When I entered the world of blogging last August, in the heat of the presidential election, I had no idea what I was getting into or how addictive it would be. For 25 years I thought that I was an engineer, but recently I’ve found out that I could be a writer one of these days if I keep working at it.
My classrooms are my online blogs and my teachers are my readers whom grade my efforts every day with the buttons on their mice. So far, the cost of my tuition has only been my time spent researching and writing my comments and opinions. Blogspot.com does not charge me for the space that my work occupies on their computer servers. If my reader base keeps growing at the current rate, later this year I will be forced to spend ten or fifteen dollars a month to pay for hosting services, but that time is still down the road a bit.
My blogs are non-commercial as I do not place advertisements on them and I have no intention to do so in the immediate future. I also have absolutely no commercial or direct affiliation with any political group. What I say and write is what I believe and no one can change that without making a convincing argument and presenting facts to support same.
Recently I have learned of a major problem out there on the horizon. It looms over the future of the blogosphere as we know it like the plague. It threatens to make what we do here every day illegal if we happen to mention politics in our writings.
We need your help.
It seems that certain politicians have had it with bloggers being able to use their free speech rights to express political messages. They want to use the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act to limit the activities of bloggers. They want to say that if I supply a link to a political candidate’s web site that I am supplying an “in-kind” political contribution.
They want to calculate the percentage of the value of my computer(s) and other hardware and the cost my cable modem internet service that is dedicated to political commentary and add that to the total.
If I have a wildly popular blog (which I as yet do not have) they want to give a cash value to my link and potentially charge me with a felony if the cash value of the link exceeds certain limits ($2000 for an individual.)
This is completely insane. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York and LA Times and Dan Damn Rather can spout whatever crap they want to say during a campaign, but I can’t write my silly little blog?
They are afraid of the bloggers and they want to silence us. As I said before, we need your help.
I wrote the following letter to my two state Senators:
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson
Gentlemen,
I am very concerned about the potential effect that the recent lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, upheld by Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly, will have on political speech on the Internet.
For the past eight months I have written a current events/political blog, "What I'd Liked To Have Said", which enjoys a small monthly readership.
I have no connections to any political party and I receive no funding from anyone to support the costs of writing my opinions and posting them on the internet. There is also no cost to my readers, both liberal and conservative, to visit my blog. In the free market economy of the "blogosphere," if I don't write anything worth reading, then my blog has no readers. It's just that simple.
Regarding this lawsuit and interpretation of the legislation, my concern is that individuals like myself will be unfairly limited in our rights to free speech regarding political issues while groups like 527's will be allowed to use virtually unlimited funding to spread their messages. The mainstream media will also be allowed to continue to spread obvious left wing biased stories without recourse from the public.
My real fear is that in the event that my blog happens to be successful and grow a large reader base as blogs like Powerline and Captain's Quarters have done that I could be shut down and charged with a felony for exceeding in-kind contribution limits by the FEC.
It is unfair that I can verbally say anything I want but that I cannot write the same thoughts and concepts and post them on the internet without fearing government intervention.
I will not sit idly by while my basic rights are infringed upon. My readers and many friends and colleagues on both sides of the political aisle stand as ready as I to defend the Constitution.
We demand a hearing on McCain-Feingold, with open testimony before the press and our colleagues, and we demand action to reform or repeal this dangerous and un-American muzzle on political speech.
We await your response, sirs.
Best Regards,
Virgil Raymond Rogers, III
I ask that you write your own letter to your state Senators and express your opinion on this matter. There is a web form over at Town Hall that will allow you to write an E-Mail accomplishing this task.
If we do not act firmly and quickly, the information revolution that is the blogosphere will fade into history and the political left will again control the dissemination of information in our society and world.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Stupidity Squared
(Bait and Switch Taxation)
In my last posting, Some People Just Aren’t Worth Their Salt, the Center for Science in the Public Interest caught my eye and I decided to do a little checking into their background and intentions.
First of all, like the names attached to most government legislation, the name of the “Center” made me suspicious of their motives. Their idea of “public interest” is probably quite different from my idea of “my interests.”
Now I’m sure that I am right.
Outside of a bunch of no-name PhD’s and Washington DC lawyers, the “Center’s” board of directors includes Miss Anne Bancroft. What the heck does Anne Bancroft know about anything but acting and cashing checks? Maybe marching in anti-war protests is also on her resume?
Next the words “Taxes” and “alcohol” caught my eye and I did a little reading about what the “Science Center” has going on in this area of “public interest.” Well, it didn’t take me long to figure out that their proposed solution was to raise state alcohol taxes to keep underage kids from drinking.
Instead of raising the price of legal adult’s cocktails, what about enforcing existing laws that are already on the books to keep kids from underage drinking? What about parents kicking their kid’s undisciplined asses, taking away their cars and cell phones and play stations and skateboards, and shoving their nappy heads off of the internet terminal and into the pages of a real hard bound book to learn something that might actually help them earn a living one day in the real world?
To support the “Center’s” thesis, they have three “state reports” published on their web site for 2004, Alabama, Connecticut, and Maryland.
I took the trouble to read the introduction to these “state reports” and guess what—the reports were not written by the states—they were written by the “center” on behalf of the states. The reports have basically the same wording if not the same logic and resulting logical errors. Here are some examples…
Alabama: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Alabama faces a revenue shortfall that may reach up to $510 million. In response, the Governor has proposed cutting the Medicaid program, reducing benefits of state workers, and instituting broad cuts in every state agency. Since Alabama must end the fiscal year with a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising beer excise taxes, last done in 1969, provides a rational, politically popular means of increasing state revenues.
Besides providing revenue, raising beer taxes may help reduce rates of alcohol-related problems, particularly among underage drinkers. Public opinion polls show that a strong majority support alcohol tax increases, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Connecticut: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Connecticut faces a revenue shortfall of up to $84.8 million. In response, the state government has cut education funding, raised tuition mid-year for state universities, and laid off state workers. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Connecticut must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1989, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Maryland: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Maryland faces an estimated revenue shortfall of $800 million. In response, the state government has steeply raised tuition for state public universities and has considered making further cuts to education and other state programs. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Maryland must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1972 for beer and wine, and 1995 for liquor, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Notice anything wrong with these three paragraphs? Besides being basically the same wording with a different state name tossed in, they all say that the respective state is facing a budget problem and is going to have to cut “programs” unless they find some more money to spend on the looser population. Can’t let that happen, can they? Nooooo!
