Tuesday, June 28, 2005
This may or may not have anything to do with this.
Fresh out of tech school at Chanute, on my way to my first duty station. Sitting in a totally empty O'Hare (seriously totally empty) two engineers back from Saudi Arabia noticed myself, one other airman, a soldier and a coastie sitting in the bar waiting for our flights. They bought us drinks, and it wasn't so much the free booze the warmed my heart but the act itself. I was touched, especially because the stories of how people I knew or was related to still rung in my ears of their return from Vietnam and how they were treated.
As it turned out I was the lucky GI and the engineers happened to be on the same flight to Vegas that I was on, and I was able to enjoy their hospitality for several more hours.
I don't know who they were, and don't remember their names, but to them I say thank you. To others who show the same or similar curtesy to our troops today I say thank you.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Karl and I have touched on the observation that the
They discuss the military as a family tradition, its values and touch on why it seems liberals don't seem to have that tradition.
As it turns out there really isn't much broad discussion on the subject. The mil-bloggers discussed it briefly but, like myself, quickly ended the discussion because of the limited information and applicability of the subject. Beyond that the subject will be briefly brought up when pundits and bloggers are discussing the chasm that exists between civilians and the military culture. I think this is a bit skewed and in reality applies more between military culture and civilians who are in the liberal to leftist political range. I base this on comments they leave in such wonderful bastions of military support as Indymedia, Jesus General, Military Free Zone and others.
So we know there is a military culture and it's subset the veteran culture, formed not through ancestry and language but by a shared experience, lifestyle, history and values. We know that it is a relatively small portion of American society and that every member of the military culture is also a member of American culture and other cultures (origins, heritage, lifestyle and residence). As an example I am, in addition to being a veteran, American, Hawaiian, blue-collar, and desert rat. Phillip was military, Choctaw and American. My close friend Frency is veteran, American, French, computer geek, gamer and struggling college student. I knew someone (not gonna mention their name) who was veteran, mother, lesbian and liberal. You can pretty much make a large list and it will demonstrate that you can be a part of the military culture and a part of other cultural sub-sets.
So the military culture is not exclusive, in fact it is one of the few sub-sets of American culture that is extremely inclusive; among these are the political parties, political philosophy, religion and such. Others are quite exclusive, it takes a long time and a lot of work to become Hawaiian, but it is possible; many people, including myself, consider Dr. Kilolani Mitchel to be more Hawaiian than many Hawaiians.
So this warrior caste has been predominantly moderate and conservative and Republican. Mind you by moderate I don't mean moderate the way Neil Abercrombie or Charlie Rangel mean it. By moderate I mean classically liberal and not neo-liberal and more inline with mainstream
So why is the warrior caste predominantly Republican? Why do so few Democrats join? Perhaps, and we'd have to assume a large effect of the warrior caste, it is an effect that started at a time when the Democrats (and more especially the left-wing of the party) vilified the military and the effect has snowballed into the party split we see today. More Republicans were supportive of the military and joined the military, their children subsequently continued to join, with the reverse happening to the Democrats. I haven't a clue, though if we knew the numbers of volunteers and their party affiliation from pre-WWII to today we'd have an inkling whether this is true or not.
Perhaps Republicans identify more with the values of the military than Democrats. Well, this is certainly untrue of the extremists on both sides. It is true, however, that liberal, moderate and conservative Republicans, and conservative Democrats tend to share these values. Why don't I add moderate Democrats to this list? Because of where both parties sit on the values of mainstream
Wow, talking bubbles, drifting the conversation. Hmmmmm, we'll I'll keep going.
