Alan Grayson… Idiot Child of the Left

I didn’t have a ton of time to write again tonight. I had actually decided that I was going to skip the night and try to get some other stuff I have been procrastinating on done. But then I stumbled across this article, another of the open letters Representative Alan Grayson seems so fond of writing over there at the Huffington Post (one of the few places that will give a voice to fruit cakes like Grayson). As you all know, I have no beef with HuffPo. They have some interesting articles and some good ideas that come from a very intelligent group of writers. Unfortunately, they also have become a place where hatemongers such as Bob Cesca and Fools such as Grayson are given a podium from which to spew their nonsense. What they will not do, however, is allow for any dissenting opinions to be offered to counter folks like Cesca and Grayson. And that is a shame, because the surest way to ensure that your writers won’t be taken seriously by anyone other than those who already agree with your ideas is to limit the ability to to offer rational responses.

I would offer a little advice to HuffPo: If you want people to take you seriously, as in see you as something other than a far left site that plays the partisan game, you need some dissenting opinions. You need some people who hold your far left writers feet to the fire when they offer ideas, statements, and stances that are simply not honest, not accurate, or not based in reality. If you want to take a cue from somewhere, you need go no further than SUFA, where dissenting opinions are treated with respect and debated honestly. To be honest, I hope to one day have a regular writer for this site that is on the other side of the political spectrum from me. I would love to have, say every Wednesday night, an article from the left, where the author will be available to debate the topic. I think it would make SUFA the best site ever. So long as the respect for others concept is kept, I think the conversations and discussions would be outstanding. Whether that will ever happen is up in the air. I know those on the left who frequent SUFA (who I greatly appreciate being here) don’t have the time to devote to a role such as that. Perhaps someday.

For now, I present you with Alan Grayson’s latest article. How he became a United States Congressman simply baffles me. Because most of what he says simply doesn’t play out in the world of reality. Since HuffPo won’t publish my article responding to him, I will do so myself. I will offer Grayson’s article, followed by my responding article.

Half a Century Under the Whip
Alan Grayson, US Representative

Alan Grayson... The latest Congressman to earn his "Jackass" merit badge

I was two years old when President Eisenhower gave a stunningly precise prediction of our fate for the next 50 years. He said that for the first time in human history, America had created a permanent military-industrial complex that employed millions and spent billions. “More than the net income of all United States corporations,” he noted.

Now, the military-industrial complex dictates our foreign policy. Wall Street dictates our economic policy. Big Oil dictates our energy policy.

Eisenhower told us that the domination of this military-industrial complex would have “grave implications” for the “very structure of our society.” He warned against “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” But he hoped that an “alert and knowledgeable citizenry” would protect us.

If only. As if. You wish.

For the past half century, the military-industrial complex has perpetuated one war after another, at enormous cost in both blood and money. In its lust for oil, it has broken country after country, and now the sea floor. 9/11 cost Osama bin Laden $500,000, while U.S. military action afterward cost us well over $500,000,000,000.

Now, it’s nine years later. And the war goes on. My five children cannot remember a time in their lives when America was at peace.

And no one in power seems to be able to deliver on the things that matter to us — deliver on jobs, on health, on education, on clean water and air, on better roads. On peace. On meeting human needs.

I’ve done my best in Congress to show the way. Now I need your help. On June 28, we’re going to hold an online ‘Peace Party’ event, where thousands of us come together to support this campaign. We need to raise $200,000 or more by that day, to show BP and other corporate behemoths that the “small people” (as BP put it) still matter.

We need a peace dividend. We need new priorities. We need people in government who will tell the military-industrial complex, and Wall Street, and Big Oil, to go to hell. And I’m one of them.

A Full Century Slowly Leaking Away Our Freedom
From the Desk of USWeapon

I wasn’t yet born when Dwight Eisenhower  gave a stunningly precise account of what will be the downfall of the Republic as we know it. He said, “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” He further went on to say that, “There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens can not cure,” and more succinctly, “Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free.” The Progressive movement in America is one that has zero faith in freedom. They only have faith in the state, but none in individuals or in the ability of free people to solve problems.

What Eisenhower was foretelling was the reality that the only way that we could lose the greatness that America had become was to lose sight of her values, to begin to believe that what we are “entitled” to is more important than the fundamental principle of freedom that was the basis for the formation of this great country in the first place. To believe the nanny state is better than personal responsibility.

Now expressing embarrassment at US prosperity dictates our foreign policy. Keynesian manipulation of the economy dictates our economic policy. And environmentalists who believe humans are a plight on the world dictate our energy policy. And perhaps worst of all the most unethical individuals in America, politicians in DC, dictate our national “moral” policy.

Many in the past warned us that the Progressive movement was one that usurped the individual liberty concept in favor of the greater good. We were warned that the sacrifice of liberty bought with blood was the first step towards submission to the whims of a statist mentality. We were warned that freedom would die with the belief that there are those entitled to what others have earned. Even by Eisenhower we were warned that the fall of America would come when Americans no longer believed in the power of Americans to solve problems without government pulling the strings. The founders believed a document narrowly defining the powers of government would protect free men and women from tyranny.

If only. As If. You wish.

For the past century the progressive movement has perpetuated one crisis after another, at an enormous cost of both freedom and liberty. In its lust for power and control, it has broken generation after generation, and now finally seems poised to seize complete control over every aspect of our lives, creating a society where individual accomplishment is encouraged only when it benefits the state. The 16th Amendment began with taxing only 1% of the income of the top 1%. It now seizes the fruit of the American workers labor to the tune of 2,000,000,000,000 a year.

It is now decades later and freedom is at an all time low and more of what I earn is taken from me than what I am permitted to keep. My son cannot remember a time when America was truly free. For that matter, neither can I.

And no one in government has even remotely been able to deliver to us any of the things that they promise as a reason to take our freedom. Regulation and oversight is a joke that fails monumentally every single time. Health care plans and programs continue to decrease the level of care and innovation in America with each passed bill. Monumental intrusion into the free market for the last 100 years has resulted in economic crisis after economic crisis. Our federal government has become a behemoth that has neither the ability to effectively govern, or the values to lead our country into the future.

I’ve done my best with Stand Up For America to begin waking people up and show them the way. Now I need your help. Beginning this November, and occurring every other November after that, we will be holding election events, where millions of us come together to choose who represents us in the federal government. We need to educate millions by that day, to show the politicians who currently reside in the US Congress and other elected positions that the the American people are they serve, not who they rule.

We need representatives that represent the people, not their parties or special interests. We need a newfound appreciation for freedom and individual liberty in America. We need people educating the American public that government is there to secure our freedom and liberty, nothing else. We need people who will tell the United States Congress, and the State governments, and the usurpers of liberty to go to hell. And I am one of them.

So thanks for letting me start with you Grayson.

.

You can find the original article at the Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/half-a-century-under-the_b_620283.html

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good article. I agree totally.

  2. USWeapon says:

    From the Desk of Mrs. Weapon,
    Thank you, my husband, for reminding us all what we are fighting for. Freedom is something people cannot grasp until they go somewhere where there is none. Thank you for keeping us on our toes.
    Your loving, supportive, and proud wife,
    Mrs. Weapon

    • USW is a lucky man. It takes a lot of support and understanding from you to do what he does with his work plus this site. From what he says, he also gets your input. My hat is off to you both.

  3. Interesting article. It’s early and short on time, so I’ll add more later.

    Peace!

    G!

  4. Mathius says:

    I would offer a little advice to HuffPo: If you want people to take you seriously, as in see you as something other than a far left site that plays the partisan game, you need some dissenting opinions. You need some people who hold your far left writers feet to the fire[…] Sadly, Weapon, you do not understand HuffPo and other sites like it. They are not interested in being taken seriously. They do not care if you think that they are far left propoganda or if you think they are the finest news source in existence. The only thing (only thing) they care about is getting more eyeballs to the site to generate more revenue. Since we SUFA-ites are a rare breed and most people do not wish to have their preconceived notions challenged, the best way to get a lot of people to look is to pick on side and run with it (this works for InfoWars, Bob Cesca, RedState, Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, etc also).

    So offer that advise. They’re not listening.

    • naten53 says:

      They’re not listening, just like everyone in your state and US government.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius with great pearls of wisdom this morning 🙂

    • You may be right matt, no rational group will be mainstream. I have hope for the future tho, eventually sites liek this may have the mass appeal because they are the only ones that make sense.

  5. Birdman says:

    Excellent response to Grayson! Freedom is at the low point in the USA and should cap and tax pass it will get worse.

    The only good I ever heard from Grayson was his questioning of the Federal Reserve. He asked good questions and either didn’t get an answer or complete BS. I believe Grayson wants to audit the Federal Reserve along with Ron Paul and others.

    I’m off for a business trip. Have a good week everyone.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Grayson seems to be a typical progressive creature. What I mean by that is that his starting point – his observations – are not wrong. The military-industrial complex has taken over. This military-industrial complex includes the standing military, BIG GOVERNMENT, Big Oil, Big Banking, Wall Street, etc.

    The part where progressives veer from reality is that the do not see BIG GOVERNMENT as an integral part of the PROBLEM, they see it as somehow being the SOLUTION to the problem.

    Obviously, this cannot be. You cannot use an entity (Big Government) which is one of the main SOURCES of the problem, and expect it to come up with SOLUTIONS to the same problem. Solving the problem is NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS of Big Government. The reason that Big Government thrives is because it is an integral part of the problem. If the progressives would realize this, they might begin to truly understand freedom and understand why it is so fundamental and so important.

    • Good morning, Peter…..

      Please explain your reasoning in your statement “This military-industrial complex includes the standing military, BIG GOVERNMENT, Big Oil, Big Banking, Wall Street, etc.” I am curious as to how you get to this analogy.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        D13,

        It is not an analogy, it is a reality. The Government, the Military, Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil, AIG, GM, etc. etc. are all so interdependent now that they are basically a part of the same beast.

        One beast hidden below the surface of the water, many, many heads protruding from the beast above water in order to make people think that there is more than one beast. All of the heads roaring at each other in an attempt to fool people that the heads are somehow ADVERSARIAL.