And what is the proposed solution? RAISE TAXES, THAT’S WHAT.
Pick out a politically expedient group, declare that they are evil and even worse, that they are under taxed, and raise those taxes. Even worse, tell the public that you are going to use the money to keep kids from drinking and to treat all of the poor sots sitting around the public parks down town. That will guarantee that the tax increase will pass. Meanwhile, as a state lawmaker, with your fingers crossed behind your back, you actually intend to put most if not all of the money into the general budget to pay for the deficit spending you’re doing to buy the votes to get your sorry ass re-elected.
Isn’t that what they said originally—that there was a budget crisis? Forget about helping reform drunks and keeping The Beaver from drinking a Rum and Coke while the sitter isn’t looking, these morons just want more of our money to spend.
So you see, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (SCPI) should actually be called “The Center for Taxing the Ass off of Any Group Who Isn’t Paying Attention or is Politically Expedient to Tax.”
I’ve got to go take an Aspirin now.
In my last posting, Some People Just Aren’t Worth Their Salt, the Center for Science in the Public Interest caught my eye and I decided to do a little checking into their background and intentions.
First of all, like the names attached to most government legislation, the name of the “Center” made me suspicious of their motives. Their idea of “public interest” is probably quite different from my idea of “my interests.”
Now I’m sure that I am right.
Outside of a bunch of no-name PhD’s and Washington DC lawyers, the “Center’s” board of directors includes Miss Anne Bancroft. What the heck does Anne Bancroft know about anything but acting and cashing checks? Maybe marching in anti-war protests is also on her resume?
Next the words “Taxes” and “alcohol” caught my eye and I did a little reading about what the “Science Center” has going on in this area of “public interest.” Well, it didn’t take me long to figure out that their proposed solution was to raise state alcohol taxes to keep underage kids from drinking.
Instead of raising the price of legal adult’s cocktails, what about enforcing existing laws that are already on the books to keep kids from underage drinking? What about parents kicking their kid’s undisciplined asses, taking away their cars and cell phones and play stations and skateboards, and shoving their nappy heads off of the internet terminal and into the pages of a real hard bound book to learn something that might actually help them earn a living one day in the real world?
To support the “Center’s” thesis, they have three “state reports” published on their web site for 2004, Alabama, Connecticut, and Maryland.
I took the trouble to read the introduction to these “state reports” and guess what—the reports were not written by the states—they were written by the “center” on behalf of the states. The reports have basically the same wording if not the same logic and resulting logical errors. Here are some examples…
Alabama: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Alabama faces a revenue shortfall that may reach up to $510 million. In response, the Governor has proposed cutting the Medicaid program, reducing benefits of state workers, and instituting broad cuts in every state agency. Since Alabama must end the fiscal year with a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising beer excise taxes, last done in 1969, provides a rational, politically popular means of increasing state revenues.
Besides providing revenue, raising beer taxes may help reduce rates of alcohol-related problems, particularly among underage drinkers. Public opinion polls show that a strong majority support alcohol tax increases, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Connecticut: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Connecticut faces a revenue shortfall of up to $84.8 million. In response, the state government has cut education funding, raised tuition mid-year for state universities, and laid off state workers. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Connecticut must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1989, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Maryland: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Maryland faces an estimated revenue shortfall of $800 million. In response, the state government has steeply raised tuition for state public universities and has considered making further cuts to education and other state programs. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Maryland must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1972 for beer and wine, and 1995 for liquor, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”
Notice anything wrong with these three paragraphs? Besides being basically the same wording with a different state name tossed in, they all say that the respective state is facing a budget problem and is going to have to cut “programs” unless they find some more money to spend on the looser population. Can’t let that happen, can they? Nooooo!
And what is the proposed solution? RAISE TAXES, THAT’S WHAT.
Pick out a politically expedient group, declare that they are evil and even worse, that they are under taxed, and raise those taxes. Even worse, tell the public that you are going to use the money to keep kids from drinking and to treat all of the poor sots sitting around the public parks down town. That will guarantee that the tax increase will pass. Meanwhile, as a state lawmaker, with your fingers crossed behind your back, you actually intend to put most if not all of the money into the general budget to pay for the deficit spending you’re doing to buy the votes to get your sorry ass re-elected.
Isn’t that what they said originally—that there was a budget crisis? Forget about helping reform drunks and keeping The Beaver from drinking a Rum and Coke while the sitter isn’t looking, these morons just want more of our money to spend.
So you see, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (SCPI) should actually be called “The Center for Taxing the Ass off of Any Group Who Isn’t Paying Attention or is Politically Expedient to Tax.”
I’ve got to go take an Aspirin now.
Some People Just Aren't Worth Their Salt
Do you know where my title phrase comes from?
Of course you do…don’t you?
Salt (sodium chloride) hasn’t always cost less than a dollar for 26 ounces like it does today. I recently bought two containers of generic iodized salt for a buck and a half. If you want the name brand container bearing the little girl with the umbrella on the label (Morton Salt,) the same quantity will cost you a little over a dollar.
Americans take salt for granted today, but it used to be a rare commodity. At one time salt was actually used for money in some cultures.
The ancient Greeks traded salt for Slaves, thus the term “not worth your salt.”
Roman Soldiers were given a special salt ration called “salarium argentums” which is the predecessor to the English word “salary.”
The average human body contains about a cup of salt. My massive girth probably contains about a cup and one-half. I love salt, although I do routinely utilize pepper and a variety of other spices in my cooking and have recently discovered how to limit the amount of salt in many of my dishes.
A few years ago I started cooking with semi-sweet unsalted butter in order to control the amount of salt in my home cooked food. I also use coarse flake Kosher salt in many of my dishes during preparation because, in spite of not containing any Iodine, it tastes better. I’ll just take my chances on getting an enlarged thyroid.
Eating out is another matter. I find that, on a general basis, the crappier the food content, the more salt it contains. Fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Burger King cover the inherent lack of things like FLAVOR in their food by tossing in a pant load of salt into everything they sell.
As a result of the crappy flavor and high salt content, I rarely eat fast food. The only exception is when I am making an all day road trip, I find that it is easy to hit the drive through window and eat a couple of plain McDonald’s cheeseburgers held in the wrapper while propelling myself down the interstate highway at 70 MPH. Of course, when I get to where I am going, I have the urge to drink a couple thousand gallons of water to offset the couple thousand dollars (Roman Empire dollars) worth of salt that I consumed.