Whiskey Bar wrote:
The result - or at least a byproduct - of these cantonments is the creation of a separate military subculture, one which has less and less in common with the secular, culturally libertarian side of
His observation is correct but deficient in two ways that are important. The military sub-culture has more in common with mainstream
The media makes sure that liberal and leftist values are known to GIs. They are quite aware of it, as was I when I was in, they simply don't agree with them and see serious flaws in them from their much broader viewpoint. And yes, their viewpoint as a whole is much broader. They are just as intelligent as liberals, the officers and senior NCOs are just as educated, and the enlisted are often more educated than their corresponding demographic (i.e. high school diploma, no college degree). Many, if not most, have traveled outside the
This experience and knowledge of the is pretty one-sided. Whereas GIs are aware and know the values of the left and are bombarded by that point of view the left tends to be pretty ignorant of the military culture. From my own experience I've seen this while at Cal-State, and during my exposure to a part of
Incidentally Whiskey Bar is wrong in his basic precepts that the military is headed towards a dictatorship supporting BusHitler. He neglects the very very basic fact that GIs swear to protect and defend the Constitution and not just obey the orders of their commander in chief. He’s also, probably unintentionally, very insulting by implying that members of the warrior caste are fascist ideologues ripe for a military coup. He demonstrates the disconnect (or is parodying it) by not knowing that GIs are NOT mindless, brainwashed automatons rife with support for a dictatorship. He seems to forget, or has never known, that GIs are a diverse lot whose values are towards the Constitution, freedom, liberty, honor, duty, family, god and country. In other words their beliefs are similar to his, though they know his political spectrum better than he, obviously, knows theirs. Heck, he might even be a vet,
I've also been reading about the Army's recruiting predicament which pundits have blamed the
There’s not enough connectivity between the percentage that recruitment is down and the percentage of liberals and Democrats who serve to state a reliable theory, let alone demonstrate causality. It is enough for an interesting observation and for something to keep an eye on and to wonder if the anti-recruiting campaign has had a large effect on recruiting in general or an effect on that Demographic that joined at a lower rate to begin with.
The Army has begun to adapt to this, with commercials that emphasize more about the family, values and character and less of that ridiculous “Army of One” crap.
So will my children serve? Will they decide to do more than serve and actually become professional soldiers (airmen, marines, whatever)? I haven't the slightest idea. I doubt my parents knew I would serve before I enlisted. I was slated for college and teaching but found something greater. What my children choose will be up to them, and I’ll be proud of them so long as they don’t become leftists.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
It utterly pissed me off. I'm not sure where I got it from but such elitist bigotry bugs the hell out of me. I grew up with all the caucasian / red-neck scary stories and predjudices that come from being born brown and a conquered people. I expected the worse when first moving to the mainland. I was pleasantly surprised but also given a good dose of reality. The racism and bigotry that the south is stereotyped with does exist. As it turns out it exists among other races and other places. My brother was trailed by cops in Boston for no apparent reason other than he was dark-skinned, driving in a nice jeep in a nice neighborhood heading to a carpentry job in that neighborhood. I've been warned against going to certain towns in the south because I have a tan. The most memorable came from a "good ol' boy" my welding instructor, a southerner named SSgt Vencil who warned me never to go through, let alone stop, in Paxton Illinois, which isn't anywhere near the south. At 18, with racist stereotypes about southerners still fresh in my psyche, hearing such a warning from a caucasian southerner held special force.
Yet I've seen racism from blacks too. I watched one poor young lady reduced to tears when she objected to a few black airmen changing the television channel without concern for the others in the dayroom accuse her of being a racist red-neck and brow beating her to submission because she objected to them walking in and changing the channel. Luckily my Buddy Phillip (a chocktaw) and myself were there and we out minoritied them, because they're just black and we're endangered species. Super-minority. I've heard racist remarks from blacks and asians and mexicans (and from mexican americans towards mexican nationals).
It was all quite sharp to me because it was a shocking change from the type of racism that existed in Hawai'i growing up. Also since I didn't really fit any of their race cliques I got to fit in better with various groups and see attitudes that wouldn't be displayed in mixed company.
There is another, more insidious, bigotry that I've observed. I never really saw it until I left my comfort zone and began to meet with people who were better formally educated and more liberal than the mainstream. It was a bigotry that assumed that since I had a tan I was less then them and needed them to tell me how to live and needed their help to survive. It was a bigotry that turned to disdain when they found out I was in the military, even more so that I was enlisted. Forget that my measured IQ dwarfed theirs, forget that I could struggle through books on string theory and nuclear rocketry or tell the difference between a Manet and Monet, or that I can recognize Orf's O Fortuna or that I enjoyed Rimsky-Korsakov and Prokofiev in addition to the Dead Kennedy's and Oingo Boingo. It was irritating, angering, and extremely saddening all at the same time. It was a bigotry that was so superior that my intellect, feelings, wants and needs were all inconsequential compared to their superior intelligence and education. It irritated me that they seemed to think I needed to be handed everything because a brownie certainly couldn't achieve anything without being spoon-fed.
