day (although, this war AIN'T about freedom as most of us know it, it's really about another seven-letter word spelled "P-R-O-F-I-T-S"...but that's a discussion for another time). No, good people, freedom is certainly NOT free. Take care and keep the memories of these Americans that gave the ultimate sacrifice (and their families) close in your thoughts and in your hearts this Memorial Day 2005. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-29T06:41:00.000-07:00

The Era of the Gut-Busting, Muther-Loving Navy War Is Over, a/k/a, Beware the Rise of the Infernal Chickenhawks

A grand and glorious good morning to all aboard the blog. Today's brief topic will be on the rise of the chickenhawks, a most vile and intolerable breed of human that must be called out and pushed to the margins of society for the sake of the Republic. But, first, allow me to do some house-cleaning and post a review on the biggest story (in my opinion) of the week: King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was hospitalized (http://www.ameinfo.com/61156.html) after experiencing distress due to a serious infection in the lungs that has exacerbated the King's many other health problems...at least that's what the SPA (the Saudi Press Agency, the official press organization of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, http://www.spa.gov.sa/newsar.htm) is telling the world...who knows what's really going on in the Kingdom. Of course, oil prices (always as nervous as a chihuahua and hyper-sensitive to any disturbances in "the Force") went ape upon hearing the news of the King's health condition (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/2992.html). If the King, already 82 years old and in bad health since his stroke in 1995 (upon which time, real control of the Kingdom was transferred to his half-brother, Crown Prince Abdullah. So, for all intents and purposes, although not officially stated by Saudi Arabia, Abdullah has been effectively "running the show" since 1995, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1894793.stm), does shuffle off of this mortal coil, than Abdullah (per the line of succession) would become king; but, alas, therein lies the rub. Abdullah himself is already 81 years old (although, there is some contention in terms of his real age, but officially, he is 81 years old), which means he won't be sitting in "the big chair" for very long. Thus, one can easily see the crux of the problem the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is facing...which is, who will lead Saudi Arabia into the 21st century and (more importantly) what philosophy/ideology will control the direction of the world's largest oil producer. In short, we are looking at the real possibility of serious domestic (as well as, international) ramifications when the time comes for the House of Saud to choose a successor to the brothers Fahd and Abdullah; and it is most certainly NOT hyperbolic to say such a transition has the potential to turn the already "egg-shell walking" Kingdom (in terms of all of its internal/domestic fissures and cracks) inside-out and upside-down. Now, with all of that said, on to the chickenhawks. A loyal reader of the blog, by the name of Maddaline, inadvertently got my mind to thinking about chickenhawks the other day. I personally find Maddaline's wit and charm refreshing and I hope she (or, perhaps he?) continues to enjoy the blog. Chickenhawks are those people that will beat the drums of war the loudest, but send others off to be severely maimed, wounded and/or killed in their stead, i.e., Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc, etc. Moreso, they tend to find shelter and a home in the ranks of the GOP. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ, http://lautenberg.senate.gov/), a World War II veteran, has been at the forefront in terms of calling these bastards out and lambasting them on the Senate floor for all the world to see, i.e., http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/28/Senate.military/ (in fact, the photo above is that of Senator Lautenberg pointing at "The Chickenhawk" illustration on the easel before the United States Senate, http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/chickenhawk.html). So, as we enter this Memorial Day holiday and as our thoughts (appropriately)
turn to those many veterans that gave what Lincoln called "...the last full measure of devotion..." (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/getty.html) let us also turn our collective noses up with contempt for those chickenhawks (Republicans for the most part) that will gladly beat the drums of war and rattle so many sabers; but, when the trumpet calls for battle, they are none to be seen. You know, there's another word to describe chickenhawks. In fact, this word has been bandied about and used for centuries to describe people that will call for war, but when the time comes to actually go to war, will not serve...the word is coward. Take care and remember, like the Billy Ray Cyrus song states: "...all gave some, but some gave all". Semper Fidelis

2005-05-27T06:54:00.000-07:00

Democrats Hold the Line: Forward Movement of Advancing Bolton Nomination Halted
Praise be! Good morning to all of the faithful aboard the blog on this glorious day. What am I so excited about? Well, just in case you haven't heard the good news, here it goes: the John Bolton for U.N. ambassador nomination has been halted in the U.S. Senate...the Democratic grand strategy of of attrition in this political war is taking hold! Those wonderful Senators (vast majority being Democrats) have shown (once again) that we still have a whole lot of juice and with a little more effort, we can slam dunk this guy for all time! In fact, the 'Washington Post' is reporting yesterday's events this way (www.washingtonpost.com, dated 26 May 2005):

"The vote marked another setback for the troubled nomination that has become a test of President Bush's political clout in his second term".

First, I must say kudos and "huzzah" to the Senate Democrats, especially to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) being one of them (Sen. Obama has come "out of the blocks" representing in an honorable fashion since jump street, http://obama.senate.gov/). By doing what they did, those Senate Democrats had the guts, temerity and fortitude to throw a tremendous monkey-wrench into the GOP works (not to mention putting a significant dent in the current Administration's enormous ego...mandate my foot) and muck-up the conservative neocons misguided fantasy dreams of seeing this guy positioned as our next ambassador to the United Nations. Be advised, this stunning event in NO WAY guarantees the Bolton nomination will be defeated (although, as Republican support in the Seante begins to dwindle for this clown, i.e., GOP Sen. Thune of South Dakota today stating that he will no longer supprt the Bolton nomination, http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,40003, it's looking more and more like the Bolton nomiantion is on some form of life-support) yesterday's action on part of Senate Democrats was still outstanding and inspiring in every way. In summation, I am so happy to hear the news this morning that it's looking more and more like John R. Bolton, the President's uber-flawed nominee for the position of U.N. ambassador, may be on his way out the door. Of course, the real momentum for these turn of event is precipitated on Senator George Voinovich's (R-OH) stellar performance about a month ago (a modern day "profile of courage", if you ask me, http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11455292.htm) vis a vis shutting down the voting process and putting the brakes on Bolton so Voinovich and his staff could do some more "research" on the nominee ("research" is a code word that meant Voinovich wanted to dig into whether or not Bolton is really the major league a**hole that everybody is saying he is...trust me, he is!). In fact, Senator Voinovich is quoted as saying the following concerning the Bolton nomination: "...People are discounting the fact that I say that interpersonal skills and the way one treats their fellow man is important. But it is important. It's important that you know how to get along with other people and that you treat people with dignity and respect...". Senator Voinovich's actions, in conjunction with the White House circling the wagons "all panicky and herky-jerk" (just like they did with the doomed nominations of Linda Chavez and Bernard Kerik) were already key indicators that Bolton 's nomiantion was "wobbly", at best. Of course, all of this (along with former Secretary of State General Colin Powell's damning input a few weeks ago, http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3147352) certainly does not help Bolton's case. With all of this weight bearing down, it's really starting to look as though Bolton's nomination has been gutted and neutralized. What's so fascinating about Colin Powell is that BEFORE he joined the Bush Administration in 2001, his favorability ratings (in terms of the American people's perception) were stratospheric, I'm talking golden (http://www.jointcenter.org/2000_election/2000_NOP.pdf). Of course, some of that gold was tarnished DURING/AFTER his tenure in Bush's jacked-up cabinet as Secretary of State due to the fantastical, magical thinking-like and downright crazy twists/turns the Bush Adminstration put the poor man through, i.e., placing Powell as the front-man for Bush's calamity of a Middle Eastern foreign policy, as well as being paraded before the U.N. (with George Tenet and John Negroponte in tow) to convince the world that war against Iraq was justified, etc. Yet, upon Powell's wise decision to leave the "insane-clown posse" that is the Bush Administration and return to civilian life (and to his Volvos and baseball), Powell's star, popularity and respect level are back on the rise (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=935). It seems as though the American people understand that Powell (who is usually soaring with the eagles) was, unfortunately at the time, dealing with a bunch of GOP/neocon turkeys; the American people seem to sympathize with Powell and his plight and understand he was at odds with the madness of the White House from the very beginning and, more times than not, was up against the wall and in the proverbial "doghouse". In short, this is why I believe Powell's comments and opinions (in terms of Bolton's character and personality traits), as well as all the other variables that are battering Bolton about the head, neck and shoulders, have extreme gravitas, have resonated throughout the corridors of Congress and have ended up making a tremendous impact (even moreso than the President's input and political clout, in this case). Bolton's defeat will be an amazing victory, not only for the Democratic Party (again, in showing that we are still a vigorous, vibrant and vital political organization that still knows how to outflank our enemies and cut their legs out from under them)...way more important then that, it will be a victory for the American people who won't have a Wyatt Earp-looking, pompous, arrogant, GOP knuckle-dragging a**hat for a U.N. ambassador. The times we are living in cry out for tough diplomacy, to be sure. But, these times also cry out for diplomacy that is also compassionate and sensitive (especially culturally-sensitive) and not the kind of brazen, roughshod and "a**hole-ish" diplomacy that Bolton oozes out of every orifice and pour of his being. Bottom line, the guy is a jerk...much like the guy that nominated him. But, you know what they say, birds of a feather flock together. Bye, bye Bolton, nothing personal, strictly professional; or, don't go away mad, just go away. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-26T07:40:00.000-07:00