        I reality, the beast merely wants to enslave you and use the fruits of YOUR labor to engorge itelf further and become bigger and more powerful. The multitude of heads protruding above the water and appearing to be adversarial against each other is merely for show, to make you more vulnerable to the enslavement.

        • USWeapon says:

          Yep, all the heads make you think they are fighting each other that way you won’t fight them yourself, you will simply wait for them to take each other out, not knowing they never will.

          Good analogy!

    • Mathius says:

      Pete, you started off strong and then took the same right turn into a concrete wall that I see time and again in the interpretation of what it means to be a liberal.

      First paragraph – Check

      Second paragraph – OK.. but not enthusiastically..

      Third paragraph – please stop condescending to us. We understand the concept of freedom. We simply reject the idea of freedom to the extent you would like in favor of a hybrid between government control and freedom which we believe to be superior. The exact mixture is a debate that is nowhere close to settled on our side. Some go to the extremes of communism, some toward the right, others are more centrist, but even you are on this spectrum somewhere. Do you advocate for any government at all? Maybe a small local government? Well then to Black Flag, you probably look like a raging statist with no sufficient appreciation for freedom or “why it is so fundamental and so important.”

      You have already wandered onto the slippery slope and you’re looking at those of us a bit further along as if have no appreciation for the precariousness of our situation. You are the man speeding down the highway at 90mph who judges the man going 95 – “he clearly has no appreciation for how to drive safely or why it so fundamental and so important.”

      The next person who suggests that if we liberals would just do such and such then we “might begin to truly understand freedom” is going to get a black eye.

      • I offer that if you would take the blinders off then you “might begin to truly understand freedom”.

        Swing away

        Go PeterB

        • I’ll never hit a lady.. in your case, I think I’ll just make an angry face and stomp off.

          • You don not agee that the government is bloated and getting fatter by the day? It, in my humble opinion, is waaaaaaaaaay over its intended limitations.

          • I know that which is why I chose to tease you. 🙂 I do agree with Peter though. Big Government is the problem not the solution. Now stomp back to your keyboard.

            • I’m not a fan of Big Government. I prefer Large Government (roughly 80% of the size).

              • Im thinking 8% myself…

              • Mathius says:

                Let’s split the difference: 44%, but with some massive reorganization and reprioritization.

                Deal?

              • That would be a really good step. In fact it would not be wise to do more than that in less than 20 years if we are trying to minimize pain and suffering. It does need to be no less than that, however, else not enough is accomplished.

      • Freedom. What if an oil slick was coming right at your coast? And you decided to get in a boat and capture as much of it as you could. Seems like you can’t do that, not without permission.

        the Coast Guard’s decision to beach sixteen oil-skimming barges due to an inability to “verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.” Those who argue that it’s a simple matter to step aboard and check really don’t grasp how this game is played. There are forms that must be filled out, signed, sent to the “Unified Command’s” central office, checked and countersigned at each level of the hierarchy, discussed at meetings, then sent back down once again for corrections and rechecking before the process is repeated two or three times. The question of whether the extinguishers and vests actually exist has nothing to do with anything. As it happens, the barges were back out in only twenty-four hours. That’s fast.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/barack_and_bureaucracy.html

        And be very careful where you cross the street Matt.

        • What does that have to do with what I said? I am objecting to the self-righteous tendency of people on the right to proclaim sole understanding of the nature and importance of Freedom as you paint all those to the left of you as if we were simpletons who just didn’t get it.

          You seem to be saying that, because some bureaucrat enforced an ordinarily reasonable rule in an extraordinary situation (where, perhaps, he should have used common sense and just let the ships leave) that the people who created the rule in the first place don’t understand freedom. Is that it?

          • Easy there Matt, put down the RedBull, take a couple deep breaths. There, feel better? Why don’t we calmly walk down this path together and discuss what each of us see’s?
            (forgive me if I fail to mention a glimpse I had of a pirate behind the bushes up ahead)

            I am saying we are less free today, than any other time in our history. And this is being achieved in part by changing the perceptions of what freedom means, frequently saying it’s being done for our own good.

            http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/05/Too-Many-Laws-Turn-Innocents-into-Criminals

            Too Many Laws Turn Innocents into Criminals
            Published on May 26, 2010 by Edwin Meese, III

            America is in the throes of “overcriminalization.”

            We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent but unwary, and threaten to turn otherwise respectable, law-abiding citizens into criminals. Consider a few examples from the new book “One Nation Under Arrest”:

            • A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.

            •  A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to.

            • A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package.

            • A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty.

            • Again, I agree with much of what you’re saying. That’s not the point. I just get fed up of being told that we don’t understand/value freedom while conservatives act high and mighty with their condescendingly attitudes of “if the progressives would realize this, they might begin to truly understand freedom and understand why it is so fundamental and so important.”

              I’m sure if we dug into exactly what happened, these examples would make more sense, even if you or I generally wouldn’t agree. I don’t want to get into a case by case debate. There are a lot of stupid laws. Most liberals would argue against what happened in those stories. That’s just not the point.

              The point is that the “typical progressive creature” values freedom and understands it but thinks that the greater good is sometimes more important.

              I haven’t had my red bull yet and I’m cranky – the new puppy has declared that if she has to spend the night in a crate that nobody in the house is allowed to sleep. You wouldn’t think such a tiny thing (for now anyway) could be so loud. Frak. Screw it.. I’m off to get one right now.

              • Mathius,

                reedom and understands it but thinks that the greater good is sometimes more important

                …but that’s the rub.

                You can’t define “greater good” since it always involves inflicting harm on someone else to achieve it.

                So your notion of freedom is bizarre and your notion of “good” is bizarre

                You position always boils down to:

                What I myself think is good for me — is good and to hell with anyone else.

              • “What I myself think is good for me — is good and to hell with anyone else”

                You boiled that down until there’s no water left – I do not agree that every person who thinks we should help people through government are just selfishly wanting to instate programs that are good for them. Many of the programs will in fact be to their disadvantage and they still support them. I personally think they ignore history and refuse to acknowledge that their way hasn’t worked but to say they are just being selfish is unfair. Yes, all this stuff requires going into someone else’s pockets but it also goes into theirs.

              • V.H.

                You conclude:
                Yes, all this stuff requires going into someone else’s pockets but it also goes into theirs.

                But you premised:
                I do not agree … are just selfishly wanting to instate programs that are good for them

                …and you wonder why I just shake my head at smart people stuck in contradiction quicksand….

              • You are using a play on words-HE EHE-I actually believe both interpretations work-but it takes both, to be fair.

              • My definition of freedom matches Websters. My definition of the Greater Good is somewhat nebulous but really can best be summed up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism. (Interestingly, SUFA is #6 in the google search for ‘Define Greater Good’).

                Nothing particularly bizarre there.. unless maybe you’re using a bizarre definition of the word ‘bizarre’….

              • Mathius,

                Webster’s freedom:
                “: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action:”

                Freedom to fly like a bird does not exist, therefore, by adhering to your proclaimed definition, you must believe that freedom cannot exist, and that you must be a ‘slave’ then, and therefore, it is ok to enslave others, because they can never be free to fly like a bird?

                Next, let’s go over this bizarre Utilitarian theory:
                is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings.

                Mathius, some basic questions.

                How do you know what is moral?

                How do you know you are providing happiness to another person whom you do not know?

                Since this requires ALL sentient beings how possibly can you derive what ALL people want? You do not even know 0.000001% of humanity (if that!)

                (I laugh at the likes of Mathius, who proclaim individual freedom can only exist if EVERYONE believes it, yet assign their own philosophy directly to a belief that DOES REQUIRE EVERYONE to believe it!)

                So, BIZARRE theories, Mathius – utterly and totally bizarre theories to justify attacking innocent people.

              • Mathius says:

                Second time today: sigh…

          • Simpletons…not in the least! Misguided most likely.

            • Mathius says:

              We’re all misguided.. it’s just a question of degree.

              The only differences between my being misguided and the likes of PeterB being misguided are that:
              1. His opinion is much closer to the average opinion on this website and
              2. I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, the differences between our views are actually very minute and
              3. I know that I am misguided whereas he thinks he is correct.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “We’re all misguided.. it’s just a question of degree.”

                This is incorrect. If you hold NO CONTRADICTIONS within your philosophy, then you are not misguided 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                That, too, is misguided. You can be 100% internally consistent and still be completely wrong.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Not really, if you were 100% consistent, but 100% of the time you were in CONTRADICTION TO REALITY, you would not survive long.

              • Mathius says:

                You may not survive long, but by your argument above, you would not be misguided..

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                No, becasue although you would be 100% consistent, you would have 100% contradiction with reality. I said NO contradictions 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                no, no, no.. you said “no contractions within your philosophy” 😛

              • Mathius,

                That is why your premises must be correct and immutable

                If you are a pragmatist (such as yourself), you will alter such premises to suit your short-term desires, and justify it – the the killing of millions of other people.

                However, in your case I would be incredibly pleased for you to be merely 100% self-consistent – you can’t even pull that one off… 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                I am very consistent internally – it’s you who, looking in from the outside believe that I must apply absolutist logic. As I believe no such thing, there are no contradictions.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Your analogy does not hold.

        Those that understand freedom and liberty are not going 95 miles per hour. We are standing still and observing the world.

        Those that do not fully understand and do not fully value freedom and liberty are speeding at 95 miles per hour, and in addition, they are driving recklessly. The do not value THEIR OWN FREEDOM, and as such, they DO NOT VALUE THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS EITHER.

        If you feel that it is ok for you, yourself to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a bit of security, or a bit of a safety net, or a bit of whatever; then OF COURSE you are going to think that it is absolutely fine to REQUIRE that others do so as well.

        As well-meaning as you may be, and as good as your intentions may be, that is still the road to tyranny, and you are travelling down it at 95mph.

      • USWeapon says:

        You progressives are so lost in your own minds that you can’t see the sun any longer. If you finally pulled your head out of your ass you may in fact begin to understand freedom. Until then you are lost. Now.. take your best shot ninja boy.