What bothered me most about the quote at the beginning of this post is that it was also the kind of bigotry demonstrated by this last class. If I was initially viewed as a minority who was too unintelligent and lazy to do for myself, then southerners and flyover people (though the term didn't exist) were stupid and deserved to be made to suffer penance for all the wrongs committed by Americans long dead, and to take the last class of bigots guilt by proxy. I see them calling people who enjoy NASCAR stupid. I see them calling people who speak with a southern accent ignorant. I see their elitist bigotry that accompanies their hidden racism and it angers me.
Vaguely relevant non-sequitar:
Though the French have never really been succesful at implementing them, the motto they took from the freemasons is one I love. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
Friday, June 24, 2005
They do it because there is so much hate in their hearts (which is fine) that they let it spill over from their targets and onto their country and their military (which is not fine).
Let's try to remember that we're all Americans and that however we feel about the war we should be striving for victory, no matter how we feel about the President or the opposing party. I probably feel this more accutely than some simply because I KNOW that you can be against the war in Kosovo and still support the troops in their mission and still hope they are victorious. I'm unsure why this seems so hard for some.
Look. It's not "their" war. It's "our" war. Like it or not the country is in it now and the thing to do is to strive for victory. When the war is over, then let your vitriol fly. Let it fly when it isn't going to hurt the war effort. When it isn't going to hurt troop morale. When it isn't going to help enemy morale. When it isn't going to help embolden America's enemies. When it isn't going to help America's enemies' propaganda efforts.
It's America's war now. You're Americans, so act like it. At the very least "act" like it. Act like you care whether America wins and doesn't lose. Act like you want the troops to succeed and come home and not fail and come home. Act like your country is more important than your hatred and anger, or at least leave that hatred and anger on target.
As to recruiting more Republicans, remember that they already sign up in droves.
I was asked once, "what if the shoe was on the other foot and a Democrat president sent us to war and you disagreed with him?" Fact is I've been there. A lot have been there, though not on this scale. Despite the opinion of Clinton held by many GIs and vets they didn't go out there and support America's enemies. They didn't strive for America's defeat, and they didn't ally themselve with anti-American groups just to help push their anti-Clinton agenda.
Liberals sometimes do get a bad rap, but in the last four years most of the fault for that poor reputation can be laid at the feet of the person they see in the mirror.
If you really want to change that then repudiate the extremists among you. Tell the "Support Iraqi Insurgents" sign holders at your peace protests that they're not welcome. Tell the idiot who carries a banner stating "We support our troops when they kill their officers" that they are not welcome. Considering the welcome pro-American protestors such as Smash get when they attend a "peace" protest, I know you can do it.
If you choose to.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Can we just accept that Kalroy, who may or may not have served our country in the military (and I'm leaning towards NOT) is a badly-planted TROLL?
Kalroy is here for one reason and one reason only --- to fuck with "liberals" who dare to question the cajones of the Young Republicunts.Mind you, I never questioned their "cajones" or their courage, or their patriotism, though I did point out times when attitude or rhetoric could be interpreted that way.
Right as usual, thank you. I see Kalroy all over a couple sites. If he's being honest (which I, like you, sort of doubt) than he's even more of an idiot for being a willing tool of a regime that would use him as slave labor if they could just tweak the laws a leeeedle bit more.This agreement was kinda standard. I don't characterize it as being anti-American. It is, however, ignorant and highly insulting to anyone who is in uniform or has ever been in uniform. To say that GI's are ignorant, brain washed tools who don't know any better and can't think for themselves is not only insulting, it is an argument that shows its utter lack of credibility by immediately dissmissing someone who disagrees with them.