It is Time for Democrats and Liberals to Strike Back
Good morning to all of the faithful. This will be a quick post/rant and then I'm out. The photo above is of Marines learning basic fighting skills...Democrats should be learning the same thing (both figuratively and, perhaps even, literally). Be that as it may, allow me to touch on a topic that bothered me a few months ago and (surprise, surprise) continues to vex me to this very day. I have been noticing for a while now (over the last few months actually) how it seems the GOP has a new semantic strategy in that they are now referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat" Party. Has anyone else out there noticed this sad, fascist GOoPer attempt at doublespeak? This really came home during the "great week" when the Ohio electors were contested in Congress (thank goodness for Sen. Boxer and Rep. Tubbs-Jones, http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010705V.shtml and http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0502/050220.htm). A number of GOoPers (both in the House and the Senate) continuously referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat" Party; at the time (and today, for that matter) I found this to be jarring and obnoxious and (as far as I was concerned) the last straw. Those bastards will stop and nothing to try to erode what so many have stood up for and (sadly) been felled for. It's like the GOP has been taken over by a gang of sophomoric, pubescent boys giggling and thinking of little smartass ways of operating and sniping at their opponents. So, in the great spirit of bipartisanship, I propose that all good Democrats begin referring to the Republican Party as the "Republic" Party. It certainly will take the sting out of their sad attempt at undermining what the Democratic Party is all about.This is what I'll be doing. There's a kind of justice that one feels when you say "Republic" Party for the first time. Fight fire with fire I always say. Don't kid yourselves, this is war. Heck, that's how they see it. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-23T19:14:00.000-07:00

U.S. Says Absolutely No to Bilateral Talks with North Korea...Unless, Of Course, Those Talks Are on a "Freebie" Friday.
Good evening to all aboard the blog. This will be another unusual post due to the fact that it is night time and not the early morning. Haven't posted in awhile because of all the commotion swirling around in my personal areas of operation. With that said, let me make a quick post and then I' m out. Wanted to touch on the fact that the current Administration, although all along stating that it would NOT participate in bilateral talks with the North Koreans (repeat: WOULD NOT participate, http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=3703) did just that last Friday, 20 May 2005 (link is as follows http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=782405). In short, in a break from long-standing U.S. policy, the United States engaged in bilateral talks with the North Korean government last Friday. Folks, this is bullshit diplomacy and, moreover, a bullshit(and confusing, I might add) foreign policy. You know, it's funny, I recently spoke with Mr. John Pike, founder and director of Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/pike.htm); easily one of the finest sources of military and foreign policy intelligence in existence today (www.globalsecurity.org). I spoke with Mr. Pike via telephone about a week before the current Administration decided to knuckle-under, kowtow and engage in what must be described as a confusing and byzantine foreign policy when it comes to the North Korean regime vis-a-vis bilateral talks (http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3377963). My question for Mr. Pike was why was the North Korean situation's "countdown counter" at such a high time number (opposed to the lower time number I thought was more representative and indicative of the seriousness of the situation, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)? Mr. Pike's response to my question was that the clock was set at the correct time, in his opinion, and he went on to add that he was more inclined to increase the time alloted (in terms of the time left before a major showdown) rather then decrease the time. Mr. Pike also went on to explain that as far as he was concerned (based on his own sound analysis, as well as, the analysis and observations of colleagues) the current Administration knows full well there isn't a viable solution to the present crisis on the Korean peninsula in terms of a practical, military solution. Although I disagreed with Mr. Pike's assessment initially, the current Administration's "about-face" via dealing with North Korea's nuclear proliferaton by way of engaging in what can only be honestly characterized as "bilateral talks" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7889414/), has caused me to begin to see Mr. Pike's point. It's interesting, the Bush, Jr. Administration likes (in deed, LOVES) to talk tough, in order to rake in the political points. Yet, when it's time to deal with the realities of situations, they continuously shrink and fall back (in terms of foreign policy, as well as, domestic policy for that matter) like the hypocrites and amateurs they really are. Where are we headed? It's anyones guess, but with the current Administration clearly unable to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time (especially in the foreign affairs/foreign policy arena), it's looking more and more like the Korean peninsula will be nuclearized by the end of this year. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-18T19:54:00.000-07:00

A Movie I Want to See Made: 'Grant', with Robin Williams in the Lead Role
Evening to all aboard the blog. This is an unusual post for me, in that it is the evening opposed to the morning. But, there was so much going on today that I was unable to post. However, there are a number of things I'd like to touch on before hitting the rack, so here it goes. First off, allow me to extend a hearty "bravo zulu"(http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq101-2.htm) to newly-elected Los Angeles mayor and Progressive champion, Antonio Villaraigosa. In this rematch, Villaraigosa secured a landslide victory and now (being that he is mayor of the second largest city in the United States, as well as, being an Hispanic mayor of a major city on the national and international stage, etc, etc.) has a national stage on which to spread his Democratic/Progressive message. I will have to admit that the initial returns had me a bit worried, with Villaraigosa and his opponent, James K. Hahn, looking to be neck and neck. But, much to my delight (and many other fellow Villaraigosa supporters I would imagine), those first returns were absentee and early voting votes and once the days actual votes started to come in from the precincts, it was evident that Villaraigosa was going to have a landslide victory on his hands. Poor incumbent James K. Hahn, he now goes down as the first L.A. mayor since 1933 to be defeated in his first term (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=769133). You know, based on reports, it seems like Hahn never really connected with the city and his resounding defeat at the polls yesterday pretty much hammered that assertion home. With the finally tally being 59% to 41% (the Los Angeles electorate has most assuredly handed Antonio Villaraigosa a mandate, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-18-voa54.cfm). Yes, extended congratulations to Antonio Villaraigosa and his staff are definitely in order here for executing a brilliant and successful campaign that resulted in a stunning victory. Once again, congratulations and good luck Mr. Mayor-elect Villaraigosa...like the campaign worker told Governor Jack Stanton after he was elected President in 'Primary Colors', "...now don't break our hearts". My second comment concerns the situation with the 'Newsweek' story which broke earlier in the week concerning the desecration of Muslim holy items aboard the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the serious consequences and implications that resulted from said incident/story. In fact, a reader of this blog (who will remain anonymous) gave me a fit because he was disappointed I didn't touch on the story and by not doing so (in his opinion) I have, by default, allied myself with the terrorists by virtue of my silence on the matter. Well, I'm very flattered and appreciative this individual is reading my blog...thanks alot. I do, however, take grievance with the accusation that, because I didn't address the 'Newsweek' situation (fast enough apparently), I am now in cahoots with the common enemies of our common country. Sir, that is a ridiculuous charge and I think most (if not all) reasonable people would dismiss such a charge as nonsensical drivle. Concerning the 'Newsweek' fiasco, let me say this: I believe, with every fibre of my being, that 'Newsweek' got the story correct and that the White House's attempt at squashing the truth (by heavily leaning and putting maximum pressure on 'Newsweek' to retract the story) is disturbing to say the very least. I'll even go you one further: the Bush, Jr. Administration, by putting the screws on 'Newsweek', is once again trying to muscle, intimidate and bully the Fourth Estate simply because it (the current Administration) cannot handle the truth. In short, the current numb-skulls running the Executive branch want everyone to be as deluded and truth-averse as they are and, like they did Dan Rather and CBS News right before the 2004 election, they are resorting to threats to have their way (although, in my opinion, Dan Rather and CBS News were also correct in their reporting). In the case of CBS News, yes, the methodology was slipshod; but, the essence of the story, i.e., that Bush, Jr. failed to fulfill his military obligation in a way that, at best, raises suspicion and at worst, may have been criminal, was right on target. Unfortunately, CBS News buckled under the massive amount of heat the White House was doling out...but again, the ESSENCE of Dan Rather's report, in terms of the current President's derelection of duty in the Texas Air National Guard, was extremely accurate and on point; and (in fact) since then, the report has been substantiated by numerous other factual accounts (http://gnn.tv/articles/111/The_Lynching_of_Dan_Rather). So, again, my assessment of the 'Newsweek' situation is: 'Newsweek', in reporting that alot of fishy stuff is going down concerning Islamic holy items being desecrated at the Gitmo terrorist detention facility, IS ACCURATE...heck, we know some funky crap is going on down there in the name of intelligence acquisition and national security. Indeed, for all of us who have served in the armed forces, we can EASILY see some enlisted (or, officer personnel for that matter) individual trying to flush a holy book down the toilet or even worse. So, yes (in my estimation), the 'Newsweek' report is accurate, the White House knows that it's true, but the White House (per their m.o./modus operandi) is desperately trying to keep the truth tamped down as much as possible. But, like Ben Bradlee and the 'Washington Post' did circa 1972/1973, it looks as though the big-wigs/editors at 'Newsweek' are "...standing by their boys..." (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107249/ and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/19221/4742). Good for them! My last comment concerns an idea for a movie that I've had for quite sometime. Bottom line, is I want to see an epic picture about the life of Ulysses S. Grant produced in the near future and I want to see Robin Williams in the starring role. Not only is Robin Williams a great, GREAT artistic and dramatic talent whose range could certainly reach what is required to play the military savior of the Union and 18th President of the United States but he is also a dead-ringer for Grant (at least in my humble opinion). After reading Grant's memoirs a few years back (got the book as a Christmas gift, started reading it immediately and didn't finish until the May-June time frame. The book I have is in a footlocker right now, but if memory serves I believe it is a little over 770 pages...just an awesome, awesome read, http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page165.html). In fact, I sort of super-imposed their likenesses against each other so folks could appreciate the physical similarities vis-a-vis Grant and Williams. And, I'd also like to see Captain Dale Dye (www.warriorsinc.com) in the picture as well. Captain Dye brings a wealth of knowledge and espirit de corps that would certainly help bring added flavor to a film of this magnitude. Again, someone out there please make this happen...an epic picture (on the scale of 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Glory', 'Saving Private Ryan', etc.) that covers Grant's life from 1822 to 1885 (with the Civil War, of course, having the lion's share of the film time...or perhaps, focus the entire film on Grant's Civil War experience of 1861-1865...regardless, it would be a wonderful production). Either way, it is time (especially now, in these perilous times when we need to see great, epic films about courage, character and strength of heart) for a great movie about a great American, General Ulysses S. Grant, to be produced and put on the big screen...with Robin Williams in the starring role. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-17T07:57:00.000-07:00