The thing about salt is that you know it is in whatever you eat because you can taste it the minute you put it in your mouth. You can even read the label before you put the genuine imitation manufactured polyunsaturated food product into your mouth if you want to know how much salt it contains. Just look under the category—sodium.
With this in mind, I thought that you would like to know that there are a bunch of doctors and busy-body do-gooder nannies out there that believe that you and I are too stupid to read a label or taste and spit out anything that we might try to eat that contains too much salt.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed a lawsuit against the federal government last month, “saying that salt is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that regulators have done too little to control salt in food.”
“Despite advisories to take it easy on sodium, Americans are now consuming about 4,000 milligrams a day -- nearly double the recommended limit to keep blood pressure under control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said.
So the CSPI renewed a lawsuit first filed in 1983 to ask federal courts to force the Food and Drug Administration to declare sodium a food additive instead of categorizing it as "generally recognized as safe." This would give the agency the authority to set limits for salt in foods.
"There is no way the FDA can look at the science and say with a straight face that salt is 'generally recognized as safe,"' CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson said in a statement.
"In fact, salt is generally recognized as unsafe, because it is a major cause of heart attacks and stroke. The federal government should require food manufacturers to gradually lower their sodium levels." ”
Sorry Dr. Jacobsen, but doing my standard check of the US Constitution, I do not find any words indicating that I have a right to “life, liberty, and a safe, nutritionally balanced, government regulated diet.” So what the hell are you up to here?
“The CSPI issued a report saying that processed foods and restaurant fare contribute almost 80 percent of sodium to the U.S. diet. Frozen dinners are especially high in salt, the report finds.
Depending on the brand, some salad dressings contain nearly a quarter of the day's allowance of sodium while others are low in sodium, the report finds.
One chain restaurant's breakfast contains two days' worth of sodium -- 4,460 mg -- the CSPI report said.
Chinese restaurant meals can be especially, high too. "A typical order of General Tso's chicken with rice has 3,150 mg," the group said.
Dr. Claude Lenfant, president of the World Hypertension League and a former head of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute supported the report.
"If we could reduce the sodium in processed and restaurant foods by half, we could save about 150,000 lives per year," he said.”
BUT what if I WANT to eat salty General Tso’s Chicken for three meals a day until my butt swells to the size of the Hindenburg and my heart explodes out of my chest? What if I want to eat Hardee’s Bacon Egg and Cheese Biscuits each day for a mid-morning snack with a gallon of regular Coke and shaker of salt on the side?
This whole idea of people being too stupid to make their own decisions is getting on my last good nerve. Of course people are stupid. We raise them by the truck load here in this country.
One thing that we absolutely have here in the United States is the right to “life, liberty, and to be STUPID AS HELL” and there is nothing that the government should be able to do to stop it. I will defend your right to be stupid till the death. I will also demand that you be given the right to educate yourself and rise above your innate stupidity if you want to.
Unfortunately, common sense is a lost commodity these days and the government and the legal system are the culprits.
Here’s an example: You’re a young testosterone laden man making big bucks in your new job as assistant manager at McDonalds. Go out and buy a crappy, cheep “sport utility” vehicle, don’t wear your seatbelt, drink a six pack of beer, make sharp turns at 80 MPH, get ejected from the vehicle in the ensuing rollover accident, and suffer brain damage. What do you do? You hire a lawyer and sue the vehicle manufacturer and the jury will probably award you a zillion dollars to support your drooling stupid self and your extended family in luxury for the rest of your life. Isn’t America great?
Here’s another example: You’re a young estrogen laden vixen sporting your new fake boobs. Drop out of high school, have four or five illegitimate children by two or three different looser assistant managers at the McDonalds you work at. What do you do? You hire a lawyer, sue all the ex-boyfriends for child support, apply for welfare, apply for WIC, and move into the new public housing townhouses they just built down the street that just happen to be on the bus route. What a great country we live in.
And now the rocket scientists over at The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the government to attempt to control MY salt intake. If they do force McDonalds into reducing the salt content in their kitchen, what is to prevent me from putting fifty of those little paper packages of salt on my burger. People are free to salt their own food, aren’t they? Are they going to take the salt shakers and paper salt packages out of the restaurants also?
In the future, what is going to prevent the government from coming to my house and taking away my three pounds of salt? How the hell can anyone justify the Government meddling in our lives in this way?
THINGS LIKE THIS MAKE MY BLOOD PRESSURE GO UP MORE THAN EATING A TON OF SALT. AAAAAAHHHHHH!
Now…where’s my salt shaker, I need some salty comfort food.
Of course you do…don’t you?
Salt (sodium chloride) hasn’t always cost less than a dollar for 26 ounces like it does today. I recently bought two containers of generic iodized salt for a buck and a half. If you want the name brand container bearing the little girl with the umbrella on the label (Morton Salt,) the same quantity will cost you a little over a dollar.
Americans take salt for granted today, but it used to be a rare commodity. At one time salt was actually used for money in some cultures.
The ancient Greeks traded salt for Slaves, thus the term “not worth your salt.”
Roman Soldiers were given a special salt ration called “salarium argentums” which is the predecessor to the English word “salary.”
The average human body contains about a cup of salt. My massive girth probably contains about a cup and one-half. I love salt, although I do routinely utilize pepper and a variety of other spices in my cooking and have recently discovered how to limit the amount of salt in many of my dishes.
A few years ago I started cooking with semi-sweet unsalted butter in order to control the amount of salt in my home cooked food. I also use coarse flake Kosher salt in many of my dishes during preparation because, in spite of not containing any Iodine, it tastes better. I’ll just take my chances on getting an enlarged thyroid.
Eating out is another matter. I find that, on a general basis, the crappier the food content, the more salt it contains. Fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Burger King cover the inherent lack of things like FLAVOR in their food by tossing in a pant load of salt into everything they sell.
As a result of the crappy flavor and high salt content, I rarely eat fast food. The only exception is when I am making an all day road trip, I find that it is easy to hit the drive through window and eat a couple of plain McDonald’s cheeseburgers held in the wrapper while propelling myself down the interstate highway at 70 MPH. Of course, when I get to where I am going, I have the urge to drink a couple thousand gallons of water to offset the couple thousand dollars (Roman Empire dollars) worth of salt that I consumed.
The thing about salt is that you know it is in whatever you eat because you can taste it the minute you put it in your mouth. You can even read the label before you put the genuine imitation manufactured polyunsaturated food product into your mouth if you want to know how much salt it contains. Just look under the category—sodium.