My posts were well-meant, and I had hoped to clarify some misconceptions they had on military folk, but it seems far too ingrained to change, and the closed-mindedness shown means that some will never bother to learn more about the military before bashing them or making misinformed statements based on bigoted stereotypes that they aquired from whomever. Perhaps one of them will take my advice and at least try to read a couple of milbloggers so they have a better understanding of what the military is about and what GI's and veterans are really like.
Right now it's clear that they are rather ignorant about those particular Americans. Ironically the reverse is not usually true in my experience.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
It just goes to show that anyone can fall for an urban myth, or political propoganda.
Oh, and via The Volokh Conspiracy we get this little tidbit that puts Fascism into it's leftist perspective. Makes sense though. The definition of Nazism has been stripped of it's concept of centralized production decisions (showing it to be more socialist than communist where the state not only controls production but the means of production). Now I find out that Fascism has long been stripped of its socialist leanings. Why? I actually think for the same reason there were anti-war protests among the left (and I don't mean Democrat here) during WWII before Germany invaded the USSR and "Second Front Now" protests (or urgings) after Germany invaded the USSR. After the war when the USSR showed it's ugly Stalinist head for the evil creature it was, well, it was much easier to propagandize that Socialism was the "Worker's Paradise" without having the excess baggage of National Socialism and Fascism tagging along. I mean these people were able to rationalize, ignore, and declare false the deaths of tens of millions of people (perhaps hundreds of millions).
Monday, June 20, 2005
Funny thing is most GIs are already Republican, but this guy is pretty isolated from the American military culture, and probably just trying to make an anti-war, anti-Republican statement.
Though his effort is misplaced and idiotic. He'd do more actual real-world good trying to get Democrats to serve.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Saturday, June 18, 2005
"Top Tech News - Personal Technology - Sony: We Can't Stop PSP Porn Release
Of course they could stop them. They have to give their permission to game makers to make games, and since sony owns the technology for the PSP discs a pornographer would have to license that technology to make movies for the PSP. Sony could say yes or no, and it seems unlikely that Sony would not have left some provision in their contracts that would allow them to prevent objectionable material.
Mind you they couldn't stop people from putting their own porn form their computers onto the mem cards.
As I recall Killzone was touted as THE FPS Halo killer. Turned out that claim was far from the truth. As far as I've seen the only FPS Halo killer turned out to be Halo 2.
GTA3 was a killer app (not for me, since my psyche rebels against playing sociopathic criminals) (ed: note, I prefer sociopathic good guy's ala Dirty Harry and Coogan) and due to Sony's predatory practices, signing Rockstar to a five year exclusive contract, sold a lot of PS2s. I'll point out that Sony's strategy in this case is a commong strategy shared by more than game console makers. It is also one that is unlikely to work with the more popular game developers again. I state this based on Rockstar's console choices after the exclusive GTA series and their choice to port their GTA series to the XBox.
The developers of Rebel Assault 3 have gone this route, and it's certain that Sony paid them to be exclusive to the PS3. Nothing wrong with that. Microsoft has paid others to be exclusive to the XBox (and most probably the 360). There is anothe class of XBox and 360 exclusive games, however. These are games that, by their nature, require the Xbox and/or the 360 hardware and as such would be foolish to develop for the PS2 or PS3. Prime examples of this would be KOTOR and Morrowind. They are limited to a console with a hard drive because of the size of their savegame files and because of the amount of game information. Other game manufacturers enjoy the ability to cache game information from the DVD to the hard drive.
Sony has made the choice to limit the ability of game developers to create certain types of games, but its current audience don't require those kinds of games.
Microsoft is producing a machine that will be able to play the Sony style games and play the kind of games that I and others chose the Xbox for. Dropping the HDD is a serious mistake (and one they have plenty of time to retract).
Sony has two advantages. Japanese nationalism and its production is so far in the future that it can change hardware specs as it wishes for about the next year (if you believe Sony's release date) or the next year and a half (if you believe UBISoft's estimate). Microsoft no longer has that luxury having already shipped Alpha machines to developers and (if EA's estimate early this year was correct) final dev machines this month.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Update: Bubble head posts a report about these religious extremist anti-war protestors. At least I think they're anti-war considering their posters resemble those of the left-wing anti-war protestors.
Man it's nice to be reading and writing again. And without painkillers. And this trackback thing...Still haven't made up my mind on it yet.