The Day of Reckoning: Villaraigosa and the Progressive Movement's March to Victory
Good morning to all. Got a late start this morning, so I'm going to post and get out of here. Well, today is the day...the run-off in Los Angeles that will determine the next mayor of that great city (the second largest city in the country). The race is between the incumbent, James K. Hahn, versus Antonio Villaraigosa (http://www.antonio2005.com/), the Progressive favorite. After trouncing the field on 8 March 2005, Mr. Villaraigosa (in an upset of significant proportions, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/09/state/n044705S54.DTL) brilliantly gained the majority vote and never looked back. With Mr. Villaraigosa ahead in the polls, the race is looking like it is his to win or lose (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0511/p01s01-uspo.html). Yes, we have finally arrived at the "battle royale" between these two, municipal behemoths to determine the course and direction of America's second largest city. This is Mr. Villaraigosa's second attempt at securing the L.A. "top job"(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4554873.stm) and it is certainly looking more and more like the second time is going to be the charm, at least in Mr. Villaraigosa's case. As an historical footnote, if and when Mr. Villaraigosa wins tonight, he will be the first Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles in 133 years, since Cristobal Aguilar (http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=2092) held the job way back in 1872 (http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/4497397/detail.html); and if you ask me, it's about time and long over-due. Yes, yes I know the 2005 L.A. mayoral race is Democrat against Democrat (which is pretty refreshing, to be honest about it) with the contenders for the office being (again) Democrats Antonio Villaraigosa and James K. Hahn. However, Antonio Villaraigosa is the only candidate (in my opinion) that is not only talking about building bridges but has already demonstrated, in real life and in real terms, the hands-on experience of building bridges between multiple communities...and as far as this devildog is concerned, that's what it is all about. All the pretense and horses**t can go out the window...it's simply all about working people pulling together, cutting through the wedge issues and forming alliances that will allow them to lead better lives. That's what Villaraigosa is talking about and (more importantly) that's what he's been talking about his entire political career, based on what I've read on the man (http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/publish/article_2557.php ). I'm really pulling for him and hoping that he will win today, and win decisively (no "photo finishes", although we'll take victory any way we can get it) which will mean winning by a landslide (or close to a landslide; either way, such a victory will certainly mean a mandate). Today's results will be found at the following link, http://cityclerk.lacity.org/clk/election/Results.htm. In closing, I want to say good luck Mr. Villaraigosa, your victory will resonate and resound far outside of the city limits of Los Angeles and the surrounding Los Angeles area; in fact, a victory will positively impact millions of good people hungry for real inspiration and real leadership in this time where both are (due, in large part, to the "leaderless-ship" exhibited by the current office-holders in the White House) noticeably and regrettably absent from the American political landscape. Semper Fidelis.

2005-05-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

America is a Rudderless Ship of State, or, My Fellow Democrats/Progressives...It's Time for War to be Our Judge: Political Warfare and Our Quest to Take Back the American Republic
Morning to all. Had some pretty bad storms pass through here last night, but this morning the sun has come out. Above is a photo of American soldiers in Iraq despondent over the fact they don't have the phone services to allow them to communicate with their friends, family and loved ones back home. The photo struck a cord with me in that it represents exactly how I (and, I would think, so many other Progressives/Democrats) feel about the current state of affairs in our beloved country. In essence, we are a rudderless nation, gliding adrift on the ocean of life with (it seems) no one of any real competence at the helm; the only competent members of the current Administration (i.e., Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill, Christy Todd Whitman, etc.) have all bailed. Case in point was the situation last week in the nation's capital when an unknown aircraft was approaching the highly-restricted Washington, D.C. airspace (http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=518358&nid=25). In a nutshell, the District (already on pins and needles since 9/11, and understandably so!) went absolutely ape-wild with fear and panic; all the while, the President, who was blissfully ignorant of the situation, was riding his bike in the suburbs of D.C. and reading a book of fiction. In fact, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/) fleshes it out more and reports the following:

After the evacuation of the White House and Congress a few days ago, we learned President Bush was off mountain biking. But for those worried the president wasn't busy during the middle of a work day, the Washington Post reports Bush also took some reading with him: "In a photo taken just after the ride, Bush is holding what appears to be a copy of I Am Charlotte Simmons, the Tom Wolfe novel about debauchery on a college campus."

Folks, is it me or is this just crazy?!? This is so disturbing that I'm really unable to expound on it any further without going bonkers myself. Again, this is where we are people, this is our present state of affairs...President's of the United States glibly bicycling in the wooded suburbs of the D.C. metropolitan area, with fiction novels in tow, while the nation's capital is going beserk and in utter chaos...that's leadership? Sounds more like a page out of Emperor Nero's playbook to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero). But, how silly, what am I thinking...it's his world isn't it...don't worry be happy, right...not a care on God's green earth ('Bush on the Couch' goes into further detail concerning the psyche of the current officeholder, http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html). Geez, this is batshit crazy! Also, the situation in Iraq sadly continues to deteriorate from bad to worse on a daily basis as the insurrgents continue to attack and destroy targets and human life wantonly, while U.S forces look more and more impotent in terms of neutralizing and stemming the terrorist tide (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4553556). Folks, to put it plainly: the death toll is rising daily (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0512iraq-main12.html), the Iraqi War is beginning to encroach seriously on, and dangerously close to the Syrian border (http://www.itv.com/news/world_205422.html) and we've now reached a tempo and crescendo of violence in the war/insurrgency where whole Marine squads (fyi: Marine squad equals 12-15 Marines, http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/SLSeries/ssdm.html) are being destroyed in one fell swoop (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11683&l=i&size=1&hd=0). Day after day, it continues to look as if the whole ball of wax is spinning more and more out of control. Simply put, our current "leadership" (and I use that term loosely, quite frankly) are the wrong leaders for this time in American history...they are simply out of touch (generally speaking) with what it means to be an American citizen vis-a-vis the common people and the common welfare. They just don't hurt and bleed for the masses...and (more disturbingly) they don't even know how. This batch of elite GOP/Republican leaders (from the President on down) are, at a fundamental level, UNABLE to relate to the common man. Why is this the case? Well, primarily because Republicans simply have access to too much money and are too insulated (both culturally/socially and financially) from what it means to be a real American that is living, breathing and struggling in the early 21st century! To be sure, Republicans show who they really are every time they raise millions of dollars in a single day. The Bush CREEP (Committe to Re-elect the President) raised millions upon millions of dollars in support of President Bush's re-election bid; in fact, the Republicans demonstrated their "money-grubbing" prowess by raising $5.7 million dollars in one day (on or about 23-24 June 2003), and over $2 million in North Carolina the following day http://www.wral.com/news/3496711/detail.html. Bush raised an unprecedented $100 million in the 2000 campaign and he raised an outrageous $100-200 million for the 2004 campaign, link is as follows http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-08-11-bush-usat_x.htm. This kind of fundraising simply dwarfs any and all attempts at fundraising by Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party as a whole. But, therein lies our advantage as Democrats, as the true party of the people and the worker/laborer class…and we must stress this point to the American people. The Republican Party will always (underscore always) be able to out raise and out spend the Democrats because that’s what Republicans are all about…in short, Republicans are the money people. They are the party that represents the well-connected and the extremely comfortable. They are the party representative of those Americans that are simply awash, saturated, and waterlogged in money, wealth, power and influence. Whether it be through legtimate means or war profiteering (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5326), the GOP has absolutely no scruples when it comes to financial acquisition. Listen, how can wealthy Republicans, who have access to such enormous sums of money, ever relate to the average working American? The 'Sun News' op-ed article (http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion by Susan Estrich (dated 11 February 2005) goes into more detail regarding this matter. The following is an excerpt from the article:

"...the richer you are, the more likely you are to be a Republican. Most very, very rich people are Republicans. Business PACs vastly outnumber labor PACs, and they favor Republicans."