        OK….. I was only kidding with all of that. I think a more proper context is that you don’t place freedom as the primary starting point. Is that more accurate? You like freedom, but feel it is not as important as society as a whole being taken care of on a basic level. Is that accurate? Not trying to be contrite or argumentative. I ask in all seriousness.

        USW

        • Mathius says:

          Bingo! Spot on, really.

          +10 Mathius Points

          But you’re still going to get that black eye. Please email me your home address so I can show up and sucker-punch you.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          USW,

          I would agree with this. I used to be a “progressive” back in my college days.

          The starting premise is that it is necessary to do what is, on net, the best possible thing for the greatest number of people. If some people do not like that, then TOO BAD FOR THEM!

          Freedom, within such a system, is sorta ok, provided that the freedom DOES NOT CONFLICT with the pursuit of the greatest possible good for the maximum number of people. If freedom begins to conflict with the larger goal, THEN IT IS NECESSARY TO LIMIT FREEDOM IN SUCH A WAY AS TO REMOVE THE CONFLICT WITH THE GOAL.

          As such, within such a system, freedom becomes more and more limited, until it basically does not exist. This is because no matter what solution you propose to a “problem”, there are always going to be a certain number of people who oppose the proposed solution, and so you must IMPOSE the proposed solution on the people who do not like it.

          Of course, such a system is in direct conflict with freedom, so ultimately, freedom CANNOT EXIST within such a system, because the system is incompatible with freedom.

          This is precisely why once I had outgrown my college years by 5 years or so I realized that progressivism could not possibly achieve the goals which it claimed to want to achieve, so I abandoned that ideology.

          • Mathius says:

            You think they cannot exist because you see encroachment as destructive. Consider centrifugal force (from the spinning of the Earth) and gravity. One pulls outward, the other pulls inward. Remove either and we all die instantly. We need both and we need them in balance.

            We know communism doesn’t work, but you seem loathe to admit that neither does anarchy. It’s really just a question of finding the sweet spot in between the two.

            • Consider centrifugal force (from the spinning of the Earth) and gravity. One pulls outward, the other pulls inward. Remove either and we all die instantly.

              If this were true anyone who stood on the north or south pole would die.

              It is not true for liberty vs. control either. You and I can live perfectly well without being controlled and having our liberty violated.

              • Mathius says:

                If this were true anyone who stood on the north or south pole would die. Good point.. too early in the morning.. no red bull yet.. example retracted..

                My underlying point, however, remains.

              • Mathius,

                But your underlying point is evil.

                You believe that between freedom and serfdom, there exists some measure of forcing non-violent people to conform to YOUR ideals and mute theirs.

              • Mathius says:

                There are other evils, Flag. You bury your head in the sand and proclaim “force on the nonviolent is the only evil” But it is not so.

                We have a duty, a noblesse oblige. You can reject it an call me evil for demanding that you honor that duty along side me, but that does not make it so. Failing to uphold this duty and allowing harm to befall the weakest and most vulnerable of our society is also evil.

                I am a pragmatist.

                Now go eat your veggies.

              • Mathius,

                I am a pragmatist

                There is nothing more scary then a man who justifies great evil on “pragmatism”.

                Millions have died at such hands.

              • Even if we have a duty to our fellowman, are we accomplishing it by taking action that is doomed to fail to actually help them, or worse, actions that harm them? Furthermore, is not htat duty ultimately borne by each of us, and as such is it right to force people to do theri duty? What of those who take advantage by not doing their duty of trying their best to not be dependent on others? Who makes them do their duty? Is it the duty of some to rule others and force them to do duty? What of those ruler/leaders, most of them seem to not really be doing their duty to their fellowman, who makes sure they do theit duty?

                Can I possibly say duty anymore in a paragraph? I am giggling like a 10 year old…

              • Mathius says:

                Flag: Pure pragmatism can be selfish – that is why you have to be pragmatic in service to (A) The Greater Good and (B) Freedom. Then you don’t wind up a genocidal pragmatist. Follow?

                Jon Smith: You, sir, hit the nail directly on the head. Is our duty being served when the actions done in that service are ineffectual or counterproductive? And the answer is an emphatic: no.

                This is why, though I frequently agree with the goals of liberal programs, I almost always take issue with the ways in which they are approached. I’ll give one example. Social Security as a concept is great (seniors don’t starve to death), but it is being executed as an entitled income for everyone. That’s crap. I should not have to pay for people who don’t need my support or who can still work. So I would make changes accordingly. Does that make more sense?

                And that’s it for me for tonight. To all, good luck, and good night.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              In REALITY there is actually no such physical force as CENTRIFUGAL force.

              Perhaps the fact that you believe that there IS cetrifugal force is part of the reason you are so confused!

  7. SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

    Let’s take the good Congressman’s gripes one at a time.

    No one in power delivers jobs. Since When? The tone would imply since the Eisenhower Administration. The reality of course, except for the terminally brain dead , is that we were doing pretty well until quite recently and, over the last fifty or so years, I would say conservatively, we have had 40 years of good job growth. 80% is good enough for me.

    Health, we are living longer than we did in 1960 with a better quality of life. I guess that the congressman thinks Obamacare will be a bust.

    Clean Air? Still as bad as 1960? Really ?

    Clean water ? Ditto. See any rivers catch on fire lately?

    Better roads? well some may be getting long in the tooth but they were mostly all built in the past 50 years. If government had not stolen the gas tax money for other purposes, maybe they could be maintained better.

    Human needs? What in the hell is that? Welfare? We have more of that, Daycare? We have more of that. Social programs? We have more of those. Racism, homophobia, discrimination because of race, national origin, income, religion etc. We have less of those. Libraries, foodstamps, parks, mortgage guarantees, student loans, we have a whole lot more of those.

    The two things he is right about are…. drumroll please…..: Peace and Education. Absopositively and the wars and poor education have been brought to you by…..drumroll again….government.

    What a dufus.

  8. Oh hell….you just reminded me how old I am. Being born in (ahem) 1948, I actually remember Eisenhower. I still have a letter I wrote president Eisenhower in 1958. I was asking him about the atomic bomb scare at that time and why we had three types of drills in elementary school. 1) Fire drill (three short rings..pause..three short rings..pause), 2) tornado warning ( one long ring…pause…one long ring…pause)and, 3) Bomb drills (two short rings, one long ring….pause…two short rings, one long ring….pause. I have a letter on White House stationary signed by him….not a facsimile. And there were different locations for each drill. Fire…we went outside, tornado into the hallways, A bomb was under our desk.

    Nice article but I would have to take a couple of issues on….I feel the real culprit is Congress not Wall Street, the military industry, or the green movement. I will say that money talks and that some of these industries groom politicians, but it is still the politician that has the power. It still takes an individual that is bought off….whether a Congressperson, a judge, or a President. The individual that allows himself or herself to be bought off is no better than the person or industry that is trying to do that. As a matter of fact, I think that the person that allows himself to be bought off is lower that the person doing the buying.

    I will think it through further….but I am going ahead with my article on Martial law…it is clear that it is not understood at all. (Brief example to be explained later)…New Orleans was NEVER under martial law…they used the term but it was not). A mayor, for example, cannot invoke martial law. But,,,I will explain all in the article.

    have a great day.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – “I think that the person that allows himself to be bought off is lower that the person doing the buying.”

      I think they are often the same person D13 – industry and guvmint often switching/swapping with a pat on the back and a benjamin slid into the pocket

      • I think I agree with you Ray. Look at campaign donations, big business buying favors from big government. Look at how many people have moved from Goldman Sachs to a government position.
        Add to that how many go from a media position to government, sometimes back to media (like George somebody).

      • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…….sipping DP……cogitating…..hmmmmmmmmm.

        Yep..I think that you are correct.

        • hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…. downs three red bulls……. cogitating….. hmmmmmmmmm……

          Yep.. I think that you are correct as well.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Off topic for D13 – best bbq sauce in your neck of woods – I am partial to Rudy’s but searching for that right Texas signature/staple – what’s your call here? (I actually prefer Rudy’s rub to the sauce, but oh well)

          • Ray,

            Make your own BBQ Sauce!! It’s actually very easy.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Flag – I’m trying that also – have been converting some of the suburbia backyard (expensive manicured grass) into something that is a little more fun than chasing weeds and shaving my lawn. Bought a smoker, looking to build a firepit, do some composting, increase the planted agriculture, etc…….

              Having spent years working with food before technology I always like to learn what others find appealing/good and try that as well (and then reverse engineer it).

              Please email any suggestions you may have!

          • Have a great one….will e mail it to you.

    • Mathius says:

      Does the Military Industrial Complex include the Raptors Industrial Complex?

      • Oh nooooooooooooo……… We are merely…….the, ummmm, enforcer….until there is a weakness….then we move in. The RIC is self sufficient, calmly waiting on a tax exempt island….watching….waiting…planning.

        • Mathius says:

          Is that why you’ve been so scarce lately?

        • No sir….a lot of time on border issues….a LOT of time. Texas is a unique state that only has 2% of its land as Federal lands but in the negotiations, Texas has a right to patrol and fix things whereas in most states, the Feds control it. We are not going to let what is happening in Arizona with the FederaL park there (closed to the public but in clear control of the Drug Cartels and Human traffickingn elment on the US side)where the Feds are scared shitless to go in there and clean it out and the Department of Interior will not let Arizona go in there either.

          We have the Big Bend National Park and the Texas National Guard and the Texas Rangers are patrolling it and will not let the Mex take over. It will not happen. The Feds cannot keep Texas out of Fed land. As of June 1, 2010, there is a zero tolerance policy in full force and effect. I have been instrumental in helping set up the combat logistics and the coordination with the National Guard and the Texas Rangers, and DPS. If the Department of Interior tries to stop Texas in any manner, they will have to do so by force. We do not listen to the feds anyway.

          Do not worry, I will be back in full force shortly. Add to that, I have been going through flight school to get my IFR multiengine rating.