Bethesda Software, and almost every single PS2 and Gamecube game have shown that single-player games are still awesome. XBox Live has shown that multi-player games are still awesome. Bungie has shown that a game with awesome single-player and multi-player becomes Legendary.
The San Jose Mercury News says the pullout date is to start on October 2006, so I must have heard it wrong. I found this quote interesting, "However, the military's growing inability to meet recruitment goals is another sign of the war's unpopularity. Military leaders fear that an anti-war movement will send the wrong signal to Iraqi insurgents." The first sentence is mis-leading, since it is the Army that is having recruitment problems, and it fails to mention that re-enlistments are at a historical record high. The second sentence is probably not accurate since it would seem (from my experience serving under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton) that a more accurate sentence would have been, "Military leaders fear that the anti-war movement has sent the wrong signal to the Soviets, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein, and continue to send the wrong message to Iraqi insurgents, anti-Iraqi foreign fighters, Iran, North Korea, and other enemies and potential enemies of the United States."
One other question. If a single whacked Republican and a single whacked Democrat sponsored a proposal calling for the criminalization of expressing support for America's enemies, would Newpapers be calling it "a bill with bi-partisan support" or would they point out that it's a minority of a minority?
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Liberals have a point and are certainly tired of being called anti-American and anti-Military when so many of them aren't. Certainly some are, and we've seen these people at anti-war rallies prior to Afghanistan and prior to Iraq. Patriotic liberals don't feel that they deserve those labels, and most certainly don't. The problem, however, isn't their personal beliefs, it's not usually the words they speak. The problem is with their actions and the company they keep.
The comment I left:
You're known by the company you keep and so long as pro-American liberals continue to keep company with groups such as the ISM, ANSWER, or CAIR you'll be painted with a wide brush. So long as anti-war activists refuse to speak up and kick anti-American elements (such as those cheering on terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq, and urging American GIs to kill their officers) then moderates and conservatives will associate your views, beliefs and desires with theirs.
It may not be right but that's the way it is. Hopefully the next time a pro-military protest is called to counter an anti-military protest by the likes of Code-Pink you'll choose better bedfellows between the two.
It is, after all, possible to be against Bush and against the Iraqi war without having to associate with, demonstrate with, and support groups and people who are actually (unlike yourselves) anti-American and anti-Military.
As an aside, the same thing applies to those who hate Bush. So long as they ally and keep company with those who are anti-American they will be seen as anti-American. So long as Bush haters allow their hatred to spill over and hurt the country and its military in their efforts to "get Bush" they will be seen as radical anti-Americans. I think this is what has happened with Durbin and Kucinich and a large number of Democrats. They want to destroy Bush so badly they don't care who they hurt in the process.
I hope the military investigators slam these bastards.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
I gotta go with Power Line. As a middle classed blue-collar union stiff, I gotta give it to Powerline. It's true. Things have improved. Things aren't perfect but my standard of living is quite a bit higher than my parents even though they were both simple working stiffs, and it's not just because I make more than them. I have greater creature comforts that they couldn't have had (but have now).
There are negatives, certainly, but most of those can be attributed to cheaper labor abroad and cheaper immigrant labor driving down wages on craft skills.
Another is that I have to put up with the anti-military leftists who have given liberals a bad name, but that may only be because of the greater information overload. Growing up in Hawai'i Democrats and liberals were pro-military and pro-America, being attacked by Imperial Japan and isolated from socialist/communist rule will have that effect. What I never had to see was what leftist and the Democrat party represented on the mainland. I've learned to deal with it and found that I can be the liberal conservative I always was without having to adopt the radical leftist views that have usurped liberal views and the liberal label.
But, as a simple welder, and now as a plant maintenance mechanic/millwright, I have several televisions, a laptop, a PC, three xboxs, a gamecube, two cars (not counting the project car which is a 1970 VW bug), a house, yard, dog, mountain bike, the list of creature comforts go on. And yes, I do know that the reason we struggle financially is because of all this material goodness, but as a kid we struggled harder with less to show for it.
Yeah, things are better now then they were for most blue-collared individuals, but that is not all there is.