Writer Robert Scheer also touches on the same subject matter in his 'Sun News' op-ed article titled, "Reforms: GOP makes gifts to big business" (dated 25 February 2005) at http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion. Again, the question begs to be asked: how can Republicans TRULY relate to the American who is struggling to make their car note, the American that’s struggling to pay their rent every month, the American that is desperately trying to keep food on the table and keep their children clothed? How can they POSSIBLY relate? The answer is they can’t! This message must be hammered home over and over until it finally takes hold in the American voters psyche! In essence, the Republicans advantage in the financial realm can prove to be their most formidable disadvantage in the upcoming elections (2006 and 2008). Democrats MUST get about the business of "busting chops" and turning the GOP's financial advantage into that party's worst disadvantage by sound tactical political maneuvering. This might sound nuts, but I'm not talking to Republicans anymore in terms of trying to convince them that their philosophy/ideology is off-base. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, they're the enemy...and it is time for political war to be our judge...the book 'Before the Shooting Begins' by James Davison Hunter touches on this very topic (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/public.html). Give them the black flag ladies and gents; show no quarter, politically, to Bolton, DeLay and the rest of their ilk. We must defeat them and marginalize them for generations...it is no hyperbole to say they've done so much (TOO MUCH) damage! But, it's not too late, we can fix it...the damage is not irreparable, at least not yet. Like the great military genius Sun Tzu stated over 2,000 years ago in his treatise 'The Art of War' (http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html): "...After that, comes tactical maneuvering, than which there is nothing more difficult. The difficulty of tactical maneuvering consists in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain". I hear the horn of battle, we can win this thing...let's go Democrats! Semper Fidelis

2005-05-12T07:08:00.000-07:00

It's the Lack of American Leadership a/k/a The Shame of It All: Marine Corps Leadership Callously Allows Delivery of Worst Possible News to Parents of Slain Marine on Mother's Day

Good morning to all. Folks, I'm hot this morning...stark, raving angry! First let me say this: I love the Marine Corps ...I love it down to the very epicenter of my being. I always wanted to be a Marine and was absolutely ecstatic when I became a Marine at MCRD San Diego in the summer of 1996. Everybody who knows me will testify my love for the Corps is true and strong. But you know what...loving something/someone doesn't always mean playing cheerleader all the time. Sometimes loving something/someone means telling it like it is, looking the loved one/thing straight in the eye and letting loose...warts and all and come what may. In fact, I'm so upset about this I can't see straight. What am I enraged about? In short, finding out the Marine Corps delivered the tragic news of the death of a Marine to his loved one's on Mother's Day, Sunday/8 May 2005 (incident took place in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05131/502414.stm). There's no other way to describe this as other than insensitive, callous and wrong. The Marine Corps was simply wrong to deliver the news of the death of a fellow Marine to his parents (especially his mother) last Sunday on Mother's Day. See this is the kind of crap that really tears my drawers. When I first heard the scuttlebutt (that the Corps actually sent out casualty officers on Mother's Day, of all days)...I didn't believe it...I couldn't believe it...impossible...not my beloved Corps. But, after more facts came to light, the harsh reality set in. Folks, this is some bullshit!!! This is simply outrageous and wholly unbecoming of an organization as auspicious and honorable as the United States Marine Corps. There aren't enough adjectives in the English language to describe how I'm feeling about this...the disappointment, the shame, the anger. Yes, I know mission accomplishment supersedes troop welfare (http://www.oo-rah.com/store/editorial/edi43.asp)...the Corps is forever talking about mission accomplishment overriding troop welfare; but folks, this is taking that principle too far...I mean this is beyond ridiculous. How indifferent to pain and insenstive to basic human emotion can you get? Was it really necessary to come out on Mother's Day and drop a bomb like that? Come on guys! Newsflash ladies and gents, this ain't how you win the PR battle with America's parents nor is it how you win the friends and influence the people you want to join our beloved Corps. The Marine Corps (like the Army) is already hurting in not reaching its recruiting goals (in other words, it's not pulling in as many bright, shiny and eager faces as it wants and/or needs, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/) and this gesture of shocking indifference certainly will not help. Who (in their right mind) wants to join an organization that is so "ass-holish" as to deliver news of a loved ones demise in the service of Corps and country on Mother's Day? Or Father's Day for that matter? What's next, Thanksgving Day and Christmas?!? No, believe me, no one is going to want to serve in an organization that shows little or no understanding of basic human empathy, sensitivity and/or understanding; see, this is another sign/indicator of how the current Admnistration's lack of leadership skills has trickled down to every level of government and has gone on to permeate throughout the country as a whole. One first has to come to the disturbing understanding that our current President is emotionally-impaired (in other words, socially-maladjusted/maladapted, especially when it comes to being able to relate to people in a real, very fundamental and empathetical way). We've seen numerous examples of the current President's emotional handicap and detachment, i.e., not allowing video/pictures of U.S. war dead coming home, not attending any funerals of U.S. war dead, going on vacation and having a good time while American troops are deep "in the shit", telling Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on" (which the insurgents did, in fact, do...thus increasing U.S. casualties) etc. You see, leadership is REALLY the only "trickle-down economic"; that's how leadership works, it tends to "trickle-down" to the lower levels of an organization or organized body. In essence, leadership is the rhythm of any organization or nation, it is both overarching and pervasive...in short, leadership SETS THE TONE for any organized body, be it a military, a business, a nation, whatever it is. For example, it should be no surprise under the brutally indifferent leadership of the current commander-in-chief, the following asininities happened (or, are happening) under his watch (in no particular order): the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse), the Guantanamo Bay POW camp abuses, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4539477.stm (i.e., sexually-themed techniques used at Gitmo in the interrogation of Islamic prisoners of war, Islamic holy book desecration and disrespect, security techniques that are way outside the parameters called upon by the Geneva Conventions and on and on...outrageous! These atrocities MAY garner short-term intelligence gain, but these tactics certainly don't take into account the long-term, geopolitical consequences...winning the war on terrorism?!?...shucks, we're LOSING the war on terrorism!), trying to push a dumb-a** and bankrupt Social Security "reform" plan that would literally leave who knows how many senior citizens out in the cold, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=734635 (be it now or in the near future, either way Bush's plan will cut alot of senior citizens loose at a time in life when people need MORE help, not less!), huge tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the average American thus driving the nation into a financial ditch(http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/11532929.htm), policies that promote drilling in places like ANWR and other natural preserves thus wrecking the environment all in the name of hydrocarbon acquisition (http://progressivetrail.org/articles/050504Hartmann.shtml), the disgust that was the Enron scandal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron (you know, all those COO's and CEO's, CIO's and CFO's that were absolutely C-U-C-K-O-O)...those big-time Republican stalwarts and Republican contributors like Andrew Fastow and his wife, along with Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, et al. were simply allowed to run ape-shi* wild at the expense of so many American citizen's personal and financial security (in fact, all of those bastards should be escorted to the nearest guillotine ASAP, with all of their countless victims chanting "this way motherf***ers", http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/020127enron.htm) and so on and so forth. Now, the sickness has infected my beloved Corps (sending casualty officers to a home on Mother's Day...that's just plain wrong). See, what we have here are people looking at the current leadership, picking up on the callousness vibe exuded by that leadership and then saying subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously): "...that's what he wants, that's how he rolls and operates...I guess it's ok...if it's ok with him, then it's ok with me...I'll do it too!". All this talk about Christianity...folks, I don't see the action, I don't see them walking the walk ...I just don't see the practical application of what they espouse with such frequency! Lot of talk from on high about "on High", but the policies just don't match up with the sanctimonious rhetoric. Something is wrong here, am I the only one that feels this way? I'll tell you this, if I was in charge of the First Marine Corps District (First Marine Corps District is responsible for Pittsburgh-area Marines in this capacity, http://www.1mcd.usmc.mil/) let's just say devildog's butts would be on the carpet...Marines just don't do this kind of thing dammit! We stand for something higher....REAL Marines stand by each other and FOR each other....we DON'T stand for the kind of outrageous and vulgar behavior displayed on 8 May 2005 when Marines were dispatched to the home of a fellow Marine (who was killed in action!) to tell his mother, on Mother's Day mind you, that her son was killed in Iraq thus tainting that special day with a kind of unimaginable heartache, grief and sadness for all time. That kind of behavior might even warrant a conduct unbecoming charge (Article 133) or, at the very least, an Article 32 investigation (and, if none of those, certainly an NJP/non-judicial punishment is in order). If there are any Marines out there, tell me what you think. I think the whole thing went down foul and the Corps could have done a much better job handling the situation. But, it's sadly not surprising when you've got a leadership team as cold and hard-hearted to human suffering as the current, insane clown posse we've got in the White House right now; they clearly, and consistently, demonstrate their lack of GENUINE human empathy time and time again and (sadly) at every opportunity. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-11T07:38:00.000-07:00