With this in mind, I thought that you would like to know that there are a bunch of doctors and busy-body do-gooder nannies out there that believe that you and I are too stupid to read a label or taste and spit out anything that we might try to eat that contains too much salt.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed a lawsuit against the federal government last month, “saying that salt is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that regulators have done too little to control salt in food.”
“Despite advisories to take it easy on sodium, Americans are now consuming about 4,000 milligrams a day -- nearly double the recommended limit to keep blood pressure under control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said.
So the CSPI renewed a lawsuit first filed in 1983 to ask federal courts to force the Food and Drug Administration to declare sodium a food additive instead of categorizing it as "generally recognized as safe." This would give the agency the authority to set limits for salt in foods.
"There is no way the FDA can look at the science and say with a straight face that salt is 'generally recognized as safe,"' CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson said in a statement.
"In fact, salt is generally recognized as unsafe, because it is a major cause of heart attacks and stroke. The federal government should require food manufacturers to gradually lower their sodium levels." ”
Sorry Dr. Jacobsen, but doing my standard check of the US Constitution, I do not find any words indicating that I have a right to “life, liberty, and a safe, nutritionally balanced, government regulated diet.” So what the hell are you up to here?
“The CSPI issued a report saying that processed foods and restaurant fare contribute almost 80 percent of sodium to the U.S. diet. Frozen dinners are especially high in salt, the report finds.
Depending on the brand, some salad dressings contain nearly a quarter of the day's allowance of sodium while others are low in sodium, the report finds.
One chain restaurant's breakfast contains two days' worth of sodium -- 4,460 mg -- the CSPI report said.
Chinese restaurant meals can be especially, high too. "A typical order of General Tso's chicken with rice has 3,150 mg," the group said.
Dr. Claude Lenfant, president of the World Hypertension League and a former head of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute supported the report.
"If we could reduce the sodium in processed and restaurant foods by half, we could save about 150,000 lives per year," he said.”
BUT what if I WANT to eat salty General Tso’s Chicken for three meals a day until my butt swells to the size of the Hindenburg and my heart explodes out of my chest? What if I want to eat Hardee’s Bacon Egg and Cheese Biscuits each day for a mid-morning snack with a gallon of regular Coke and shaker of salt on the side?
This whole idea of people being too stupid to make their own decisions is getting on my last good nerve. Of course people are stupid. We raise them by the truck load here in this country.
One thing that we absolutely have here in the United States is the right to “life, liberty, and to be STUPID AS HELL” and there is nothing that the government should be able to do to stop it. I will defend your right to be stupid till the death. I will also demand that you be given the right to educate yourself and rise above your innate stupidity if you want to.
Unfortunately, common sense is a lost commodity these days and the government and the legal system are the culprits.
Here’s an example: You’re a young testosterone laden man making big bucks in your new job as assistant manager at McDonalds. Go out and buy a crappy, cheep “sport utility” vehicle, don’t wear your seatbelt, drink a six pack of beer, make sharp turns at 80 MPH, get ejected from the vehicle in the ensuing rollover accident, and suffer brain damage. What do you do? You hire a lawyer and sue the vehicle manufacturer and the jury will probably award you a zillion dollars to support your drooling stupid self and your extended family in luxury for the rest of your life. Isn’t America great?
Here’s another example: You’re a young estrogen laden vixen sporting your new fake boobs. Drop out of high school, have four or five illegitimate children by two or three different looser assistant managers at the McDonalds you work at. What do you do? You hire a lawyer, sue all the ex-boyfriends for child support, apply for welfare, apply for WIC, and move into the new public housing townhouses they just built down the street that just happen to be on the bus route. What a great country we live in.
And now the rocket scientists over at The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the government to attempt to control MY salt intake. If they do force McDonalds into reducing the salt content in their kitchen, what is to prevent me from putting fifty of those little paper packages of salt on my burger. People are free to salt their own food, aren’t they? Are they going to take the salt shakers and paper salt packages out of the restaurants also?
In the future, what is going to prevent the government from coming to my house and taking away my three pounds of salt? How the hell can anyone justify the Government meddling in our lives in this way?
THINGS LIKE THIS MAKE MY BLOOD PRESSURE GO UP MORE THAN EATING A TON OF SALT. AAAAAAHHHHHH!
Now…where’s my salt shaker, I need some salty comfort food.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
More Inane Government Regulation
(More unintended consequences)
I missed this story last week, until I was reading what Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters wrote about his cousin being on a British Airways 747 flight that lost one of the four engines on takeoff from LAX and then actually continued on to London on three engines. Well, I’ve read it now and I have a few choice words to say about the subject.
WHAT THE HELL WERE THE BRITISH AIRWAYS AUTHORITIES AND THE PILOT THINKING?
“The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.
The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.”
Do you follow me here? In order to save a few pennies over 191,000 US Dollars, the airline hauled 351 souls on an eleven hour, 5,000 mile trans-Atlantic trip with a crippled airplane. At a ticket price of $1000 per seat, the whole darned flight was only worth $351,000 and if that airliner had lost another engine in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and been forced to ditch, how much do you think the lawsuits would have cost them in the long run. A billion dollars, perhaps?
Forget the costs for a minute, let’s talk about deeper issues. As a pilot, I can assure you that the guys up front have enough to worry about every time they ride the three quarters of a million pounds of humans, fuel, and potential scrap metal that represents a fully loaded Boeing 747 off the end of 12,000 feet of concrete every few days.
My father, a US Army test pilot, described flying as “hours and hours of boredom, interrupted by moments of shear terror. Pilots spend almost half of their time training for emergencies and practicing emergency procedures. By the time something breaks in flight, if your response is not automatic and precise, you are usually dead or severely injured and the airplane is lost as a result.
Don’t let the “authorities” fool you, a multi-engine aircraft doesn’t have the extra engines just for backup—it needs every one of them to perform as expected. Some twin engine light planes out there built back in the 1950’s and 1960’s could barely maintain straight and level flight on one engine.
Another old pilots saying is that, “in a twin engine airplane, upon loosing an engine on takeoff, the operating engine will take you directly to the scene of the crash.” Get it?
Commercial airliners are another story, however. A twin engine Boeing 737, 757,767 or any of the twin engine Airbus A3XX’s must be able to attain pattern altitude and return to the runway on one engine, as long as the pilot performs the emergency procedures correctly. In the case of a 747, if it looses even two of four engines in flight it can still proceed safely to an alternate airfield in an emergency. BUT…
The idea of proceeding on a trans-Atlantic flight with 75% of the aircraft’s normal available power, past major airports in Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, and New York with connecting International flights and maintenance facilities, IS DOWN RIGHT INSANE.