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      D-13

      Being both a member of the AUSA and tha AFA, I am really bothered by senior officers retiring and then going to work for the companies that in many cases they have been monitoring in the past. In most if not all cases I would expect that the officer would be honest and true to his oath but there are a few.

      I have always advocated that there must be no appearance of impropriety which would of course prevent someone who was a contract monitor for Boeing’s tanker program then going off to work on Boeing’s tanker program.

      The problem is not restricted to the military nor to the US Government. In my past incarnetion as a mid level NYC manager, many associetes left to join the very banks or developers that they were monitoring. There were rules but it seemed there was just a wink and a nod to them.

      My other beef is that we always hear about the Militatry Industrial complex. Well maybe in Eisenhower’s time that was the only one to worry about but since that time with the increased government involvement in education, health, housing, banking and just about everything else, the problem is now the ____________ Industrial complex. Ignoring this shows either your total ignorance about what has and is going on or, just as likely, your abhorrence for all things military.

  9. Alas, you present the problem – being government – and then present the solution – different butts in government chairs – as if the latter would actually do different.

    How many times does it take of you running head first into a brick wall to notice that the wall isn’t being dented?

    Is this not pure humor when you say
    We need representatives ….We need people who will tell the United States Congress, and the State governments, and the usurpers of liberty to go to hell…

    We need put people in Congress who will look in the mirror and say “Go to Hell”! LoL!! Okie Dokie, that’ll put them in their place!!!

    How can any intelligent person believe that the People you elect will go to their offices in Washington and act in a manner that destroys their own power and purpose in Washington! – utterly insane!

    Yet, that is what is being said here! And then you wonder why the Beltway laughs at the writhing of the American people!

    Example, the TEA Party, the movement that might have offered the greatest threat to the established elite, will accomplish precisely the opposite of their aim.

    These people want change – they want fiscal responsibility. A significant number of them are retired, or approaching retirement. Ask them if they are willing to toss totally these programs:

    (1) Social Security
    (2) Medicare (not just Obamacare)
    (3) Military spending.

    The answers: “No”.

    So these people are not even serious about government control over Americans – they just want to control THOSE Americans and resist control over THEMSELVES. Thus, nothing will change.

    The problem is government and its core premise. Replacing the levers with different levers does not change its core premise. Thus, all you do is deceive yourself and others which, in the greatest of ironies, will make exactly what you feared the most. Until the desire to have government abates, no matter who “is government” does not matter. It will grow and dominate until all of the citizens are stifled and subdued.

    • You have beaten this subject into…horseburger. We hear you, and generally do not disagree…the difference is being realistic.

      • Terry,

        Let me get this straight.

        To you, ‘realistic’ means doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result….

        • No, to me being realistic is being realistic. Beating my head against a wall that will never move as you so eloquently put it…I fail to see why you do not see that you are doing the same…just a different wall.

          • Terry,

            So, being “realistic” to you is to continue to SUPPORT the same thing over and over in a futile belief you will change it…

            …but arguing against supporting it is “unrealistic” – and equally futile?

            Is this now your new argument?

            • Terry,

              I will explain to you.

              —-

              Ideas have consequences. If people listened to you, we would never have had the Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Independence.

              As long as “realistic” means “maintain the status quo” — a position that has no moral basis — you are the reason for your own problem.

              • Let me clarify…advocating that everyone in the US not vote is not realistic…as in it will most likely not happen. Actually being involved to attempt (at least) to have some tiny bit of input to what affects everyone is realistic.

                I know, I know…you don’t see it that way, sorry, but you are in the vast minority. Perhaps one day you won’t be…but realisticly you are now.

              • Terry,

                Pay attention!

                I do not advocate anything over the “everyone”. That is your mind muddle – that “everyone” has to march in a line before ANYTHING can happen!

                I advocate that voting assures the system will continue because those who vote give the system legitimacy.

                So, if you DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM but you still vote, you are insane.

                If you like the system, and hence you vote for it, why are you complaining?

              • That’s right BF…I am just a simple muttle headed country boy…thanks!

              • Terry,

                So un-muddle yourself.

                Do you seriously believe that operating within a framework the is inherently contradictory will lead to a successful outcome?

        • What options do we have?

          Expect the government to change with new congressmen? Unrealistic
          Overthrown the government? Unrealistic
          Think that without legitimacy the government will fix itself? Unrealistic
          Think another country will do any better? Unrealistic
          Anarchy? Unrealistic

          I’m waiting for the realistic part?

        • No, it is weaning the subject (humanity) off of its addiction (statism) since the side effects of a cold turkey approach are deadly. THAT is the realistic part. Also, there may be a small measure needed on a more permanent basis, sort of like a long-time addict whose body has ceased production of an essential chemical because it depended on a drug to provide it for so long. Like an addiction, it will be hard to keep that measure small, but the side effect is, again, deadly.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      If we did SOMEHOW manage to elect representatives that were ACTUALLY in favor of severely reducing the size and power of the federal government, I do believe that this would at least be a step in the right direction.

      However, as we have discussed before, working to change the system from within has only, to this point, served to create another quasi-stable variant of the same system. Therefore, change from within MIGHT get us started moving in the right direction, but it would still not be capable of yeilding the results that many people claim to desire.

      The problem, as I see it, is that people do not realize that there is anything BUT the system. They see the system as “a necessary evil” because they cannot even begin to envision life without the system.

      It is critical to first realize that A) Evil is not necessary and B) society can be ORGANIZED without those organizations resorting to evil.

      • Peter,

        If we did SOMEHOW manage to elect representatives that were ACTUALLY in favor of severely reducing the size and power of the federal government, I do believe that this would at least be a step in the right direction.

        And if lead mutated to gold, we’d all be millionaires….

        NO ONE can be elected to government with the goal of reducing government. No ONE.

        As I exampled with the TEA party – you think they will cut their own throats and default on Social Security? Nope… that is THEIR money, so they won’t touch that. “Someone else” will have to suffer…. but who???

        Therefore, change from within MIGHT get us started moving in the right direction, but it would still not be capable of yeilding the results that many people claim to desire.

        The problem is, Peter, that you cannot spend the same dollar twice, nor can you spend the same hour and effort twice.

        If you waste your time slamming your head against a wall – even if been doing this for 10,000 years – you cannot at the same time be digging a tunnel under it.

        Doing all the work and effort to elect someone who will not do want you believe is necessary is worse then futile. You have consumed your life energy and that will never be returned to you.

        As Kent says:
        Time’s Up!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          You see though, that the main problem that you and Kent and I have is that the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of people are completely and utterly conditioned to the system and firmly BELIEVE that the only way to change the system is from within the system itself.

          They firmly believe that the system is designed so that it can be changed to their liking.

          This is why real education is so critically important. Although it seems straight-forward, it is going to take GENERATIONS in order to convince people that the system (which is the PROBLEM) cannot possibly produce a “solution to itself”.

          • Peter,

            This is why real education is so critically important

            I agree!!

            This is why my response to Terry (who despairs about the beating a dead horse to horse-burger).

            He persists in attempting to apply reasoned action and policy into a system that is contradictory. He appears he cannot understand that the answers he will get out of the system cannot be anything but bizarre because the system is a contradiction!

            No matter how well-formed he believes his actions are – it simply does not matter. The essence of irrational and contradictions is that reason cannot work.

            Thus, his struggle keep trying because one day past infinity, it just may!

            Thus, education – and here at SUFA – a constant unending mantra of principle testing. If what you propose is, itself a contradiction, how can you possibly expect it to be successful in a Universe that actively destroys all contradictions! Simply, it cannot succeed – ever.

            But this awareness is personal. It must be grasped by the likes of Terry – but for many reasons, primarily fear I think, many people would rather believe that contradictions can exist.

          • I know it can be changed without that, but the only path outside the system is revolt. Passive inaction is impossible. You all get as close to it as you can, but you still pay taxes and feed the system, do you not? One must do those things because of the entrenchment of the system, and it is those matters of minimal compliance that support the system more than the vote itself. By paying sales tax and property tax, etc., you show your acceptance and legitimize government more than you ever could with a vote. In your own mind, perhaps, you see it as something you are forced to do, whereas voting is optional, but to those in power, as long as you do what they say, they believe you are fine with it, and your lack of vote is lost among a host of people too lazy to bother, diluting your message to almost nothing.

            On the other hand, your alternative is to be totally non-compliant, thereby forcing a confrontation, which ends in violence.

            I see the vote as a way to affect the system, broken as it is, in a positive way. Also, I feel that to gain the moral high ground for myself and in the eyes of others, I must show that I did all things possible to me within the system to acheive my goal before resorting to removing/overthrowing the system.

            • LOI,

              You have never answered how you believe you can influence government by voting for someone:

              (1) you didn’t pick – he was chosen for you.
              (2) on issues you didn’t create – they were chosen for you
              (3) even if you are “lucky” and the guy you didn’t pick who runs on issues you didn’t chose, but you voted for him anyway, wins…..

              ….he doesn’t have to do what he said he would do!

              And you believe you can alter the system by voting!!

              Bizarre mind-haze, sir.

            • LOI

              t support the system more than the vote itself. By paying sales tax and property tax, etc., you show your acceptance and legitimize government

              Bizarre!

              So you believe surrendering your wallet to a mugger legitimizes the mugger’s theft!

              • Sorry, LOI!

                The above was meant in response to Jon

                (blush)

              • You missed my point, perhaps I did not articulate it well. I am not saying that you personally legitimize the mugger. I am saying that the mugger does not see that he is stealing, and he does see the wallet being surrendered. He does not see the statement that says you do not legitimize their power, they just see another mindless slob paying what is asked and ignoring anything important in life, leaving them to do as they will. They see no difference in you and the majority of america. You doing nothing, from their standpoint, lends to their power rather than threatening it. This is especially the case if they are able to keep stealing from you with impunity.

              • Jon,

                The mugger DOES KNOW he is stealing (exception: mentally ill people who cannot determine “right from wrong”).

                He simply DOES NOT CARE.

                It maybe true that most in government or support government are mentally ill – displayed by the fact you can provide reasoned argument about the nature of government and in the face of it, they refuse to change their irrational belief about it.