Question of the Day: Why Are Republicans So Mean?
Good morning to all. It is a lovely day here in the American Southwest...clear skies and sunny (although it's pretty humid and it'll probably get up to 90 degrees today). Quick post and then I'm out, still have to shower (good PT session this morning) and then get going. The question of the day (as I've already stated) is why are Republicans so mean? Generally speaking, it seems like every Republican I've met and/or seen/heard on TV/ radio is always a real mean and ornery son-of-a-gun? You know, I'm talking about always out to get somebody, chip on the shoulder, axe to grind, mean-spirited, etc. Why is that? I mean you can feel the meanness just resonating, just oozing from their very being? Here's an example of what I'm talking about, just came down the pike this morning, http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.politics.ap/index.html. This is ridiculous, a Republican pastor running his liberal congregation members out on a rail simply because they are down with the Democratic struggle?!? That's just crazy...can you imagine that?Is it me or do others out there dig what I'm talking about? The picture above is a crazy collage (kind of a GOP Dagwood sandwich) of President Bush, Condoleeza Rice, John Bolton and Darth Vader; these folks (and one fictional character) sum up exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the sheer nastiness, bile and meanness that Republicans exude from their very core...in short, the biggest jerks around tend to be Republicans. I placed Darth Vader in my collage as a tip of respect to George Lucas, but also because I'm convinced Darth Vader would be a registered Republican if he had the opportunity to exist in reality and register to vote. Now, of course there are mean liberals/Democrats/progressives out there; but, in general, I haven't run into too many a**hole progressives, in fact they tend to be very sweet, generous and nice people. You know, the kind of folks that bleed for their fellow man. It's funny, I like to tell my GOP "friends", when they call progressives "bleeding-heart liberals" that Jesus was a bleeding-heart too...that usually shuts them up. To shed some light on this phenomenon, I'm reading a book about the psyche of the "chiefarooni Republican", titled 'Bush on the Couch' by Dr. Justin Frank, a psychiatrist at George Washington University Medical School (http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html); as the title suggests, Dr. Frank breaks down the psyche of the President and I think his observations (at a certain level) can be applied to Republicans (and the Republican mind-set) as a whole. I'm only on Chapter Three, and the book is already making me squirm a bit; to think that an individual as screwed-up as GWB could be running the big show (a/k/a our country) is beyond me. Now, of course, this is just one psychiatrist's analysis...but it sure does ring true once you start getting into the book. Again, this is a short post, but folks please offer your perspectives on this phenomenon of Republicans tending to be mean bastards, why this is and (more importantly) what are the overarching consequences/implications of such a reality on our national character and national well-being. Take care. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-10T07:27:00.000-07:00

Echoes of Cambodia: Marines "In Hot Pursuit" on the Syrian Border
Good morning to all aboard the blog. Hope all is well. Today's topic of discussion is the Iraqi War (also known as Energy War #2) and how it is slowly (but surely, mind you) spreading, expanding and is now encroaching upon the Syrian border. Before I delve into this, I first want to say that 8 May 2005 was the 60th Anniversary of V-E Day (Victory-in-Europe), or, the day the Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of all German land, air and sea forces and (effectively) thus ending World War II in the European Theatre of Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-E_Day). Of course, it would be another four months (in conjunction with a massive fire-bombing campaign and two, dropped atom bombs courtesy of Gen. Curtis LeMay and his XXI Bomber Command) before the Japanese Empire capitulated, ending World War II altogether. Yes, indeed, sixty years ago this year the most devastating war in all of human history (http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/WWII.html) came to an end. Yet, here we are sixty plus years later on the brink (potentially) of another world war. Like the Bob Dylan song, I can feel this one blowing in the wind and its labeled "coming soon to a theatre of operations near you". Ladies and gentleman, this current Administration (in my humble estimation) is maneuvering to attack Syria sometime this year. For my fellow veterans, military historians, analysts, operations officers, etc. this is not news. We've known this for awhile. It's 2005, the U.S. Presidential election is over and this is now the "mean season" in terms of increased military operations. No pesky reelection to worry about, as far as the neocons are concerned it's now time to go for broke. In fact, if I had to bet (and I'm not a betting man) the odds are far greater that the U.S. will attack Syria than attack North Korea (although it is looking more and more everyday that a "nuclearizing" North Korea is also on the chopping block). Indeed, with U.S. Marines vis a vis "Operation Matador" (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/51005-homeland-matador.html) operating as close as six-ten miles from the Syrian border (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3195764.stm), it will only be a matter of time before this thing spills over into Syria (which it probably already has) and gets blown all the hell out of shape. It's only a matter of time before Syrian forces begin to engage U.S. forces in a way that cannot be minimized or "spun-down" so as not to be politcally inflammatory or exacerbating. Once you start conducting military operations on someone else's border, you create a very rich environment for serious misunderstandings and miscommunications. So, my question is this: when (not if...when) the United States attacks Syria proper, with the primary mission (primarily) being to neutralize and eradicate insurrgent platforms/bases of operation, neutralize Ba'ath leadership elements in exile (a la follow the Ho Chi Minh Trail into Cambodia in early 1970 , http://chnm.gmu.edu/hardhats/cambodia.html), as well as, facilitate the dismantling of the Basir Assad regime...what will happen next? Will this be a blip on the radar, or will there be severe consequences in terms of America's foreign policy worldwide and especially in the Middle East? How will the Arab world react to an expansion of the Iraqi War into other corners of the Middle East? Won't it begin to look more and more like a reincarnation of the Crusades (http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/), just 21st-century style? In summation, Bush and his cronies had/have no idea what they were/are doing and I'm afraid they have set in motion events that are destined to spin out of control; as in the great film 'All the Presidents Men', we will all find ourselves like Kenneth H. Dahlberg...in the middle of something and we won't know what. Feedback and analysis encouraged. Semper Fidelis.

2005-05-07T07:07:00.000-07:00

Colonel David H. Hackworth: Farewell to an American Warrior
Welcome to all. Cloudy and overcast today in the Southwest and it'll probably rain later on in the day. Have some sad news to report, caught wind of this yesterday and I still can't believe it. Colonel David H. Hackworth, great American warrior and patriot, died in Mexico on 4 May of cancer. Colonel Hackworth was 74 years old. Oh, I can't believe it. What can I say about such an individual, about such a warrior. Col. Hackworth devoted his life and career to the service of his country in good times and bad, first (after lying about his age) joining the Merchant Marines during World War II at the tender age of 14; he then enlisted in the Army at 15 years old. Col. Hackworth went on to have a stellar 26-year career (7 of those 26 years were in full combat) in the United States Army, serving at the tale end of World War II, then in Korea and finally in Vietnam. Col. Hackworth rose from the rank of private to colonel by way of a battlefield commission in Korea (where he continued to rise to become the youngest captain in the Army) to Vietnam where he served as the Army's youngest full colonel. Col. Hackworth resigned from the Army in 1971 after declaring publicly that the war in Vietnam was "...a bad war...", "...unwinnable..." and that U.S. forces "...needed to get out...". With almost five years in-country, Col. Hackworth was the most senior American officer to give such a candid and dismal appraisal of the situation in Vietnam. After his retirement from the Army, he moved to Australia. Col. Hackworth left the Army having been nominated for the Medal of Honor three times (his last application is currently under review at the Pentagon). He was also twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (the Army's second highest honor for valor), along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars. He earned his first Silver Star and Purple Heart in Korea; however, Col. Hackworth always said he was proudest of his Combat Infantryman's Badge and eight Purple Hearts. After his Army service, Col. Hackworth continued to serve the greater human community by becoming the leading spokesman for Australia's anti-nuclear movement and, for his efforts, he was awarded the United Nations Medal for Peace. He went on to become a contributing editor for 'Newsweek' from 1990 to 1996 in which he covered the first Gulf War, plus the peacekeeping operations in Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti and on the Korean peninsula. Most recently, Col. Hackworth could be seen as a military affairs analyst/expert on numerous news programs on television and radio in that he was well recognized as an expert in the study of military science, warfare and warfighting. His column, 'Defending America', appeared weekly in newspapers throughout the country and on his awesome Web site 'Soldiers For the Truth' (www.sftt.org). I was shocked to learn, upon his passing, that Col. Hackworth had been suffering from bladder cancer for some time now. Bladder cancer is a cancer that appears quite frequently in Vietnam veterans exposed to defoliation/herbicidal agents like Agent Orange and Agent Blue (http://www.gmasw.com/ao_note1.htm). (Sidenote: that damned war is still causing casualties even to this day, so many Vietnam veterans continue to suffer to this very day...we must not forget them...we cannot forget them! Unfortunately, the same will be said about Afghnaistan and Iraq). Col. Hackworth was, in short, a warrior's warrior. He was understood to know what Ward Just, the longtime journalist and novelist, described as "the atmosphere of violence". Ward Just first met Col. Hackworth in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1966 and observed that Col. Hackworth "...knew how to keep his head, to think in danger’s midst. In battle the worst thing is paralysis. He mastered his own fear and learned how to kill. He led by example, and his men followed". Although I didn't agree with everything Col. Hackworth said/believed (especially in terms of his low opinion of General Wesley Clark, another hero of mine, http://www.hackworth.com/18may99.html), I agreed alot more with him than I disagreed. His summing up of the war in Iraq and appraisal of SecDef Rumsfeld (via Salon magazine) were spot on:

"...The retired colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "asshole" whose bad planning mired U.S. troops in an ugly guerrilla conflict in Iraq. His sources? Defiant soldiers sending dispatches from the front..."