And why was the pilot pressured to override his better judgment? Because of the glorious, all-knowing, idiotic, socialist, European Union’s stupid passenger rules:
“Some airlines are trying to avoid paying compensation for delays involving technical failures of an aircraft. They are citing a clause in the regulation which excludes delays “caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance (emphasis mine, VRRIII.) Simon Evans, its chief executive, admitted that the regulation could lead to airlines taking greater risks. “We recognize there is a possibility that an airline might take a decision to fly in order to avoid paying compensation.”
Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.””
So Mr. Simon Evans, chief “executive” of the "Air Transport User’s Council” says that the only reason that a Pratt & Whitney 4062 or a Rolls-Royce RB211-524 high bypass gas turbine engine, spinning for five hours at 20,000 RPM, 36,000 feet above the ground, would fail is because of poor maintenance?
I’m so sorry Mr. Evans, but I’m really tired of idiots like you, who basically know nothing except for how to make a living spending other people's hard earned money, expecting engineers like me to design complex machines that are affordable and absolutely foolproof. It just doesn’t work like that.
By the standards of the Egyptians, every single time a million pounds of sheet metal, steel forgings, and titanium castings takes off of this earth and fly’s through the air it would be considered the product of demons and witchcraft. Today’s aviation safety statistics are a miracle by the standards of airlines even thirty years ago.
Yes, the airlines should be penalized for scheduling too many flights at peak times. The number of arrivals and departures are based on ideal weather conditions at the major hubs and ideal equipment performance. Bad weather in Chicago or Atlanta causes delays and cancellations in Brunswick and Panama City.
I’m really tired of always being thirty minutes late because Delta can’t load an airplane full of self important morons with oversized carryon bags in less than a half-hour, but I’m eternally grateful for arriving safely, at my destination, in one piece a half day late because the pilot had the authority to not fly the airplane, even if it was something as stupid as a problem with a galley oven or a warning light on an auxiliary voltage regulator. I want ALL of the do-dads and thing-a-ma-jigs working the minute when we take off, and if something important like an engine decides to stop spinning or a wing falls off or the toilet seat fly’s out the bottom of the airplane you better by God put the airplane back on the ground as quickly as is possible.
You Got That?
I missed this story last week, until I was reading what Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters wrote about his cousin being on a British Airways 747 flight that lost one of the four engines on takeoff from LAX and then actually continued on to London on three engines. Well, I’ve read it now and I have a few choice words to say about the subject.
WHAT THE HELL WERE THE BRITISH AIRWAYS AUTHORITIES AND THE PILOT THINKING?
“The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.
The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.”
Do you follow me here? In order to save a few pennies over 191,000 US Dollars, the airline hauled 351 souls on an eleven hour, 5,000 mile trans-Atlantic trip with a crippled airplane. At a ticket price of $1000 per seat, the whole darned flight was only worth $351,000 and if that airliner had lost another engine in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and been forced to ditch, how much do you think the lawsuits would have cost them in the long run. A billion dollars, perhaps?
Forget the costs for a minute, let’s talk about deeper issues. As a pilot, I can assure you that the guys up front have enough to worry about every time they ride the three quarters of a million pounds of humans, fuel, and potential scrap metal that represents a fully loaded Boeing 747 off the end of 12,000 feet of concrete every few days.
My father, a US Army test pilot, described flying as “hours and hours of boredom, interrupted by moments of shear terror. Pilots spend almost half of their time training for emergencies and practicing emergency procedures. By the time something breaks in flight, if your response is not automatic and precise, you are usually dead or severely injured and the airplane is lost as a result.
Don’t let the “authorities” fool you, a multi-engine aircraft doesn’t have the extra engines just for backup—it needs every one of them to perform as expected. Some twin engine light planes out there built back in the 1950’s and 1960’s could barely maintain straight and level flight on one engine.
Another old pilots saying is that, “in a twin engine airplane, upon loosing an engine on takeoff, the operating engine will take you directly to the scene of the crash.” Get it?
Commercial airliners are another story, however. A twin engine Boeing 737, 757,767 or any of the twin engine Airbus A3XX’s must be able to attain pattern altitude and return to the runway on one engine, as long as the pilot performs the emergency procedures correctly. In the case of a 747, if it looses even two of four engines in flight it can still proceed safely to an alternate airfield in an emergency. BUT…
The idea of proceeding on a trans-Atlantic flight with 75% of the aircraft’s normal available power, past major airports in Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, and New York with connecting International flights and maintenance facilities, IS DOWN RIGHT INSANE.
And why was the pilot pressured to override his better judgment? Because of the glorious, all-knowing, idiotic, socialist, European Union’s stupid passenger rules:
“Some airlines are trying to avoid paying compensation for delays involving technical failures of an aircraft. They are citing a clause in the regulation which excludes delays “caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance (emphasis mine, VRRIII.) Simon Evans, its chief executive, admitted that the regulation could lead to airlines taking greater risks. “We recognize there is a possibility that an airline might take a decision to fly in order to avoid paying compensation.”
Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.””
So Mr. Simon Evans, chief “executive” of the "Air Transport User’s Council” says that the only reason that a Pratt & Whitney 4062 or a Rolls-Royce RB211-524 high bypass gas turbine engine, spinning for five hours at 20,000 RPM, 36,000 feet above the ground, would fail is because of poor maintenance?
I’m so sorry Mr. Evans, but I’m really tired of idiots like you, who basically know nothing except for how to make a living spending other people's hard earned money, expecting engineers like me to design complex machines that are affordable and absolutely foolproof. It just doesn’t work like that.
By the standards of the Egyptians, every single time a million pounds of sheet metal, steel forgings, and titanium castings takes off of this earth and fly’s through the air it would be considered the product of demons and witchcraft. Today’s aviation safety statistics are a miracle by the standards of airlines even thirty years ago.
Yes, the airlines should be penalized for scheduling too many flights at peak times. The number of arrivals and departures are based on ideal weather conditions at the major hubs and ideal equipment performance. Bad weather in Chicago or Atlanta causes delays and cancellations in Brunswick and Panama City.