                But in all cases, my surrendering a wallet to the mugger – whether or not he believes he is in a “Right” or not – does NOT provide my legitimacy to him, regardless of his irrational opinion.

              • Perhaps, but if your actions are inneffective, or worse, send the wrong message, then the philosophy or “rightness” is lost and barely relevant. It may help you sleep at night, but will it do anything?

                I compare it to the well meaning socialists, the ones who really think they are helping people. The effect of their actions makes their intentions irrelevant. From one perspective, an argument could even be made that the negative effect of their actions was a result of the evils of those who take advantage, or are lazy, or that the use of force is only a part of their action because people are stingy and uncaring. Even if that argument could be made, however, the fact remains that their actions are still evil because of their effect. The ends, in that case, make the means questionable. I do not beleive that the ends justify the means OR that the means justify the ends. IF the means I use destroys people, regardless of how right those means seemed to be, then I question those means. IF I engage in means that are evil, regardless of the ends I hope to reach, then I am out of line, even if I were to accomplish my goals and reach the ends I desired, I would still have been out of line.

                I do not question your philosophy, I question the relevance and effect of your actions. I understand why you choose the path you choose, I simply doubt that it will lead anywhere. That is no skin off your nose as long as YOU are happy with your life, but when you recommend a course of action to another, then I can call in question the wisdom of that recommendation, and argue that the effect of such action will not be what you claim. Your recommended actions are philosophically honest and consistent, your implied results, however, are not (in my opinion).

        • “And if lead mutated to gold, we’d all be millionaires….”

          But, then I’d feel complelled to dig my bullets out of any attackers I darwinize.

        • “And if lead mutated to gold, we’d all be millionaires….”

          Couldn’t resist – actually gold would be worth as little as lead and we’d all be watching the price of platinum instead!

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    Am curious also if the POTUS quotes from Grayson are contextually accurate

    • Contextually, I would have to say NO, Eisenhower IMO is noting the danger but he is putting the responsibility to guard against this danger on the people and he specifically speaks about the danger in terms of our liberty and the importance of peaceful means in solving our problems. Grayson is just blaming the complex and giving the government a pass.

      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

      “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

      Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual –is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Eisenhower, if he had realized it at the time, should have strongly emphasized the words OF DEFENSE.

        One of the problems that we have is that the industrial and military machinery seeks power, and is not merely used FOR DEFENSE.

  11. posting for comments

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Freedom is simply the absence of compulsion or coercion from outside sources or forces, and liberty is simply the right of self-determination and individual soverignty.

    ANY method of organizing a society which uses compulion, coercion, force, violence, etc. is in direct violation of the concepts of freedom and liberty. It does not matter whether the organization involved uses as little force as possible or whether it rules with an iron fist. Either way, liberty and freedom are denied.

    To say, “I believe that X is right. Therefore, whether YOU believe X is right or not, I support the idea of taxing you so that we can pay for X, because X is right.” is to say something faulty. It betrays that you do not have a full necessary understanding of freedom and liberty.

    To say, “I believe that X is right. Therefore, I am going to do whatever I can to support X, and I am going to tell everyone why I think X is right and tell everyone why I think they should also support X in any way that they can.” is to say something which is perfectly fine. You run the risk of a significant number of people DISAGREEING, and perhaps X will not get the support which you strongly feel that X deserves, but life itself IS risk, and free people can disagree without the need to resort to force and violence to resolve such disagreements.

    It ain’t really as difficult as some of you make it seem. Sure, there are going to be difficult problems without clear-cut solutions. Life is like that. That happens REGARDLESS of whether you are free or not. The key is to come up with societal institutions which are capable of solving problems without resorting to a default position of the use of force to implement the proposed solutions.

  13. BF…down here…

    Your last post:
    “Terry,

    So un-muddle yourself.

    Do you seriously believe that operating within a framework the is inherently contradictory will lead to a successful outcome?”

    I believe that this is what we have to work with for now. It may evlolve…it may devolve, not being a phychic I cannot with absolute certainty say…not to mention being muddled…

    • Terry,

      So, let me get this straight.

      The framework you are working in is a mess of contradictions. You resist operating -on your own behalf- in a system that reduces (or eliminates) contradictions because “everyone else” won’t necessarily follow you.

      So you believe you are realistic to continue to operate in a contradiction because “somehow” it will stop contradicting itself?

      • When it is all that is there, yes. If I had to build a house and all I had was sticks and mud, then I would have a mud and stick house until I had something better…I really do not care if “everyone” follows me as you put it. I believe as I do and if there are more, fine…if not…fine…if you do not…fine.

        • Terry,

          But that is not the case.

          The theory of gravity agrees with sticks and mud as it does with wood and brick.

          The system you are advocating denies gravity. With that belief-system, you build with your sticks and mud — but it cannot succeed because you have denied reason – you hold strong to a system of contradictions – and believe gravity does not work.

          Please note: in such a belief system it does not matter whether you build with sticks and mud or bricks and wood it will fail.

          Until you organize yourself and act upon the root principles, free from self-imposed contradictions, then and only then can any structure you desire be built.

          But as long as that doesn’t happen – nothing can be built. The Universe never, ever, loses.

          • I would not really say that I advocate it…tolerate it perhaps, but not really advocate…participate, yes. I vote and I will continue to do so. I believe that there is possibly something better, but it simply is not here.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Terry,

      If you persist in using a broken tool, even though you are well aware that the tool is broken and the broken tool has no hope whatsoever of accomplishing the job that you set out to do, that makes no sense.

      • If that broken tool is all I have, and it at least on the surface seems to almost work, I am so hard headed I will continue to try…especially if it is the only tool I have.

        Otherwise, I just sit idly by…that is not in my nature. To do nothing is not me.

        • “Between the great things we cannot do and the small things we will not do, the danger is that we shall do nothing.”

          Adolph Monod

          “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

          Edmund Burke

        • Terry,

          Your other – and more reasoned – choice.

          Throw away the tool and build a new one that works.

          • Build it with what…I just threw the only tool I had away!:)

            • Terry,

              …with your REASONING. Throw away irrational and evil means and develop replacements based on REASON and ROOT PRINCIPLES.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Man was able to make tools without any tools being present to facilitate him in their making.

              Sometimes the tool you have ALMOST works. You try to patch it, rig it, add some duct-tape to it, make minor modifications, and yet the tool STILL doesn’t quite work.

              Because you have become SO ATTACHED to the tool, you keep thinking that SOMETHING that you try is going to make the tool behave exactly the way you want it to behave.

              However, you would be infinitely better off disposing of the tool that ALMOST does what you think it is supposed to, and then CREATING A TOOL which does EXCATLY what you want it to do!

              The new tool MAY have some similarities to the old tool (or it may not), but hopefully the new tool will not have the imperfections that the old tool did.

  14. Totally off the discussion but important.

    NEW ORLEANS (AP) – A federal judge in New Orleans on Tuesday blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.
    The White House said the administration would appeal. It had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.
    Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium, arguing it was arbitrarily imposed.
    Feldman agreed, saying in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He said it seemed to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.
    “An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country,” Feldman wrote.
    The moratorium was imposed after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers and blew out the well that has spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf.
    The Interior Department said it imposed the moratorium so it could study the risks of deepwater drilling. But the lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La., claimed there was
    no proof the other operations posed a threat.
    The moratorium was declared May 6 and originally was to last only through the month. President Barack Obama announced May 27 that he was extending it for six months.
    In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal and corporate leaders have opposed the moratorium, saying it will result in drilling rigs leaving the Gulf of Mexico for lucrative business in foreign waters. They say the loss of business will cost the area thousands of lucrative jobs, most paying more than $50,000 a year. The state’s other major economic sector, tourism, is a largely low-wage industry.
    In its response to the lawsuit, the Interior Department said the moratorium is necessary as attempts to stop the leak and clean the Gulf continue and new safety standards are developed.
    “A second deepwater blowout could overwhelm the efforts to respond to the current disaster,” the Interior Department said.

    This is a step in the right direction, however I will be surprised if Salazar and Obama don’t overturn it. That’s OK because their response will speak volumes about what their priorities are. George Soros and Petrobras will prove to be more important to these people than the jobs of AMERICANS.

    I can get a visa and go to work in Brazil. That would pay my bills, but I will feel a little guilty because a lot of regular folks are going to get screwed.

    • Wasabi,

      The administration is not favoring Brazil, nor disfavoring you. To do either (or both) means they would actually stop and think and plan.

      The matter really is: they don’t even know “you” exist. They act for their own purpose -single mindedly- and do not hold “you” in their thoughts for a nanosecond.

      And you gave them this power.

      • This is very true. We have given these people virtually unlimited authority, so they can “take care of us”. This illustrates that it is not the needs of the many that drive these decisions. It is the needs of our friends, our power, and then the unfortunate folks who keep voting for the same people because they feel their handouts justify screwing others.

        Sorry to sugar coat it so much.

        This is the Violence you speak of, I get it.

    • Cyndi P says:

      You should do it, Wasabi. Don’t feel the least bit guilty if you didn’t vote for Hope-N-Change. There’s nothing you can do to help those who don’t deserve what they’re getting. Those that did vote for Hope-N-Change, are getting what they deserve, with much more on the way. Save yourself. If there’s a country to come back to when Obama is done with it, you’ll be needed then and can come back and rebuild.

      I say this as an expat of three years. I’m working to save myself and those I care about that didn’t vote for Hope-N-Change. Those that did and STILL defend it, are on their own so far as I’m concerned. Make them pay for their stupidity. You’re not stupid, so why should you pay for it?

  15. Highjack, and yes it’s true.

    WARNING! Don’t touch plastic bottles lying in your yard…

    1. a plastic bottle with a cap. 2. a little Drano. 3. a little water. 4. a small piece of foil. Disturb it by moving it and BOOM!! No fingers left and other serious damage to your face, eyes, etc.. People are finding these bombs in mailboxes and in their yards waiting for you to pick it up.

    See an actual police report and bomb detonation:

    http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp

  16. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. LOI….answered your question on the last blog as to why Dallas is on the bad list and Fort Worth on the good list.