In summation, Col. Hackworth was a warrior, anti-war activist and progressive that was more than a knuckle-dragging grunt...he actually used his mind socratically and always wanted the best for his country. Gee whiz, first the passing of Captain Frederick C. Branch (first African-American Marine officer) a few weeks ago and now the departure of Colonel David H. Hackworth...let us learn from their life example and continue to push forward. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-06T08:01:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party: The True American Patriots
Good morning to all of the faithful. It's a sunny day here. PT'd this morning too. You can always count on some good physical training to get the juices flowing, to toughen up the sinews and to clear the mind. First let me say congratulations to Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party for their victorious outcome in the British elections yesterday (http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=25467). Although not as strong an outcome as they were hoping for (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1361507.htm), yesterday's results are still a validation that the British conservative movement (the Tory Party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_Party) is either dead or comatose and that the Labour Party's socio-economic philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)) continue to be congruent with the social and political vision of the British people...hoping that same vision will eventually take hold here in the United States. On the heels of the Labour Party victory, some old questions came to mind: what is happening in America? What has happened to character, grit and strength of heart? What about integrity? What happened to honor, courage and commitment (the "Core Values" of the USMC by the way, more at http://www.ocs.usmc.mil/Used/Candidate%20Preparation.htm)? What has happened to those fine and wonderful virutes that made us the greatest country on the face of the earth? Why do I feel like my country is changing into something that is simply unrecognizable? Why are we growing softer and softer, both physically, intellectually ( http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1024398.cms) and in terms of (what I call) "youth development"(check it out at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56466-2005Feb26.html. You might need to register to read the article), while our antagonists and enemies (as a collective) are growing stronger and stronger as every day passes? Right now, the Chinese are struggling to become a world power in terms of "superpowerdom", hoping to fill the void left by the former Soviet Union; make no mistake, although not a threat now to the United States (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5612), the Chinese are getting tougher and more aggressive year after year. The Chinese certainly know how to dig deep and stay focused on a common goal. And what about the North Koreans and their social philosophy of juche (http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/English/RoJak/2/philosophy.htm) which talks about community, self-sacrfice and self-reliance? In short, what is going on here in the United States? Now, I am not above reproach...not by a long shot! There are many more things I could be doing, and eventually will be doing; but am I the only one that feels this way about what is going on around us? The present socio-political atmosphere in America reminds me of the scene in "JFK" when Kevin Costner's character, Jim Garrison, says we are through the looking glass and what's white is black and what's black is white. These are very strange and interesting times, indeed. Listen, it's time for Democrats and progressives to man the battle-lines and take the thunder to the Republicans; as the title of this post states, we Democrats are the true American patriots...the true defenders of the American republic. We need to start acting like it. The Republicans talk a good game, but they have shown (repeatedly) they don't know what in the heck they are doing. Record deficits, unending wars, more war on the horizon, etc. Geez, we are living in an era where the dumbasses are leading the smart people. Check out this link at http://www.neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&ArticleID=9717&SubSectionID=302 ; or, as Col. David Hackworth (http://www.sftt.org/) said, this is a country where "...the best and brightest are being led by the worst and the dimmest". No longer should we cower and be intimidated by those conservative clowns in their hulking SUV's and obnoxious Hummers. Screw those GOP bastards! It's time to bring the funk to all Republicans wherever they may roam. We, as Democrats (and more importantly as Americans), must stop sitting idly by and letting these clowns wreck our nation and destroy what so many have fought, died and struggled for since the inception of this great republic. One thing we must do is expose the "conservative movement" for what it really is. In other words, show the GOP's true colors, not the crap they say in sound bites, but what is really in their collective heart and soul. We must link the current Republican Party to it's much beloved confederacy of 1861 to 1865. Make no mistake friends, the present day GOP is comprised of modern day Confederates (http://www.soulofacitizen.org/articles/Confederates.htm), i.e., same principles, same philosophies; heavy on states rights, sectionalism, etc. Just like the Confederate States of America, the "neocon-hijacked" Republican Party is a dangerous threat to the idea of the American republic. They (and their ilk) always said "the south will rise again", and indeed it is trying to in the newfangled form of "compassionate conservatism" and "21st century Republican Party-ism". In fact, the modern day Republican Party is really a weird mix of pro-states rights advocates, sympathizers of 19th century Confederate philosophies and mid-twentieth century fascism (http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm) all rolled into one. Strong attacks on this point will show the American people how much old Confederate ideals and modern fascist ideologies (where the state supersedes the indvidual) are meshing, and in fact living and breathing in the hearts and minds of these modern-day “conservatives”. As I stated in a previous post, we must stop them from spreading the myth President Lincoln was a “Republican”; he was technically, but in name only when compared to today’s Republicans. Explain to the public how 21st century Republicans are actually 19th century Democrats in terms of political philosophy. Also explain how the “Big Switch” between the parties began in 1933 with the inauguration of FDR (first “modern” Democrat; with his implementation of social programs and government increases to offset the damage the Great Depression was inflicting on the nation) and ending (the process being completed) during the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980’s to early 1990's. Also, no more conceeding squat to these clowns! We can fight too! Democrats can certainly fight too!!! Yes, indeed, this is a great time to be a Democrat and a progressive! It's time to fix bayonets friends. Let's do all that we can to "flip-the-script" on this Republican juggernaut and bring this madness to an end. Don't let them fool you; we, as Democrats, are the true defenders of the spirit and philosophy of the republic...not them. Semper Fidelis

2005-05-04T07:39:00.000-07:00

By Dawn's Early Light: On the Brink of the Second Korean War
Good morning to everyone. I'm running late, way behind my schedule, so going to make a post and jet. It's a very overcast day (so far) here in the American Southwest...kind of cool and breezy out too. Listening to 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' right now...they're awesome. Topic of discussion this morning is the likelihood of an upcoming military clash on the Korean peninsula. I, like so many other "junior journalists", posted previously about the concern so many shared over the President's rather bellicose remarks during his press conference last week (28 April 2005, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10275) in terms of the effect of those statements on the North Korean leadership (especially Kim Jong-Il) and the potential for those ill-conceived statements to have far-reaching and unpalatable consequences (to say the very least). As predicted (by myself and so many others), the President's insensitive and misguided statements seemingly have exacerbated the already tenuous, delicate and fragile situation on the Korean peninsula to the point of no return (http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.11493.html); hey, maybe that's what the President wanted all along. First, North Korea (three days after the President's press conference) test-fired a short range missile in the direction of Japan on 1 May 2005 (http://i-newswire.com/pr18104.html). The missile fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan, but (as you could imagine) the gesture did not go over well, especially on the Japanese home islands. And now, we are all waiting with bated breath as rumours continue to swirl fast and furious about intelligence stating all the signs are there indicating North Korea is preparing to test a nuclear device in the near future (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1096966.cms). The stakes have become so "jacked-up" that the 'Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' (http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm) reset the current time on the nuclear clock from nine minutes-to-midnight to seven minutes-to-midnight (midnight, of course signifying nuclear war). The current time of seven minutes to midnight is the same time the clock was set at when it was first established back in 1950 (http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/) indicating that the perception of the danger of catastrophic events is on the same order as it was during the Cold War (sidenote: 1950 is the same year the first Korean War was started). In other words, we are right on the brink of going over the cliff; and with the current President and his little clown posse at the wheel, our chances of avoiding war on the peninsula aren't looking so good. If the North Koreans do (in fact) test a nuclear device, be it underground (still bad, but not as aggressive) or above-ground for all the world to see (very bad and very aggressive and indicative of a heightened, belligerent posture), the stakes on the peninsula will be at a level unseen since those early summer days of 1950. If the test should go ahead, the United States will have only three options that I can foresee; of course, there's always the "X" factor/option (representative of the unknown). But for all intents and purposes, the United States wil have three options per a North Korean nuclear test:

1) Attack North Korea-this would not be good, but the mission would (of course) be to neutralize North Korea's nuclear projection capability, as well as, their nuclear proliferation and production capability (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm). The mission would also include (no doubt) "going for broke", or, the complete deconstruction and reconstruction of the North Korean political apparatus from the top down (in other words, "Operation Adios Kim Jong Il"). This would be a bloody mess and the likelihood of the introduction and implementation of nuclear weaponry vis-a-vis mission accomplishment (on both sides, i.e., the U.S. using tactical nukes on the battlefield and North Korea using tactical nukes on the battlefield and, quite possibly, strategic nukes lobbed at Hawaii and/or the West Coast of the United States) are better than fair to middlin'. In fact, if I was a betting man (and I'm not) I'd say the odds are in favor of seeing a Second Korean War that would include the implementation of nuclear weaponry as an offensive weapons system in the tactical and strategic spheres of battle/warfare.

2) Quarantine/Blockade of North Korea- the United States could instigate and execute a naval/aerial blockade of North Korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-blockade.htm). Of course, the United States would more than likely do this under the auspice and aegis of the United Nations (to dilute the political impact and political force of the blockade, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-28-voa16.cfm) and the blockade would more than likely be called something else, i.e., international containment zone, or temporary restrictive area, etc. But either way, it would be a blockade and a blockade is an act of war; and the North Koreans are smart enough to know that the United States would be the main "mover and shaker" in the establishment of said blockade, even if such a blockade is under the cover of a United Nations action. So again, a blockade would equal an even more angry and hostile North Korea and so we find ourselves at total war's doorstep. One of the only real questions concerning the effectiveness of such an action would be, if the U.S. did slap a blockade on the North Koreans, would the Chinese (North Korea's ally and neighbor to it's north) leave it's borders open; thus allowing the North Koreans an economic lifeline that would render any blockade pretty much impotent and without much bite.