I’m really tired of always being thirty minutes late because Delta can’t load an airplane full of self important morons with oversized carryon bags in less than a half-hour, but I’m eternally grateful for arriving safely, at my destination, in one piece a half day late because the pilot had the authority to not fly the airplane, even if it was something as stupid as a problem with a galley oven or a warning light on an auxiliary voltage regulator. I want ALL of the do-dads and thing-a-ma-jigs working the minute when we take off, and if something important like an engine decides to stop spinning or a wing falls off or the toilet seat fly’s out the bottom of the airplane you better by God put the airplane back on the ground as quickly as is possible.
You Got That?
More Boring Stuff About Me
Strange goings on over at fellow Blogger Allan's Place.
He's got a Meme running that asks Bloggers to publish a list all the states that they have visited, lived in, and where they currently live.
Here is my own personal list for your edification or borement...
The states I've been to are listed in bold, the states I've lived in are underlined, and the state I'm in now is italicized...(hummm, insanity isn't listed for some reason...;-)
Alabama / Alaska / Arizona / Arkansas / California / Colorado / Connecticut / Delaware / Florida / Georgia / Hawaii / Idaho / Illinois / Indiana / Iowa / Kansas / Kentucky / Louisiana / Maine / Maryland / Massachusetts / Michigan / Minnesota / Mississippi / Missouri / Montana / Nebraska / Nevada / New Hampshire / New Jersey / New Mexico / New York / North Carolina / North Dakota / Ohio / Oklahoma / Oregon / Pennsylvania / Rhode Island / South Carolina / South Dakota / Tennessee / Texas / Utah / Vermont / Virginia / Washington / West Virginia / Wisconsin / Wyoming / Washington D.C /
(My fellow bloggers may go HERE to have a form generate the HTML for your blog.)
Thirty-nine states out of fifty states--how about you?
As you can see, I've spent most of my time south of the Mason Dixon line. One trip to the Northeast, one to the Northwest, along with a little jaunt to Hawaii, and I'll have covered the entire US.
I would like to go back to Alaska again, however, since I was only there on the ground for a few hours way back in 1978 while waiting for a Air Force MAC flight on my way to the Phillipines. I missed Hawaii on the way home for that trip because our airplane broke and we took a chartered flight back to the US through Guam.
I didn't mention Japan, Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, and Jamacia yet did I?
He's got a Meme running that asks Bloggers to publish a list all the states that they have visited, lived in, and where they currently live.
Here is my own personal list for your edification or borement...
The states I've been to are listed in bold, the states I've lived in are underlined, and the state I'm in now is italicized...(hummm, insanity isn't listed for some reason...;-)
Alabama / Alaska / Arizona / Arkansas / California / Colorado / Connecticut / Delaware / Florida / Georgia / Hawaii / Idaho / Illinois / Indiana / Iowa / Kansas / Kentucky / Louisiana / Maine / Maryland / Massachusetts / Michigan / Minnesota / Mississippi / Missouri / Montana / Nebraska / Nevada / New Hampshire / New Jersey / New Mexico / New York / North Carolina / North Dakota / Ohio / Oklahoma / Oregon / Pennsylvania / Rhode Island / South Carolina / South Dakota / Tennessee / Texas / Utah / Vermont / Virginia / Washington / West Virginia / Wisconsin / Wyoming / Washington D.C /
(My fellow bloggers may go HERE to have a form generate the HTML for your blog.)
Thirty-nine states out of fifty states--how about you?
As you can see, I've spent most of my time south of the Mason Dixon line. One trip to the Northeast, one to the Northwest, along with a little jaunt to Hawaii, and I'll have covered the entire US.
I would like to go back to Alaska again, however, since I was only there on the ground for a few hours way back in 1978 while waiting for a Air Force MAC flight on my way to the Phillipines. I missed Hawaii on the way home for that trip because our airplane broke and we took a chartered flight back to the US through Guam.
I didn't mention Japan, Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, and Jamacia yet did I?
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Less Than Nine Hours later
I’m really not this good—I’m just lucky, BUT, less than 9 hours after I wrote about the impending changes in Lebanon, the Syrian supported Government resigned.
“Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami, under popular pressure after the assassination of an ex-prime minister, said Monday his government was resigning.
"Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honor to lead," Karami told parliament in Beirut.
The government came under fire in parliament Monday over the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri in a huge bomb two weeks ago, while streets away thousands defied a protest ban to demand it stand down.
The debate had been expected to close with a no-confidence vote in the government, but after a lunch break Karami took the podium to announce the resignation of the government.
His speech was met by applause from opposition deputies who had seized upon public fury over the killing to demand the resignation and call on Syria to withdraw its troops from its tiny neighbor.”
I watched Farid Abboud, the Lebanese Ambassador to the US, on FOX News “Your World with Neal Cavuto” Monday evening and it was funny to watch Neal press him as he tap danced around the issue of a complete withdrawal of the Syrian troops. It’s just a matter of time however.
Fifteen thousand Syrians riding around in twenty year old Soviet jeeps are no match for the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese protesters backed by the 150,000 US troops with “up-armored” Humvees camping just a few hundred miles south in Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the Lebanese people can pull together to create their own government without the situation deteriorating into civil war. Watch the main stream media proclaim additional doom and destruction, predicting just that.
The American and international elite leftists would rather have a murdering dictator any day over a democratically elected government. They think that people are too stupid to decide their own destiny.
But they’re not…
“Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami, under popular pressure after the assassination of an ex-prime minister, said Monday his government was resigning.
"Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honor to lead," Karami told parliament in Beirut.
The government came under fire in parliament Monday over the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri in a huge bomb two weeks ago, while streets away thousands defied a protest ban to demand it stand down.
The debate had been expected to close with a no-confidence vote in the government, but after a lunch break Karami took the podium to announce the resignation of the government.
His speech was met by applause from opposition deputies who had seized upon public fury over the killing to demand the resignation and call on Syria to withdraw its troops from its tiny neighbor.”
I watched Farid Abboud, the Lebanese Ambassador to the US, on FOX News “Your World with Neal Cavuto” Monday evening and it was funny to watch Neal press him as he tap danced around the issue of a complete withdrawal of the Syrian troops. It’s just a matter of time however.
Fifteen thousand Syrians riding around in twenty year old Soviet jeeps are no match for the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese protesters backed by the 150,000 US troops with “up-armored” Humvees camping just a few hundred miles south in Iraq.
Let’s just hope that the Lebanese people can pull together to create their own government without the situation deteriorating into civil war. Watch the main stream media proclaim additional doom and destruction, predicting just that.
The American and international elite leftists would rather have a murdering dictator any day over a democratically elected government. They think that people are too stupid to decide their own destiny.