After reading this post over at Ace of Spades HQ I got a bit miffed and posted a response to a comment. Sad part is that guy who posted the comment probably already realizes all of this and is trying to defend people like himself who support the country and the military but who are against Bush and the war on terrorism. Or rather I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since another one of his comments makes it appear that he is simply trying to justify his position without having to actually act in a way that supports his assertions. So I take his comments to task, having been in his position I know what it's like, but I also know you could be anti-Clinton and anti-war in Kosovo without being anti-military or anti-American, and without letting those sentiments create collateral damage on your country.
Heres a copy of the post I left:
"It is unAmerican to take a contrarian vp everytime." I agree. We see this knee-jerk reaction coming to the left on everything military or Republican. I see it from Democrats on a mass basis. They oppose Gitmo not because it is a problem, but because they want it to be a problem and they oppose it from a knee-jerk reaction. They have yet to put a single valid argument against it. They're big on unsupported opinion (prove that Gitmo creates terrorists without media bashing and leftist bashing alone on its own) and have absolutely no answers. They accuse American GIs of heinous acts with no valid proof other than a terrorist follows the AQ training manual and makes false claims.More on Clinton. I like Clinton on a personal level, probably enjoy having a beer with the man. I wouldn't let him chaperone my teenage daughters (don't have any, but wouldn't do it anyway), but I do feel he wants to do the right thing, but is weak-willed and easily influenced by people who would rather maintain their political power than benefit the country. I count his wife, and the Democrat party among those. I don't think the Republicans are much better, but I have observed that in practice they are better, not through any kind of good will, but solely because they can't get away with as much. The media is far more willing to go after Republicans, and far less willing to hide their transgressions and lies.
You'll notice that when the left hands out the benefit of doubt they give it freely to America's enemies but totally withhold it from America's GIs. They claim credit for uncovering Abu Ghraib months after the military started their own investigation and issued a press release about it.
Anything supported by the majority of GIs they knee-jerk against. If Bush supports it their against it. If Republicans are for it they're suddenly against it, even if they supported it in the past (such as Social Security reform or winning in Iraq). The GIs and Bush are pro-success in Iraq, and major Democrat Kucinich now wants us to cut and run and abandon Iraq to the terrorists.
"Any recent and past criticism of the President's initiation of this war, when Syria, northern Pakistan and Iran were more likely pulse points of terrorism tied specifically to 9/11, is freedom of speech and conscience."
Any time anyone left or right advocates handing victory over to America's enemies then it IS treasonous, and is anti-American, and IS evil. It is worse when they actively support victory for America's allies and those who you champion in that sentence have been far more guilty of this than the right wing nut-jobs.
"I understand why some conservative feel liberals are unAmerican. I've watched Fox news and heard Rush Limbaugh. I hope you realize that Liberals are constantly blugeoned with hate speech from some on the right." Hardly bludgeoned since the overwhelming majority of outlets are left-leaning, Fox News hating, and reach a larger audience than moderate and conservative, and right-wing radio and Fox. ABC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Seattle PI, Oregonian, etc far outweigh the moderate to conservative voices out there.
" Don't forget there are some liberals who are patriotic, like myself, who simply disagree with much of what's going on."
I won't forget that. I was a Democrat through much of my enlistment, supported most gay issues and am still very liberal. I was driven from the party by Clinton, the party, and liberals who were anti-military, and who tolerated (and sometimes supported) anti-Americanism and anti-American groups (such as ANSWER and the CPUSA). I know there are liberals out there who, if they were running the show, would kick out anti-Americans (and people who advocate troops killing their officers and support people who kill Americans) from anti-war demonstrations. I know there are liberals who would kick those people out of their anti-Bush demonstrations (yes I believe it is possible to be anti-Bush without being anti-American, but in practice it is rarely ever seen beyond lip service to the theory).
Problem is those liberals aren't in charge, they have no power and they refuse to stand up to those in charge and to those who poison their cause. I assert that because I have yet to see a liberal lambaste an anti-American at a rally and try to have them removed, and because of the response from the anti-war crowd towards the pro-America crowd.