3) Strategic, surgical strikes on North Korea's nuclear weapons/proliferation sites- this would equal sorties of American air power and naval power (like Israel did to Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, http://www.rense.com/general56/kjune.htm) targeting North Korean nuclear sites with pin-point, surgical accuracy in an attempt at rendering North Korea a country that is "nuclear weapons incapable" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5026.htm). This is probably the most attractive option to many in the National Command Authority, but they know (as so many of us do) that any action on our part like that would only trigger total war. So, once again, we find ourselves at the doorstep of war.

Ladies and gentleman, in short, this is not good...not good at all. Of all the players, the South Koreans have the most to lose in my assessment. They are connected to North Korea geographically (they share the same peninsula), as well as, familially; and any war, although terrible for all those involved, would be absolutely catastrophic for the people of South Korea. To be frank, I feel so sorry for them...anytime the tempers begin to flare on the peninsula, the South Korean government (for the most part) is always quick to downplay and minimize the situation like a family that is in denial of the true proportions of a problem within its home. They do this because they have so much to lose, on so many levels, if actual war breaks out on the peninsula (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030228-dprkwar01.htm). Most older South Koreans experienced the first Korean War of 1950-1953 first hand (in that they were in-country at the time) and they KNOW what war is...and civil wars are (generally) the most vicious and cruel in terms of the sheer magnitude and brutishness; so it is no surprise that they want to avoid war with their North Korean brothers and sisters at all costs. Of course, our current President doesn't really understand that because he's lacking in brainpower. In closing, if North Korea goes ahead and conducts a nuclear test, the situation on the Korean peninsula will change overnight, both dramatically and exponentially. With a nuclear weaponized North Korea (which is clearly unacceptable, as most of the major world players have indicated), there will be no more discussion concerning "six-party talks" or any party talks for that matter...the focus will shift to the conducting of total war on the Korean peninsula. And make no mistake, the North Korean's not only have the military capability and power to "bring the funk" in a way unseen since World War II, they also have the political will...this will be nothing short of an all or nothing venture for Kim Jong Il and the North Korean regime. Last time around, North Korea had the comfort of knowing that the Soviets wouldn't allow the situation to get too out of control, but now (with the Soviet Union gone and the Chinese unlikely to enter the fray via the Yalu River like they did in October of 1950) North Korea will have to "go for the gusto" on its own, just to hold on to what it's got...and they definitely want to hold on to what they've got! In short, this will be a much tougher, determined and resolute foe than the North Korea we faced in the summer of 1950. It must be understood that there is a rancor and burning hatred in the hearts of Kim Jong Il and the North Korean leadership towards the United States that has been building for sometime now (http://militaryweek.com/archived-nokorea.shtml)
...the stakes have never been higher. The clock is ticking ladies and gents, let us hope that we haven't run out of time. Semper Fidelis

2005-04-30T07:29:00.000-07:00

Dateline 30 April 1975: North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front Forces Enter Saigon, Vietnam War Ends
Thirty years ago today, South Vietnamese military resistance collapsed, leaving Saigon to capitulate and surrender to overwhelming North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front (the NLF a/k/a the Viet Cong) forces thus ending the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War lasted from 1945-1975 for the Vietnamese people and from 1965-1975 (I say 1965 in that the Marines landed at Da Nang in 1965 as a response to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/vietnam/timeline.php) in terms of U.S. involvement. The war cost the Vietnamese some two-three million people killed and the United States suffered 58,000 killed in action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4491099.stm). Needless to say, this is a very special day; for those that served in the war and also for those that did not serve but, nonetheless, have a deep sense of the historical and human implications of the struggle that was the Vietnam War. For a war that lasted nearly thirty years for the Vietnamese people as a whole, the end came rather quickly for South Vietnam. With American military personnel no longer playing a significant strategic nor tactical role in the field since 1973 (the year of 'Vietnamization', as President Nixon called it, when the bulk of the reponsibilities of warfighting were phased over from American forces to South Vietnamese forces), the South Vietnamese slowly (but surely) were dispatched by the superior military might of the North Vietnamese Army. Two years after what can only be described (for all intents and purposes) as America's disengagement from the field of battle, the South Vietnamese Army found itself broken, tactically non-viable and unable to withstand the relentless assaults of the armies of North Vietnam. As Wikipedia states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War): "...by 1975, the South Vietnamese Army (the ARVN) stood alone against the powerful North Vietnamese Army (the NVA). Despite 'Vietnamization' and the 1972 victories against the NVA offensive, the ARVN was plagued with corruption, desertion, low wages, and lack of supplies". South Vietnam found itself in late April 1975, desperately trying to stem the juggernaut-like, southward advance of the bulk of the North Vietnamese Army as swarms of Communist forces, i.e., elements of NVA and what remained of the Viet Cong (Viet Cong pretty much gutted during the Tet Offensive of 1968, but did assist the NVA in the final offensive, http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/LocalForces.htm) surrounded the beleaguered South Vietnamese capital and attacked it from all directions. This was all part of North Vietnam's final phase offensive, known as the 'Ho Chi Minh campaign' (named for the revered leader of North Vietnam and the whole independence struggle, Ho Chi Minh, who died in 1969 and thus never saw the victory he had long struggled for). North Vietnam's plan was to capture Saigon by 1 May 1975 before the South Vietnamese could refit/regroup and defend it.The remaining American element (a small number of Americans remained in country in 1975 as a support presence, i.e., advisors, diplomats and Marines on duty at the American embassy...more of a show of moral support for the South Vietnamese government than anything else) in South Vietnam were extracted (along with those South Vietnamese that were lucky enough to exit with them) on 29 April 1975, the day before Saigon fell to the Communists (sidenote: in the early hours of 30 April, the last Marines disembarked from the American embassy as Communist forces began their final assault on the capital, http://www.fallofsaigon.org/lastto.htm). What would go down in history as a devastating defeat and stinging blow to American confidence and international prestige was, for the North Vietnamese (and Communists all over the world), a glorious victory. They had taken on the world's greatest western nation in the field of battle and, not only endured everything the American military arsenal could dish out (save the nuclear option, of course), but defeated it and sent it packing humiliated for all the world to see. To say the defeat in Southeast Asia was traumatic to the American national psyche would be an understatement. It would take the United States years to recover from the defeat of the VietnamWar, both in terms of international confidence and domestic tranquility; and it is very safe to say that many are still recovering from the wounds (both psychic, as well as, physical wounds inflicted on those that "bore the burden") some thirty plus years later. I hope all those that served and/or lost people that served during those terrible years that were the Vietnam War can find some semblance of peace and comfort on this special day marking the end of the longest and most bitter war abroad our country has ever had to endure. Let us also hope and pray that we, as an American nation, have learned some lessons from our Vietnam experience in terms of when, where, how and for how long we will engage our young men and women in terms of placing them in hostile situations and in harm's way. Semper Fidelis