But they’re not…
Monday, February 28, 2005
Treason and Sedition
“Connecting The Dots”
I would assume that if you are reading my blog that you probably read a least a few other alternative news sources and that you get the majority of your news from somewhere besides the ABC, CBS, NBC evening news programs, the Clinton News Network (CNN), or the front page of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation (Journal and Constitution) newspaper.
But then again, maybe you don’t…
Well, I have some news for you…there is a revolution taking place in world politics!
The revolution I’m talking about is taking place in the Middle East, right now, and hardly a whisper about it is uttered in the main stream media. Oh yes, they (the main stream media) begrudgenly mention the individual events as they occur on a disjointed basis.
The problem is that no one bothers to “connect the dots” when it comes to the overall trend. You can attribute this quality reporting to the swarms of like-minded individuals with high levels of formal journalism education that lurk around the TV studios and newspaper offices around the country. They are so wrong, and they just can’t admit it.
Well, I’m here now intent on loaning you a pencil and seeing if I can help you connect the dots on the bigger picture of what’s actually going on in the world.
First, a little history lesson.
Remember when the USA elected a former actor to replace socialist dictator loving pacifist Jimmy Carter as our President in the early 1980’s?
Remember when Mr. Reagan proceeded to take Teddy Roosevelt’s ”Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” international policy and massively increase the size of our country’s “Big Stick?”
Remember the words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?” Remember when that wall fell? Remember how within a few years the Soviet Union broke apart?
Remember how John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberals voted against increasing the size of our big stick?
Remember how all of the Euroweenies, the pacifists, most Democrats, some Republicans, and misinformed tiny school children ran around in circles worrying about nuclear holocaust as a result of our confrontational policies?
Remember how the main stream media predicted doom and gloom and death and destruction AT EVERY SINGLE TWIST AND TURN AND WAS POSITIVE THAT RONALD REAGAN WAS LEADING US DOWN THE ROAD TO CERTAIN DESTRUCTION?
Well, we are still all here (most of us) aren’t we, and now the face of evil has changed from communist to Muslim.
Remember how, between 1992 and 2000, the “panty hose raider commander in chief” Bill Clinton cut the armed forces budget by $50 billion and reduced military personnel by a half million?
Remember how today the main stream media loves to bitch and complain about President Bush under staffing the Iraq war?
Remember Donald Rumsfield saying “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had?”
Remember that there is no wonder that our troop strengths could be questioned since Clinton reduced the armed forces from 1.8 million to 1.3 million over his two four year terms?
Remember how you never once heard the media mention Clinton’s culpability for our current levels of low troop strength?
You see, the much heralded “Balanced Budget” that occurred during the Clinton Administration came from the belief that, having defeated our communist enemies, that we could cut back on military spending and focus on poverty and homelessness in America.
We thought we could shift spending from the military so that we could pay more American’s more money just for being lazy, useless, dumb assed Americans. Republicans and Democrats in congress went along with the idea. Meanwhile Osama and Saddam and the Syrians and the Saudis and the Iranian Mullas were cooking up a few jumbo portions of “whoop ass” with our name on it.
But after our 9/11 wake up call, President Bush brought what was left of Reagan’s military strength to bear on Afghanistan and today women are voting and civil stability has returned to a savage tribal country. Quote the Main Stream media….silence (and crickets chirping…)
President Bush turned our high tech military might on Saddam’s Iraq, kicked the vaulted Republican guard’s asses, and fought our way through a couple of years of chicken shit pansy assed “insurgency” featuring every dune-goon-towel-head-self-described-Islamic-Jihad-Muslim “terrorist” “insurgent” to get to the January elections. Quote the Main Stream media….silence (between calls of invalidity and laments of low Suni Muslim turnout…)
Which brings us to the recent world events: A FEAR OF JESUS HAS ARRIVED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND KOREA, AND PRESIDENT BUSH IS HIS RIGHT HAND MAN.
As a result, let’s look at where we are since the January Iraqi elections. First there is Syria. Syria has a bad case of “big brother” complex when it comes to Lebanon—which they have occupied since the mid 1980’s. Syria decides to deliver a little St Valentines day massacre earlier this month and take out billionaire Lebanonese politician businessman Rafik al-Hariri.
As a result of the assassination, and emboldened by the 180,00 US troops camping just south of their border in Iraq, the Lebanese people have finally grown themselves some gonads. Syria has come under intense domestic and international pressure to remove their 14,000 “Security forces” that have occupied Lebanon for the past 15 years.
Syria suddenly wants to start reforming their grasp on the country and the resulting threat to Israel is slowly slipping away as thousands of protesters defied a ban on public demonstrations in Beruit on Sunday. Quote the Main Stream media: “No relationship to events in Afghanistan and Iraq what so ever, right?”
Remember Lybia? Daffi Quadafi unexpectedly tossed his hands into the air and declaired that he wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons (or other WMD's) and we didn't have to send a B-2 bomber down there to get the consession. Imagine that?
Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, municipal level elections were held earlier this month and now they are talking about actually allowing women to vote in upcoming elections. Local level elections are mostly eyewash and much more needs to be done, but it’s a good first step. Quote the Main Stream Media: “Don’t you think for one minute that the Iraqi elections have at least some remote influence in this matter? Naaaaaaaa…”
Next comes Egypt, where Hosni Mubaric has decided to allow opposition candidates on the ballot for the presidency, a title that he has held since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. Imagine a presidential election with one name on the ballot and a yes/no vote as the only possible response. Mubaric has been winning by 90% in the past, but things are changing now? Quote the Main Stream Media: “Nothing to do with president Bush’s aggressive foreign policy, I suppose?”
Unfortunately the Palestinian situation is still up in the air, but as these events in the surrounding countries coalesce I expect things to stabilize even further in this area. What is plainly clear is that none of these chest pounding oil tycoons and Hitler wanna-be's are willing to see their countries blowing up through night vision goggles on CNN and FOX News and they definitely don't want to be pulled sweaty and unshaven from a concrete sewer and spirited off to interrogation in the media's beloved Abu Grab-ass prison.
Now regarding the Main Stream Media’s position in all of this. What a bunch of mindless, inept, morons. I can say this because of what they failed to learn during the Reagan successes in the 1980’s. They insist on ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room and act mystified when events occur that would be obvious to an 8th grader in a good quality private school. And all of us pajama clad Bloggers just won't play fair and let their past transgressions and oversights fade from memory.
Their infinite supply of support and comfort to our enemies is tantamount to Sedition and Treason, but I guess that most Americans don’t even know the meaning of those words any more.
I would assume that if you are reading my blog that you probably read a least a few other alternative news sources and that you get the majority of your news from somewhere besides the ABC, CBS, NBC evening news programs, the Clinton News Network (CNN), or the front page of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation (Journal and Constitution) newspaper.
But then again, maybe you don’t…
Well, I have some news for you…there is a revolution taking place in world politics!
The revolution I’m talking about is taking place in the Middle East, right now, and hardly a whisper about it is uttered in the main stream media. Oh yes, they (the main stream media) begrudgenly mention the individual events as they occur on a disjointed basis.
The problem is that no one bothers to “connect the dots” when it comes to the overall trend. You can attribute this quality reporting to the swarms of like-minded individuals with high levels of formal journalism education that lurk around the TV studios and newspaper offices around the country. They are so wrong, and they just can’t admit it.
Well, I’m here now intent on loaning you a pencil and seeing if I can help you connect the dots on the bigger picture of what’s actually going on in the world.
First, a little history lesson.
Remember when the USA elected a former actor to replace socialist dictator loving pacifist Jimmy Carter as our President in the early 1980’s?
Remember when Mr. Reagan proceeded to take Teddy Roosevelt’s ”Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” international policy and massively increase the size of our country’s “Big Stick?”
Remember the words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?” Remember when that wall fell? Remember how within a few years the Soviet Union broke apart?
Remember how John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberals voted against increasing the size of our big stick?
Remember how all of the Euroweenies, the pacifists, most Democrats, some Republicans, and misinformed tiny school children ran around in circles worrying about nuclear holocaust as a result of our confrontational policies?
Remember how the main stream media predicted doom and gloom and death and destruction AT EVERY SINGLE TWIST AND TURN AND WAS POSITIVE THAT RONALD REAGAN WAS LEADING US DOWN THE ROAD TO CERTAIN DESTRUCTION?
Well, we are still all here (most of us) aren’t we, and now the face of evil has changed from communist to Muslim.
Remember how, between 1992 and 2000, the “panty hose raider commander in chief” Bill Clinton cut the armed forces budget by $50 billion and reduced military personnel by a half million?
Remember how today the main stream media loves to bitch and complain about President Bush under staffing the Iraq war?
Remember Donald Rumsfield saying “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had?”
Remember that there is no wonder that our troop strengths could be questioned since Clinton reduced the armed forces from 1.8 million to 1.3 million over his two four year terms?
Remember how you never once heard the media mention Clinton’s culpability for our current levels of low troop strength?
You see, the much heralded “Balanced Budget” that occurred during the Clinton Administration came from the belief that, having defeated our communist enemies, that we could cut back on military spending and focus on poverty and homelessness in America.
We thought we could shift spending from the military so that we could pay more American’s more money just for being lazy, useless, dumb assed Americans. Republicans and Democrats in congress went along with the idea. Meanwhile Osama and Saddam and the Syrians and the Saudis and the Iranian Mullas were cooking up a few jumbo portions of “whoop ass” with our name on it.
But after our 9/11 wake up call, President Bush brought what was left of Reagan’s military strength to bear on Afghanistan and today women are voting and civil stability has returned to a savage tribal country. Quote the Main Stream media….silence (and crickets chirping…)
President Bush turned our high tech military might on Saddam’s Iraq, kicked the vaulted Republican guard’s asses, and fought our way through a couple of years of chicken shit pansy assed “insurgency” featuring every dune-goon-towel-head-self-described-Islamic-Jihad-Muslim “terrorist” “insurgent” to get to the January elections. Quote the Main Stream media….silence (between calls of invalidity and laments of low Suni Muslim turnout…)
Which brings us to the recent world events: A FEAR OF JESUS HAS ARRIVED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND KOREA, AND PRESIDENT BUSH IS HIS RIGHT HAND MAN.
As a result, let’s look at where we are since the January Iraqi elections. First there is Syria. Syria has a bad case of “big brother” complex when it comes to Lebanon—which they have occupied since the mid 1980’s. Syria decides to deliver a little St Valentines day massacre earlier this month and take out billionaire Lebanonese politician businessman Rafik al-Hariri.
As a result of the assassination, and emboldened by the 180,00 US troops camping just south of their border in Iraq, the Lebanese people have finally grown themselves some gonads. Syria has come under intense domestic and international pressure to remove their 14,000 “Security forces” that have occupied Lebanon for the past 15 years.
Syria suddenly wants to start reforming their grasp on the country and the resulting threat to Israel is slowly slipping away as thousands of protesters defied a ban on public demonstrations in Beruit on Sunday. Quote the Main Stream media: “No relationship to events in Afghanistan and Iraq what so ever, right?”
Remember Lybia? Daffi Quadafi unexpectedly tossed his hands into the air and declaired that he wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons (or other WMD's) and we didn't have to send a B-2 bomber down there to get the consession. Imagine that?
Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, municipal level elections were held earlier this month and now they are talking about actually allowing women to vote in upcoming elections. Local level elections are mostly eyewash and much more needs to be done, but it’s a good first step. Quote the Main Stream Media: “Don’t you think for one minute that the Iraqi elections have at least some remote influence in this matter? Naaaaaaaa…”
Next comes Egypt, where Hosni Mubaric has decided to allow opposition candidates on the ballot for the presidency, a title that he has held since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. Imagine a presidential election with one name on the ballot and a yes/no vote as the only possible response. Mubaric has been winning by 90% in the past, but things are changing now? Quote the Main Stream Media: “Nothing to do with president Bush’s aggressive foreign policy, I suppose?”
Unfortunately the Palestinian situation is still up in the air, but as these events in the surrounding countries coalesce I expect things to stabilize even further in this area. What is plainly clear is that none of these chest pounding oil tycoons and Hitler wanna-be's are willing to see their countries blowing up through night vision goggles on CNN and FOX News and they definitely don't want to be pulled sweaty and unshaven from a concrete sewer and spirited off to interrogation in the media's beloved Abu Grab-ass prison.
Now regarding the Main Stream Media’s position in all of this. What a bunch of mindless, inept, morons. I can say this because of what they failed to learn during the Reagan successes in the 1980’s. They insist on ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room and act mystified when events occur that would be obvious to an 8th grader in a good quality private school. And all of us pajama clad Bloggers just won't play fair and let their past transgressions and oversights fade from memory.
Their infinite supply of support and comfort to our enemies is tantamount to Sedition and Treason, but I guess that most Americans don’t even know the meaning of those words any more.