    Have a nice day, sir.

    • D13,

      Just read them, great answer sir. Posting as open mic topic:

      “A TALE OF TWO CITIES”

      Aaron said
      June 21, 2010 at 3:15 pm

      Just a couple of points. This city has a handgun law that makes it restrictive to own a handgun. Hence a higher murder rate. The other point is even simpler: do they count jails? Because spades is the game of choice in the pokey and if they don’t allow prisoners to congregate in groups larger than 3, I can imagine that there’s some unrest going on…

      The town should take some of its (obviously) wasted cash and open a public gun range and offer classes in gun safety and self defense. Bet that’d clean up their murder rate pronto.
      Reply

      *
      Life of Illusion said
      June 21, 2010 at 4:36 pm

      Sorry, I am pro-gun, but the restrictive vs open cities do not explain the murder rates.

      http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25
      Reply
      o
      Aaron said
      June 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm

      Umm… that chart only shows crime rates. It doesn’t show gun ownership and legal restrictions. The nearest city to me isn’t even listed (Cheyenne, WY). Neither is Casper – both are too small, I guess.

      Your conclusion doesn’t bear with research from John Lott, Vin Suprynowicz, et al.
      Reply
      +
      Life of Illusion said
      June 21, 2010 at 5:27 pm

      Aaron,

      Why does Texas, with liberal gun laws have four of the safest cities and two of the most dangerous? It isn’t because of the gun laws. My conclusion is not at odds with Mr. Lott, not sure about the other guy. On the whole, more guns does equal less crime, but where gang violence runs rampant, so does gun violence.

      By my fuzzy knowledge, AG=anti-gun, PG=pro-gun

      CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION: (32 cities)

      Safest 10: Most Dangerous 10:

      1 San Jose, CA, AG 1 Detroit, MI ,AG

      2 Honolulu, HI, AG 2 Baltimore, MD ,AG

      3 El Paso, TX, PG 3 Memphis, TN, PG

      4 New York, NY, AG 4 Washington, DC, AG

      5 Austin, TX, PG 5 Philadelphia, PA, AG

      6 San Diego, CA, AG 6 Dallas, TX, PG

      7 San Antonio, TX, PG 7 Nashville, TN, PG

      8 Louisville, KY, PG 8 Charlotte, NC, PG

      9 Fort Worth, TX, PG 9 Columbus, OH, AG??

      10 Jacksonville, FL, PG 10 Houston, TX, PG
      Reply
      #
      Aaron said
      June 21, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      Then I would question what constitutes “pro gun” and “safe” as well as “anti-gun” and “unsafe.”

      Dallas/Ft Worth have restrictive gun laws including a purchase wait designed to (supposedly) keep guns out of the hands of gangsters. The fact that San Jose, CA is on the “safe” list cracks me up. I have relatives who’ve lived there for ten years and they’ve had two cars stolen, a home invasion robbery, and three other crimes committed against them. I lived in a comparably-sized city in Utah (SLC) and was robbed once.

      Now I live in Wyoming, where nobody asks who has guns, they ask how many people have because whether someone has weapons is a given here, it’s a question of how many. People are also a lot more tolerable.

      I also have relatives in Midland, TX (not far from El Paso). They’ve told me about Texas’ supposedly “pro gun” laws. You can’t even carry a pistol in the back seat or glove box. That’s pro gun? Where I live, you can carry a pistol on your person, in your car, and just about everywhere but the courthouse and Post Office.

      Crime is nonexistent here.
      Reply
      *
      Aaron said
      June 21, 2010 at 6:04 pm

      Utah is considered a “pro gun” state, but has a passel of laws regarding who, what, when, where, and how you can own, use, and carry a gun. Compared to the Kommunist Republik of Kalifornia, it’s extremely pro-gun. Compared to the real right to bear arms? It sucks.

      That’s basically my point. Pro gun by comparison is a crappy measurement. Kalifornia in comparison to China is extremely pro gun…
      Reply
      *
      D13 said
      June 22, 2010 at 12:46 am

      Your information is very wrong, Aaron. In Texas, we can carry a gun just about anywhere we want to go. You can have a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle in your car at anytime. There is absolutely no wait time to purchase a handgun over three hours and there is no wait time to purchase shotguns, rifles, semi automatics, bazookas, anti aircraft, stingers….you get the picture. We have a gun show every two weeks, in Fort Worth, and individuals can sell to other individuals without a background check. The average background check from dealers takes from 15 minutes to three hours and Texas is not required to keep paper work or records of sales over 36 hours. (although many do)

      we have a conceal and carry law and we are getting ready to vote on open carry. There is no age limit on purchasing weapons…..except for handguns.

      How much more liberal do you want us to be?
      Reply
      o
      Aaron said
      June 22, 2010 at 12:55 am

      OK, I’ll admit when I’m wrong. My information was second-hand and had something to do with Jim Crow laws and keeping loaded weapons in the car while traveling.

      Here in Wyo we have all of that except I can’t tell you what the dealer wait on paperwork is since I don’t do government paperwork. Private sale only. 🙂

      We’re also proud users of the gun show loophole here. Gun shows here are about every month if you’re willing to travel. We have one here in our small town annually, plus the annual town-wide garage sale, wherein many will put out guns for sale as well.

      There’s an annual gun show in the next town north, one every 3 months in Cheyenne, and if you want to go into Tax Land (Nebraska), there are more.
      Reply
      +
      D13 said
      June 22, 2010 at 8:05 am

      Good Morning, sir. No offense was intended. Texas, and it sounds like Wyoming, are fierce about their guns. I would hate to see the outcome of any gun restricting laws here. It simply will not be done.

      The three top priorities here..

      1) Don’t mess with our guns…at all
      2) Don’t mess with our women…at all
      3) Don’t mess with our horses…at all
      Reply
      #
      Life of Illusion said
      June 22, 2010 at 9:05 am

      Morning D13,

      I was hoping you would weigh in on this. Any thoughts on why Dallas is #6 on the danger list, but it’s twin city Ft. Worth is #9 on the safe side?

      Only guess I can make is gang violence.
      Reply
      *
      D13 said
      June 23, 2010 at 7:35 am

      Hi LOI….I can give you a great reason. Dallas wants to be “Avant Garde”. They hire police chiefs from larger cities thinking they have the answer. They are also tolerant of illegals, gang members, etc. Dallas wants to be like new York or Paris.

      Fort Worth – Zero tolerance on gangs….and I mean ZERO. You think that the issue of a 15 year old boy in El Paso was something…The gang members here, regardless of age, have been “taken out” and that is literally. Fort Worth has relatively ZERO grafitti. Our police are quite dilligent and we do not have any problen with being stopped at 3 am if acting suspiciously. There are two areas in Fort Worth that have some problems but they are contained there.

      The gangs operate in Dallas freely. Fort Worth school system has a zero tolerance in the public school system to truancy. Truancy is treated very harshly (picked up and put in juvenile)…in Dallas, they do not even call the parents. The Tarant County Sheriff’s Department is very good on warrants…Dallas is a relatively safe city for the criminal.

      Fort Worth does not wish to lose its western identity/western style justice.
      Fort Worth has lower city taxes and property taxes. It draws the professionals. Fort Worth operates within its budget. Many professionals live in Fort Worth and drive to Dallas to work and back to Fort Worth. You can walk our downtown streets in Fort Worth at any time….You cannot in Dallas (without an Abrams Tank). Fort Worth checks worksites and will kick out employers that hire illegal workers. (And, yes, to the bleeding hearts, crime is directly proportional to the illegal population.)

      Fort Worth City Council gets along with each other and renders decisions. The Dallas City Council is full of the politically correct and is in a constant turmoil and infighting.

      These are just some of the reasons.

      • Texas is NOT pro-gun. Open carry is still “illegal” even. It is full of people who are under the delusion that their gun rights are respected here, but it just isn’t true. To fool people into believing they are free, all you have to do is tell them how free they are. Over and over again.

        • KentFlagMcmanigal,

          On a gray scale, Texas is more friendly to legal gun owners than most states. I was trying to bring up the difference in gun violence in two cities that are literally side by side, with the same state laws on guns. What explains one being on the governments “Safest” list, and the other being on the most “Dangerous”?

          I think it could even be expanded on, consider where there are laws or rules that are followed, or ignored.

          “Fort Worth school system has a zero tolerance in the public school system to truancy. Truancy is treated very harshly (picked up and put in juvenile)…in Dallas, they do not even call the parents.”

          In the gulf, our government did not follow it’s own rules for inspections, did not have the government required booms available. So consider the consequences of when the government bends it’s own rules, as they have done by refusing to enforce our federal immigration laws. Also consider that prohibiting open carry, or any other restriction on a legal citizens having a firearm is a result of them “bending” the rule that was detailed in the 2nd Amend.

          PS, good morning, remember RedBull is to be sipped, not chugged….

          • When I lived in Colorado, I did anything I wanted, gun-wise. I open carried everywhere I went (even in the bank) and no one even noticed (other than tourists). Some of the younger (more corrupt) cops cast a wary eye at me, and even seemed to know more about me than they had a legitimate “need” to know, but I wasn’t harassed. Of course, I was not an activist for liberty at that point, either.

            I guess it is a matter of perspective. I lived in PA also, and while supposedly a fairly “gun friendly” state, the local sheriff threatened me and lied about the local gun laws- basically saying he would ignore the law and act upon his wishes instead. Everyone I knew there also was under the impression that guns in the state were to be “registered” even though that wasn’t the case. It was as if they wished to be New York Jr.

            Once you have tasted liberty, anything less tastes bitter.

            • Some good examples. One place respected the law and your rights.
              The other was willing to illegally
              use the law against you to force you to conform. I read about a CA police chief ordering his officers to “put them on the ground”, any of the open carry advocates that were going to Starbucks and such.

            • A police motorcycle cop stops a driver for running a red light.
              The guy is a real jerk and comes running back to the officer
              demanding to know why he is being harassed by the Gestapo!
              So the officer calmly tells him of the red light violation. The
              motorist instantly goes on a tirade, questioning the officer’s
              ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., in rather explicit terms.
              The tirade goes on without the officer saying anything.