2005-04-29T07:16:00.000-07:00

Bush on the Charm Offensive Once Again: Calls North Korean leader Kim Jong Il "...a Dangerous Man..."
Good morning to all, hope all is well. It's an overcast day here in the American Southwest...kind of hot, muggy and humid. First, I want to say that I am a real fan of the DailyKos website (www.dailykos.com), as I would imagine so many of you are as well. I am also one who thinks that the DailyKos site (www.dailykos.com) is, in fact, coming under frequent attack by (quite probably) hostile, conservative elements bent on muzzling yet another mechanism of fine American progressivism; in other words, I believe the site is being hacked. Hope the leadership at the Daily Kos website is able to counter the threat effectively. Just f.y.i. I wanted to put out there. This mornings topic of discussion is the President's first primetime press conference in over a year, which aired last night at 1900 hrs CDT (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=710801&page=1). I listened to it on the radio and must report that I felt less secure after the press conference than before it started. So many things were disturbing about the President's performance, i.e., how the President tried (without much success I must add) to reach for some sad attempt at humor when he stated, while discussing his anemic campaign to reconstruct Social Security, that he too would be retiring in the not-to-distant future (albeit none too soon) just like so many other baby-boomers. For the President and first-born heir to the Bush family fortune (not to mention the fact that he will be an ex-President of the United States...not too many of those ducks are below the poverty line now are they?) could actually form his mouth to compare his financial state to the financial states of millions of Americans who are going to be retiring in the near future and looking to Social Security as a life-line smacks of an arrogance and hubris unseen since the days of Marie Antoinette and her "let-them-eat-cake" debacle of the late 18th century. I really don't think it's hyperbole to say that this President has no concept (whatsoever!) of what a "fixed-income" is, let alone what it means to be a working American under his watch in the early 21st century. The other two disturbing (at least in my opinion) occurences during last nights press conference was 1) how the President kept calling Vladimir Putin (leader of the Russian Commonwealth of Independent States) "Vladi-mer" instead of the correct pronunciation of "Vladi-meer" (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/people/A0840582.html). Call me picky, but I think it's telling and goes to show a lack of diplomatic sensitivity/nuance and also is telling (sadly) in terms of how dumb this current President really is...I'm talking dense. Geez, to go from a "Rhode Scholar" (Bill Clinton) to a "no-scholar" (the current President) is very unnerving and a switch so drastic that some might even say it is a change of Shakespearean proportions (especially during these perilous times). Now the last (and most galling, in my humble opinion) fubar of last nights event was 2) when the President, while answering a question about North Korea's nuclear capabilities (sidenote: Defense Intelligence Agency head Vice-Admiral Jacoby stated Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes the DPRK has the ability to place a warhead on an ICBM thus placing the West Coast of the United States, as well as Japan, in the same "threat box", http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/29/news/nukes.php), went on to characterize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as a "dangerous man". When the President uttered those harsh words, I could hear a collective groan coming from the Korean peninsula as a whole, the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry Division (http://www-2id.korea.army.mil/), the Demilitarized Zone in its entirety (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/dmz.htm), as well as, the Japanese home islands. Mr. President, the North Koreans are already in an aggressive state of mind and none too happy (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7260366/), why stir the pot? See, it's easy to say that kind of smack when you are holed-up in "Fortress Washington, DC" but it's another thing altogether when you live in Seoul or Pusan and the DMZ (with all of those artillery tubes and troops) is only about 30-40 miles north of you (http://www.gluckman.com/NKBorder.html); or you're living in Tokyo, which would mean North Korea is only a missile flight away (gives a whole meaning to the phrase "reach out and touch someone" doesn't it?). You see, what I'm talking about folks is military science 101: distance makes a real difference (BIG DIFFERENCE) when it comes to perspective. First, we as an American nation had to endure the "bring em on" blunder of July 2, 2003 (and be advised, you better believe the Iraqi insurgents responded in kind and brought it on, http://icasualties.org/oif/) and now this...another mouth blunder with potential dire, not to mention mortal, consequences. See, the great tragedy in all of this bravado is that the President writes rhetorical checks that OTHERS have to cash in blood. How will his verbal ineptitude (and downright ignorance) impact the "Six-Way Party Nuclear Talks" (U.S., Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and North Korea) that the President seems so determined to bring about (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-26-voa1.cfm)? Who knows? I think the President's belligerent, rhetorical posture begs the question of whether or not he really thinks diplomacy is the answer to the "Korean problem" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/29/news/korea.php) or is the President pondering a more aggressive, "1950-1953" kind of solution? By now, the whole world knows (and understands all too well) that Kim Jong Il is the ultimate global "loose-cannon"; but is it really prudent, and in the best interest of global diplomacy and security, to inflame an already delicate situation by goading and name-calling? My short answer is an unmitigated and unequivocal "no"! I've got to tell you, if I had the leader of the world's most powerful military calling me a "dangerous man" and lambasting me before the world, let's just say I'd be feeling a creepy, uncomfortable cringe running up the back of my neck, as well as, not feeling that secure and comfortable right about now. Needless to say, I'd be very concerned as to whether or not the leader of the world's most powerful military was about to drop "the hammer" on me. Talk about throwing gasoline on an oil fire! In short, I believe the President's remarks were amatuerish, insensitive, not thoughtful in the extreme, agitating and indicative of a juvenile mindset when it comes to foreign policy and the consequences of bellicose rhetoric in the hothouse that IS foreign affairs and geopolitical diplomacy. You know, Bush's "big-talk" reminds me of guys that buy big Dodge Rams, HEMI trucks, Hummers, "duallies" etc. Are they really tough or are they trying to convince the world that they are tough? I'm inclined to think the latter instead of the former. Like they say in these parts, if you shake up old sticks of dynamite, you're bound to scrape folks off of the walls. The President didn't have to come out and say what he said last night concerning North Korea, but he did and time will tell whether or not he has aggravated an already disturbed and dangerous situation. Semper Fidelis

2005-04-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

The Pain and Sacrifice of War, But the Band Plays On...
Morning to all. Can someone please help me understand where the country is going? Above is a photo of another parent having to cope with the loss of a beloved child and another brother/sister having to cope with the loss of another brother/sister (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/). What is happening here? Why are good Americans allowing this to continue? How many professional military people (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=klare) will it take to explain to the American people that this military campaign in Iraq is as bankrupt as they come? How many generals, experts in the art of war and warfare prosecution, will it take? Officers with "Ph.D's in warfare and warfighting", so to speak. General officers, such as Generals Clark, Shalikashvili, Shinseki, McPeak, McCaffrey, Trainor, Conway, et.al. have all expressed their concerns over the fundamental flaws they see (these are military professionals, GENERAL OFFICERS mind you!) in this warped campaign of oil lust, global hegemony, and empire-quest all wrapped in the illusion of "seeking Iraqi democracy". Is there any sensitivity or historical and cultural understanding within the halls of the Bush II's White House that western-style democracy is an anathema to Islam? In other words, you can't do "cookie-cutter democracy" all over the world, our western version of democracy isn't something you can just transplant; and you certainly cannot transplant the American form of democracy in the Middle East. Even General Powell has hinted that he has serious misgivings concerning the execution of the Iraqi campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm). This "don't-worry-be-happy" b.s. philosophy the GOoPers love to relish in just won't cut it! People are dying! Troops are coming home with amputations (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4478134/) ...maimed for life! Scarred emotionally (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/), as well as physically! And for what? Are we REALLY winning (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1354279.htm)? Does it really look like we're winning (http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1501)? Look, I think the general consensus is that this war in Iraq is a foreign policy blunder of epic proportions, with the good warriors on the ground (the ones actually in the AO, or Area of Operations) trying to fix a problem that was busted from the get-go. Folks, this will probably go down in the annals of military history as one the largest military blunders in the history of this country. Something to think about. Semper Fidelis

2005-04-26T06:59:00.000-07:00

The War Continues: Draft in the Near Future A High Probability
Morning to everyone aboard this man-o'-war. Feeling a bit better today after sounding off about the little girl in Florida. Got a a good PT session in yesterday as well as today, so some of the angst has dissipated (although what those folks did to that little girl was wrong). This post is a quasi-encore post about the relevance and real potential of an American draft, which is (for all intents and purposes) almost inevitable...at least as far as I can see (http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_draft.php). As a preface, the picture above demonstrates just a fraction of what a draft means in real terms. And let's be honest, when the draft comes; and it will come, just do the math...5 wars, only three platoons left (figure of speech, we of course have more than three platoons...but not much more and certainly not the amount of forces needed to engage in todays actual and potential military activities)...huh, we need more people by gosh (http://www.house.gov/kirk/news030802_undermanned.html). The D.O.D. (the Department of Defense) is going to be looking for young folks to imitate EXACTLY what the warriors are doing in the picture above...which is lying in the prone and ready to lay down a base of fire when so ordered. Sure, D.O.D. is going to round up a few "support elements", i.e., medical personnel, computer science people, intel bubbas, etc ( http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html). But, they're REALLY going to be looking for young people (and the definition of young people are people between the ages of 18-35, although more than likely they'll start with people between 20-35) to serve in the "combat arms": the infantry as grunts, ground-pounders, 0311's, 11B's ("11 Bravos") or whatever you want to call them (http://www.marines.com/enlisted_marines/combatarms.asp). You see, as the photo above illustrates, the draft is going to equal young people getting muddy, grimy, wet, uncomfortable and (of course) being placed in extremely dangerous circumstances. Do you see the muddy deck with all the expended brass and the dirt on the machine-gunners face? Do you understand the look in his eye as the popped green smoke splays in the background? Do you understand that this machine-gunner (and his "A" gunner right beside him) are probably wet and uncomfortable, while at the same time sweat continues to trickle down their backs even though they already sopping wet with perspiration? This is a message to all the good folks that gave a "that a-boy" with a kindly slap on the back and a great big thumbs-up to the current Republican administration and their misguided foreign policy by voting them (and their foreign policy quagmire) back into office. This is also directed to all of those young adults out there that decided not to vote and to all the parents of those young adults that voted for Bush in those screwed-up red states (you can usually spot them driving around in their obnoxiously large SUV's covered with little yellow ribbon magnets and American flags) all I have to say is this: as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, as a hardcore Marine and as a proud American, I don't want to hear any bitching or complaining when the draft comes down and scoops your youngin' off to fight (and possibly, as a consequence, to be gravely injured or worse) in any number of the jacked-up wars that are now on the Bush horizon. And be advised, when a draft comes, you don't have the luxury of choosing a branch to serve in (as you do in peacetime), it is CHOSEN for you (http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/eagle/winter05-1.cfm). In other words, since these are essentially scheme and maneuver MOOTW's/OOTW's (Military Operations Other Than War/Operations Other Than War, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/pnm/glossary.htm), land assault conflicts now and to come (i.e., Iraq, quite possibly North Korea, Syria, etc.) and not surface warfare or air war evolutions...please be prepared to raise your right hand as you are pressed into service and repeat after me: "...welcome to the US Army and the US Marines boys and girls". Especially now with a fellow jarhead (General Peter Pace, http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/vcjcs.html) at the helm of the JCS (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/22/pace.ap/) ...be advised: General Pace is an outstanding Marine with a fine reputation, but putting a Marine at the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is no mistake; although making all Marines proud, it is first and foremost a clear indication and sign of the direction this administration's military policies are headed. In short, a Marine as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs means "zeal"...razor-like zeal for victory by any means necessary; up to, and including, the reinstitution of conscription. Again, see above photo...that's what "the draft" means in plain english. Semper Fidelis