Dennis Kucinich wants
He’s proposing a retreat from
He claims that all the GIs who have died will not have died in vain, a blatant lie on the face of it, but that they will be honored. So the work they died for is worthless to Kucinich and he wants to devalue it by running away from
This is the message I got from him watching an interview with him today. He cut and run from any WWII analogy, recognizing that valid analogy as a loser for him. He would rather echo the demonization of
Update: Fox News transcript of the interview.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
"...irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line to protect us."
?No Pasar? always has something interesting, though not always in English. In this case the quote of the Thomas Sowell article strikes to the heart of the case, between the "boulders of opposition" who claim they aren't anti-military but whose actions prove otherwise, and those who seek to hurt the military and hamstring our young men and women all the while screaming the "We Support Our Troops" mantra (via Viking Phoenix).
I think that having been deprived of their old spitting, throwing feces, hanging out with America's enemies tactics many old peaceniks, commies and anti-Americans have taken to fighting and trying to hurt America through their children. It is true that most of those who choose to serve their country and to put the good of the body politic ahead of their own personal safety now come from a warrior caste where their father or mother served and their fathers or mothers served, but it appears that those who supported America's enemies several decades ago have started working on their own America hating caste.
But Kalroy, you can hate the military machine without hating
The Republican idiocy about
None of that comes close to comparing to the heinousness of the Democrat and Liberal hate towards Bush. The hate and contempt is equally ridiculous, certainly. The amount of effort they put out is equally ridiculous. Their seemingly unconscious decision to hurt their country, their military, and
It is despicable.
UPDATE: Ranting Profs has more about the growing isolation among people who do not serve their country in the military. About how they're becoming insulated from the people who serve, what service means, and the opinions and values of those who serve. It's been happening for quite some time and is an unfortunate side-effect of the liberal tradition of demonizing the military and isolating itself from the portion of the country's population.
Yeah right. The miller was nearly as clear as beer pee. It's not like Guinness or Anchor Steam Porter was being drunk in the bar, it was Miller Lite fer cryin' out loud.
What a joke
Monday, June 13, 2005
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
For some reason this passage from his 1910 Sorbonne speech brings to mind the present. It brings to mind the difference between those soldiers, seamen, airmen, and marines serving in the military and those Democrats, Liberals, and Journalists who belittle them and their achievements. Certainly because some are simply anti-military, a few because they are downright anti-American, but more so because the hate prevelant among those groups for George Bush is so all-consuming that they would attack our military just to make our President look bad.
Friday, June 03, 2005
I'm a bit too old to be a "Fanboy." "Fanman," perhaps but that sounds like a gay burlesque act. I’ve never owned a Playstation 2. I never had a reason to own one. I had a PC and the games I liked were all PC games. I had a DVD player so there was no reason for me to pay PS2 prices for a simple DVD player. The Xbox was announced and I had no real interest in the XBox either. Again, my games were all PC games and I was going to pay Xbox prices for a simple DVD player.
Then came a very early interview with Peter Molyneaux linked on Gamasutra. He was talking about his dream for a new game he was working on called “Project Ego.” So why was this important? Because the games I preferred were things like Fallout, Daggerfall, Shogun: Total War, and the like, so you can see why the consoles held no interest for me. Project Ego changed that. Suddenly there was an RPG looming on the horizon (turned out to be over the horizon a few time zones away) and it was exclusive to the XBox. So I knew I’d be getting an Xbox, but there was no rush, there was no reason to buy one until Project Ego came out.
Next thing I know I’m picking up another system for one of the guys on the island and another guy is picking one up on his next rotation. Then we picked up a hub and a
So, for me, the XBox won out because it had real RPGs (I’m not a fan of the Japanese style of RPGs, too closed-ended) and networked easily. Plus I figured that when I finally went home I’d be able to keep in touch with my friends.
So, PS3 and XBox 360. XBox 360. The next Elder Scrolls game, Oblivion is coming out for it and it looks like it will be the better system for my own personal needs. Now if I was a big Final Fantasy fan, and a big Japanese anime and game fan, or if I needed to feel release by beating whores to death and running over pedestrians I’d plan on picking up a PS3.
Other than that, things are looking up.
Oh, and Team America rocked, was fun, and disturbing all at the same time. Love the theme song.