              When he gets done with writing the ticket he puts an “AH” in
              the lower right corner of the narrative portion of the ticket.
              He then hands it to the ‘violator’ for his signature. The guy
              signs the ticket angrily, and when presented with his copy
              points to the “AH” and demands to know what it stands for.
              The officer says, “That’s so when we go to court, I’ll remember
              that you’re an asshole!”
              Two months later they’re in court. The ‘violator’ has such a bad
              driving record he is about to lose his license and has hired a lawyer
              to represent him. On the stand the officer testifies to seeing the man
              run the red light. Under cross examination the defense attorney asks;
              “Officer is this a reasonable facsimile of the ticket you issued my client?”
              Officer responds, “Yes, sir, that is the defendant’s copy, his signature
              and mine, same number at the top.
              Lawyer: “Officer, is there any particular marking or notation on this
              ticket you don’t normally make?”
              “Yes, sir, in the lower right corner of the narrative there is an “AH,” underlined.”
              “What does the “AH” stand for, officer?”
              “Aggressive and hostile, Sir.”
              “Aggressive and hostile?”
              “Yes, Sir?
              “Officer, are you sure it doesn’t stand for asshole?”
              “Well, sir, you know your client better than I do!”

        • Sorry Kent…..it is very pro gun. We can carry guns anywhere….but not side arms as yet in open carry. We can carry any rifle we want or shotgun into any place that is not posted.

          I am predicting open carry, for handguns, within the next 2 years.

          Our gun shows are not restricted and there are no requirements to wait or buy a weapon. we have only one law on the books about rifles…and assault rifles….fully automatic are not allowed…but then I do not know a state where fully automatic is allowed…So, if your only premise is the open carry as not being pro gun…please broaden your horizons.

          I just recently attended a gun show at the Will Rogers Coliseum and purchased a silencer for a 9mm Browning…can you do that in your state?

          • D13- For the record, I DO live in Texas.

            My problem is that my horizons have been broadened. As I say, once you’ve experienced more liberty, going back to less is hard to swallow. And people telling me how “free” I am doesn’t cut it.

            Had I not lived other places I would not know what more freedom feels like, and I might be very content with the “gun freedom” I have here.

            As it is, while I am glad Texas is better than PA, I still miss the gun freedom I had in CO. Obviously, I didn’t live in an urban area in CO, but I did live in a much larger town in CO than I do in TX (about 8000 in population compared to about 1400).

  18. Ray Hawkins says:

    The Runaway General – Rolling Stone, Michael Hastings

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0

    Anyone up to speed or have thoughts on this yet? I read the full article – am torn between whether McChrystal violated decorum/rules and should go, or, if a handful of someone’s honest thoughts are being cherrypicked to stir the pot? Either way, it underscores for me that Afghan. has indeed become quite the quagmire – I am also intrigued more as well by the counterinsurgency strategy we’re using (“COIN”) and whether ultimately we are going to succeed in a land where primitive rules still carry the day and our efforts to date (no matter how varied) have not seemed to set us up for success.

    And just for good measure – was McChrystal expecting something different from allowing this profile/story to ever get off the ground considering it was for Rolling Stone? Not saying he should have been more PC – but for chrissakes – if McChrystal gets dumped then are we set back even further in this war?

    • Gooday Ray,

      Haven’t been very interested in this as yet.

      I think he stepped in it giving an interview. It’s a screwed up situation where the guy running a war has to do PR and worry about local, domestic and international politics. Bush had no strategy
      on how to end the war and get us out, Obama has followed the same “plan”.

      This is just a good example of why politics and the military should be kept separate. On the whole, I’m waiting to read the actual article, not rely on what the talking heads tell me it means.

      from FOX
      Ambassador Karl Eikenberry

      McChrystal’s civilian counterpart was singled out for some of the most searing criticism in the piece. U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry had thrown a wrench into the review process last fall for the Afghanistan war strategy when he sent cables to Washington expressing concern about McChrystal’s approach and Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s reliability as a U.S. partner.

      McChrystal told Rolling Stone he felt “betrayed” by the ambassador and suggested Eikenberry was just trying to look good for posterity.

      “I like Karl, I’ve known him for years, but they’d never said anything like that to us before,” he said. “Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.'”

      Source: AP

      • I left the Navy in 1993 because the Joint Chiefs had surrendered control to the Politicians. If you were black, female, gay, whatever “victim” group, there were special “Command Advancement” rules to get you promoted despite a shitty test score. Kill fair competition and your most qualified people will leave.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – I think in the RS article it was pointed out also that Eikenberry was pissed that McChrystal had not named him “Viceroy of Afghan” (whatever the hell that really is supposed to be). I would assume then that Eikenberry was looking for the first opp to undermine the General.

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      When my son joined the Army back in 1997, I told him to keep his eyes on the ribbons of Sr. Officers and Sr. NCO’s. When he stopped seeing the Viet Nam service ribbon, I told him it was time to get out.

      General McCrystal is a post VN soldier. Any half wit 2nd Lt. in Viet Nam would have known never, repeat never allow yourself to be interviewed by anything called “Rolling Stone” magazine. You know you are in for a hammering.

      Having said that, I have to reach back to my Dad’s comments on McArthur. Despite respecting the general, Dad always thought that Truman let him off light by not convening a General Court Martial. Unfortunately, McCrystal has now fallen into the same category. I just hope that after he leaves, he will publically speak out and not disappear off somewhere to write his memoirs. So much more could have been accomplished by him resigning, calling a press conference and blowing the lid off the nonsense.

      On the other hand, it is quite possible thet Obama and his staff are so clueless that they don’t even know they are supposed to fire him. We’ll see.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @SK – I don’t think (maybe am wrong) that McChrystal was that dumb – every profile points to how sharp this guy is – maybe narcissism got the best of him?

    • Prof. Rowley on his blog presents a clear perspective of what has happened with the Gen.

      http://charlesrowley.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/president-obama-removes-general-stan-mcchrystal

    • Ray…this is really very simple. I like McCrystal and his tactics. He is a field officer not a politician.

      He was wrong in the following manner.

      1). NEVER agree to an interview with anyone.
      2). NEVER agree to an interview with anyone.
      3). NEVER agree to an interview with anyone.
      4). NEVER agree to an interview with anyone.
      5). NEVER agree to an interview with ESPECIALLY Rolling Stone Magazine.
      6). NEVER agree to an interview with ESPECIALLY Rolling Stone Magazine.
      7.) NEVER agree to an interview with ESPECIALLY Rolling Stone Magazine.
      8). NEVER openly criticize the CIC no matter how wrong he is or crazy he is or stupid he is.

      As a team leader in Vietnam, I did not allow AP to accompany us anywhere and would not interview.
      As a Batallion CDR in Kuwait, I did not allow any imbedded media nor agreed to an interview.
      As a Regimental CDR in Afghanistan, I did not allow imbedded media nor agreed to an interview.

      McCrystal was wrong. As much as I cannot stand Obama….and think he is a coward and a weasel….I have to swallow my pride and agree with the decision of disciplining an insubordinate officer.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @D13 – thanks for the response –

        Is it optional to do interviews / host ’embedded’ journalists?

        I am still torn on this – I think he stepped in his own shit to be honest. I do value reporting from the front lines as it provides a glimpse into what happens when we send people into harms way. I also recognize that it easily injects emotion into it.

  19. Will check out the Rolling Stone story, but also looking into this:

    http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/06/22/23061/red-sea-oil-spill/comment-page-1/

  20. Networks Ignore Misleading Obama Report on Drilling Moratorium and Opposition of Experts
    By Scott Whitlock
    Wed, 06/23/2010 – 11:20

    All three network news shows on Tuesday skipped a report that eight of 15 experts consulted by the Obama administration opposed the government’s plan to halt deepwater oil drilling for six months. Only Special Report With Bret Baier covered the story.

    FNC reporter James Rosen noted a federal judge’s decision to overturn the plan: “The judge also rebuked the Obama administration for filing a quote ‘misleading misrepresentation’ in the case by suggesting an expert panel supported the moratorium when a majority of its members do not.”

    ABC’s World News, CBS’s Evening News and NBC’s Nightly News (as well as Good Morning America, Early Show and Today) all highlighted the ruling, but none of them mentioned the opposition from a majority of the panel.

    CNSNews.com’s Edwin Mora explained:

    The eight experts outlined their objections in a June 8 letter to Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R).

    “A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, ‘Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf,’ dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of that report,” the experts said in their letter.

    “There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or ‘peer reviewed’ the main recommendation of that report,” the eight experts wrote. “This is not the case.”

    They added that “the scope of the moratorium on drilling which is in the executive summary differs in important ways from the recommendation in the draft which we reviewed.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/06/23/abc-nbc-and-cbs-ignore-report-government-experts-opposed-drilling-mo#ixzz0rh1haw30

  21. from Judy,

    HILARIOUS STUFF….

    The following questions were set in last year’s GED examination
    These are genuine answers (from 16 year olds)…………and they WILL breed.

    Q. Name the four seasons
    A. Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar

    Q. Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink
    A. Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists

    Q. How is dew formed
    A. The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire

    Q. What causes the tides in the oceans
    A. The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight

    Q. What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on
    A. If you are buying a house they will insist that you are well endowed

    Q. In a democratic society, how important are elections
    A. Very important. Sex can only happen when a male gets an election

    Q. What are steroids
    A. Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs (Shoot yourself now , there is little hope)

    Q.. What happens to your body as you age
    A. When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental

    Q. What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty
    A. He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery (So true)

    Q. Name a major disease associated with cigarettes
    A. Premature death

    Q. What is artificial insemination
    A. When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow

    Q. How can you delay milk turning sour
    A. Keep it in the cow (Simple, but brilliant)

    Q. How are the main 20 parts of the body categorised (e.g. The abdomen)
    A. The body is consisted into 3 parts – the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels: A, E, I,O,U.. (wtf!)

    Q. What is the fibula?
    A. A small lie

    Q. What does ‘varicose’ mean?
    A. Nearby

    Q. What is the most common form of birth control
    A. Most people prevent contraception by wearing a condominium (That would work)

    Q. Give the meaning of the term ‘Caesarean section’
    A. The caesarean section is a district in Rome

    Q. What is a seizure?
    A. A Roman Emperor. (Julius Seizure, I came, I saw, I had a fit)

    Q. What is a terminal illness
    A. When you are sick at the airport. (Irrefutable)

    Q. Give an example of a fungus. What is a characteristic feature?
    A. Mushrooms. They always grow in damp places and they look like umbrellas

    Q. Use the word ‘judicious’ in a sentence to show you understand its meaning
    A. Hands that judicious can be soft as your face. (OMG)

    Q. What does the word ‘benign’ mean?
    A. Benign is what you will be after you be eight (brilliant)

    Q. What is a turbine?
    A. Something an Arab or Shreik wears on his head

    • from Cyndi,

      Subject: Fw: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

      A matter of perspective.

      Two women are chatting in office

      Woman 1: I had sex last night, did you?

      Woman 2: Yes.

      Woman 1: Was it good?

      Woman 2: No, it was a disaster… my husband came home, ate his dinner in
      three minutes, got on top of me, finished having sex in five minutes,
      rolled over and fell asleep in two minutes. How was yours?

      Woman 1: Oh it was amazing! My husband
      came home and took me out to a
      romantic dinner. After dinner we walked for an hour. When we came home
      he lit the candles around the house and we had an hour of foreplay. We
      then had an hour long session of fantastic sex and afterwards talked
      for an hour. It was like a fairytale!

      At the same time, their husbands are talking at work.

      Husband 1: You wanted sex last night, how was it?

      Husband 2: Great. I came home, dinner was on the table, I ate, screwed
      my wife and fell asleep. It was great! What about you?

      Husband 1: It was horrible. I came home, there’s no dinner because
      they cut the electricity because I hadn’t paid the bill; so I had to
      take my wife out to dinner which was so expensive that I didn’t have
      money left for a cab. We had to walk home which took an hour – and
      when we got home. I remembered there was no electricity so I had to
      light f@8%king candles all over the house! I was so angry that I
      couldn’t get it up for an hour and then I couldn’t come for another
      hour. After I finally did, I was so aggravated that I couldn’t fall
      asleep and my wife was jabbering away for another hour!

    • Sunday Drive
      >
      > Sitting on the side of the highway waiting to catch speeding
      > drivers, a State Police Officer sees a car puttering along at 22
      > MPH. He thinks to himself, “This driver is just as dangerous as a
      > speeder!” So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.
      >
      > Approaching the car, he notices that there are five elderly ladies-
      > two in the front seat and three in the back-wide eyed and white as
      > ghosts. The driver, obviously confused, says to him, “Officer, I
      > don’t understand, I was doing exactly the speed limit! What seems
      > to be the problem?”
      >
      > “Ma’am,” the officer replies, “you weren’t speeding, but you should
      > know that driving slower than the speed limit can also be a danger
      > to other drivers.” “Slower than the speed limit? No sir, I was
      > doing the speed limit exactly…Twenty- two miles an hour!” the
      > woman says a bit proudly.
      >
      > The State Police officer, trying to contain a chuckle explains to
      > her that “22” was the route number, not the speed limit. A bit
      > embarrassed, the woman grinned and thanked the officer for pointing
      > out her error.
      >
      > “But before I let you go, Ma’am, I have to ask… is everyone in
      > this car OK? These women seem awfully shaken and they haven’t
      > muttered a single peep this whole time,” the officer asks with
      > concern.
      >
      > “Oh, they’ll be all right in a minute officer. We just got off
      > Route 119.”
      >

      • Actually 22 is what the uninsured in Louisiana do on a 45 mph road. Too bad no one ever cares about enforcing the law, or 1/2 the cars would be towed away.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    McChrystal Resigns Over Critical Remarks, Obama Names Petraeus as Replacement

    Published June 23, 201

    President Obama announced Wednesday that he has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan following a scathing article in which McChrystal and his aides were quoted criticizing the administration for its handling of the war.

    In doing so, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace him. The president stressed that while the decision was a difficult one, it does not represent a change in the course of the war.

    “This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy,” Obama said in the Rose Garden, Petraeus by his side and McChrystal nowhere to be seen.

    The president praised McChrystal, saying he always showed “great courtesy” and carried out his orders “faithfully,” and that they were on the same page in terms of war strategy. He said the decision to accept the general’s resignation was not based on “personal insult,” but a desire to ensure there is no “diversion” to the mission. Obama said the conduct described in the article “does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general,” which led him to his decision.

    “I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country,” Obama said. “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president.”

    Obama said the commentary in the article “undermines” civilian control over the military chain of command. “It erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan,” he said, adding: “Now is the time for all of us to come together.”

    McChrystal got his marching orders in Washington, where he met face-to-face with the president after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon.

    The Wednesday meeting preceded a regular session of the administration’s strategy team for Afghanistan, held in the White House Situation Room. Normally, McChrystal would have joined via teleconference, but he was summoned to Washington as he faced a private flogging over the article that appeared in Rolling Stone.

    If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.

    The president won bipartisan support for his decision Wednesday. Republicans, while praising McChrystal for his service, said he had crossed a line.

    “General McChrystal’s recent comments were entirely inappropriate,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a written statement.

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly said through a spokesman that he hoped for a different outcome but respected the decision.

    Gates hand-picked McChrystal to take over the war last year, calling him a driven visionary with the fortitude and intelligence to turn the war around. Obama fired the previous commander at Gates’ recommendation.

    In Kabul on Tuesday, McChrystal issued a statement saying: “I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” He later fired his press aide.

    In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.

    McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display. McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers’ platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.

    The Rolling Stone story characterized the general as unable to convince some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the nation’s longest-running war, and dejected that the president didn’t know about his commendable military record.

    The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

    “I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

    It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing their early meeting last year as a “10-minute photo-op.”

    “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed,” the adviser told the magazine.

    Some of the strongest criticism was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    “The boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” one of the general’s aides was quoted as saying. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

    McChrystal also said he felt “betrayed” by Eikenberry for expressing doubts about his proposed troop buildup last year and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

    “Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”‘

    Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. The White House’s troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

    The profile, titled “The Runaway General,” emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal’s tight circle of aides this spring.

    It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t.

    The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    A WEEK’S WORTH ……

    MONDAY
    The mother of a 17-year-old girl was concerned that her daughter was having sex…
    Worried the girl might become pregnant and adversely impact the family’s status, she consulted the family doctor.
    The doctor told her that teenagers today were very willful and any attempt to stop the girl would probably result in rebellion. He then told her to arrange for her daughter to be put on birth control and until then, talk to her and give her a box of condoms.
    Later that evening, as her daughter was preparing for a date, the mother told her about the situation and handed her a box of condoms.
    The girl burst out laughing and reached over to hug her mother, saying,
    ‘Oh Mom! You don’t have to worry about that! I’m dating Susan!’
    TUESDAY
    A man went to church one day and afterward he stopped to shake the preacher’s hand. He said, ‘Preacher, I’ll tell you, that was a damned fine sermon. Damned good!’
    The preacher said, ‘Thank you sir, but I’d rather you didn’t use profanity.’
    The man said, ‘I was so damned impressed with that sermon I put five thousand dollars in the offering plate!’

    The preacher said, ‘No shit?’
    WEDNESDAY
    Brenda and Steve took their six-year-old son to the doctor.
    With some hesitation, they explained that although their little angel appeared to be in good health, they were concerned about his rather small penis.
    After examining the child, the doctor confidently declared, ‘Just feed him pancakes. That should solve the problem.’
    The next morning when the boy arrived at breakfast, there was a large stack of warm pancakes in the middle of the table.
    ‘Gee, Mom,’ he exclaimed. ‘For me?’

    ‘Just take two,’ Brenda replied. ‘The rest are for your father.’
    THURSDAY
    One night, an 87-year-old woman came home from Bingo to find her 92-year-old husband in bed with another woman.. She became violent and ended up pushing him off the balcony of their 20th floor apartment, killing him instantly. Brought before the court, on the charge of murder, she was asked if she had anything to say in her own defense.
    ‘Your Honor,’ she began coolly, ‘I figured that at 92, if he could screw, he could fly.’
    FRIDAY
    A Doctor was addressing a large audience in Tampa . ‘The material we put into our stomachs is enough to have killed most of us sitting here, years ago. Red meat is awful. Soft drinks corrode your stomach lining. Chinese food is loaded with MSG. High fat diets can be disastrous, and none of us realizes the long-term harm caused by the germs in our drinking water. However, there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all and we all have eaten, or will eat it. Can anyone here tell me what food it is that causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?’
    After several seconds of quiet, a 75-year-old man in the front row raised his hand, and softly said, ‘Wedding Cake.’
    SATURDAY
    Bob, a 70-year-old, extremely wealthy widower, shows up at the Country Club with a breathtakingly beautiful and very sexy 25-year-old blonde-haired woman who knocks everyone’s socks off with her youthful sex appeal and charm and who hangs over Bob’s arm and listens intently to his every word. His buddies at the club are all aghast. At the very first chance, they corner him and ask, ‘Bob, how’d you get the trophy girlfriend?’ Bob replies, ‘Girlfriend? She’s my wife!’ They are knocked over, but continue to ask. ‘So, how’d you persuade her to marry you?’ ‘I lied about my age’, Bob replies. ‘What, did you tell her you were only 50?’
    Bob smiles and says, ‘No, I told her I was 90.’
    SUNDAY

    Groups of Americans were traveling by tour bus through Holland .. As they stopped at a cheese farm, a young guide led them through the process of cheese making, explaining that goat’s milk was used. She showed the group a lovely hillside where many goats were grazing. ‘These’ she explained, ‘Are the older goats put out to pasture when they no longer produce.’ She then asked, ‘What do you do in America with your old goats?’
    A spry old gentleman answered, ‘They send us on bus tours!

%d bloggers like this: