Chuck Schumer Watch: Vol. 1, Ch.1

In a bid to become the Senior Ranking Clown on the Senate Select Committee for Hybris, Chuck Schumer trots out yet another, horrible, ill-conceived, moronic and yes even 'stupid' idea. 'Former Spook' has the whole sad story.


...And yes! I've decided to give Chuckie his very own special ''watch' category for a while.

Yee-Effin' Haw - THIS is America dammit!

From Bloomberg: EPA-Texas Feud Escalates Over New Carbon Regulations.
This appears to be a still-evolving story, as Bloomberg is still updating it. Latest update added a nice quote from a Sierra Club shill.

This signals the Obama movement to legislate away America is now moving into the 'Regulate- America away' phase.
Bring it, Rubes.

Thanks Dad

Here's my Dad in Vietnam, sometime circa 1965,1966, 1967 or 1968. He spent about 36 of those 48 months 'in-country'.(Thanks for the pic Sis!)

Nice (non-typical for him) 'hero' shot.

More about my late Father here.

Krauthammer Nails the 2010 National Election

(H/T Instapundit)

For the 20-30 people in the blogosphere that don'y follow Instapundit, Charles Krauthammer sums things up beautifully on cusp of the 2010 election cycle in his column at the Washington Post(of all places):

In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' " Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.

This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.

This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.

Read it all here.

Weatherford Texas City Charter Propositions

NO to ODD Number Propositions Yes to EVEN Number Propositons

The Weatherford Democrat had a rather ‘naive’ summary of the proposed changes to the Weatherford City Charter. The following is a more thorough appraisal and critique of the propositions along with my personal voting recommendations and rationale.

According to the Weatherford Democrat:

Proposition No. 1

[a] Would lengthen terms for city council members from two years to three years. Under the current two-year length, a vacancy is filled at the next general election or by council appointment if there is less than six months remaining for the term. A three-year length would change the process. State law requires a special election be held as soon as practicable to fill the remainder of the term. With two-year terms, the candidate with the most votes wins. In a three-year term setting, a candidate needs 50 percent plus one vote to win. This means if there are more than two candidates and no one candidate receives a majority, the top two vote getters advance to a run-off election.

[b] Additional changes included in Proposition No. 1 bring the candidate qualification language into compliance with state law. Qualifications outlined in Proposition No. 1 are: the candidate must be at least 21, a citizen of the United States, qualified to vote in the city, reside inside the city limits for at least 12 months preceding the election, not file for more than one office per election and an employee of the city cannot continue to work for the city after becoming a candidate for an elective office.

[c] The proposition also clarifies the duties and powers of the city council to prevent the council from exercising the duties of the city manager, holding other public office or voting on matters where a conflict of interest exists. These duties include enacting municipal legislation, the power to appoint and remove appointed persons, setting the compensation of all appointed city officers, establishing an operating policy, establishing the boundaries of the city and establishing the salary structures for each job classification.

I VOTE A BIG NO!!! This should have been three separate proposals, and I would have voted yes for [c]. The 50% provision is a job security ‘Easter egg’ for an incumbent. It allows the other council members to handpick a replacement that then has the advantage of being an incumbent in the next election. Run-off elections will also probably cost more money than the nickel’s worth of difference between almost any two candidates. I view some of the additional provisions as a candy coating for a potentially bitter pill, but there is another big problem with this proposition. The proposition DELETES the following paragraph in its entirety (emphasis mine):

The Mayor and each Councilman Member shall be a resident citizen of the City of Weatherford, and have the qualifications of electors therein. The Mayor, Councilmen Members and other officers and employees shall not be indebted to the city, shall not hold any public office of emolument, and shall not be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract, job work or service for the municipality, or interested in the sale to the city of any supplies, equipment, material or articles purchased; nor shall any of them be the owner of stock in any public utility providing utility service within the city limits or subject to rate regulation by the City Council. Any officer or employee of the city who shall cease to possess any of the qualifications herein required shall forfeit his office or position, and any contract in which any officer or employee shall or may become interested may be declared void by the Council. No officer or employee of the city shall accept any frank, free ticket, passes or service or anything of value directly or indirectly from any person, firm or corporation, upon terms more favorable than are granted to the public, and any violation, of this section shall be a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, such office or employment shall be forfeited.

I think I'd like to keep the paragraph just as it is, thank you very much.Some of the provisions removed by the previous paragraph are replaced by a weaker provision (again, emphasis mine):

(d) Elected officials of the City having substantial interest in any proposed or existing contract, purchase, work, sale or service to, for or by the City shall not vote or render a decision or use that position, authority, or influence, in any manner that would result in personal betterment, financially or otherwise, to any degree. Elected officials shall publicly disclose any such interest upon assumption of office or prior to consideration of any such matters.

So, let me get this straight. It is OK to have a “little interest” with no definition of what is or is not ‘substantial’, and as long as you recuse yourself and let your buddies… er… ‘fellow members’ vote in your best interest everything will be just fine? I am certain there will be no ‘Quid Propos’ in our future, and disclosures will be made with this paragraph in force. (That last sentence was sarcasm.)

What makes anyone think lowering the standards for our political office holders at any time--much less now--is a good idea?

Proposition No. 2
Again according to the Weatherford Democrat, Proposition 2:

establishes the duties, responsibilities and position of the city manager. The current charter does not have these duties clearly defined. Changes under this proposition would provide language in the charter to implement the city’s council-manager form of government. This proposition would also remove the requirement that the city attorney reside within the Weatherford city limits,but would still require the attorney to have an office inside the city.
Assistant City Manager Robert Hanna said the current requirement is too restrictive. “When the Zellers decide to retire and stop representing the city, we’re going to have to find other legal council,” he said. “We have some really qualified law firms in town, but they may not live in the city limits and would be precluded from representing the city. This is to provide the council the maximum flexibility to have the best and most qualified representation.” The council could mandate that the attorney live inside the city if they choose, he added.

I VOTE YES! OK by me. I’m for any provision that doesn’t necessarily increase the number of attorneys living in Weatherford. This should make it easier to run them out of town if necessary.

Proposition No. 3The Democrat tells us that: Proposition No. 3..

... would take away the requirement to read and vote on an ordinance twice before it become effective. Hanna said the requirement to read and vote on all ordinances twice is an old practice once common in city government. “There may be some controversial ordinances where it is important to do that still and they have the right to [have a second read],” he said. “But where it doesn’t make sense other than adding to bureaucracy, we’re trying to get rid of that. Cities have gotten away from that because the speed of business has increased and government is slow enough as it is.”

I VOTE NO!!! Old Government is Slow Government is Good Government. I enjoy the fact that it is hard to pull a ‘fast one’ if you have to pull it off twice! Conversely, really good ideas ought to breeze through twice without any problem. Now I'm wondering who in city government told the Deputy City Manager to put the 'smiley face' on this pig?

Proposition No. 4The Weatherford Democrat piece says....

Proposition No. 4 cleans up language in the budget and finance area of the charter. Most of this section of the charter does not currently comply with state requirements or is superseded by state regulations. Adoption of this proposition would finalize the city’s current financial practices.

I vote YES (hesitantly). This one seems pretty harmless on the read-through. Which begs the questions over Proposition 1 even more: Why wasn’t the candy coating used in Proposition 1 included with this proposition? I'm hesitant on the YES because how do I know someone isn't successfully trying to pull one over after seeing Prop 1 and 3?

Proposition No. 5On this one the WD tells us:

Proposition No. 5 includes revisions to make the charter language gender neutral, simplify and clarify language, and add paragraph headings and subsection numerical designations without changing the meaning. Revisions would be made throughout the entire charter.

I Vote NO!! Somebody needs to keep their stinking ‘Something-Studies Pseudo-Scientific” fingers of Political Correctness off my City Charter For crying’ out loud! Making changes just so some guy with ‘Low T’ and a ponytail can feel good about himself is pure silliness. It is even more silly if the guy is a ‘she’. Spare the rest of us your 'esteem' issues if you please.

A full description of the amendments and the charter are available on the city’s website at www.weatherfordtx.gov/charter2010.
Or-- if you are in a hurry-- you can jump to the PDF file that is a red lined markup showing actual deletions and additions proposed:
http://weatherfordtx.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1782

Read. Heed. Make Your Vote Count.

BTW: I (sadly) thoroughly expect all these propositions to pass because enough people won't pay enough attention.

Awwww. Prius Drivers Lose Their Perk

(H/T Jalopnik)

The 'State' giveth. And when your behaviors have been sufficiently altered, the 'State' taketh away.

Of course, my feelings concerning 'hybrids', especially the Prius, and the insentient emoters that tend to buy them, have been expressed before.

At least the Prius is 'better' than the last Honda Insight, although what Jeremy Clarkson wrote about the Insight applies pretty much to all 'hybrids' (just change some locations):

But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

To be honest, I have seen one 'hybrid' I really liked. I was on a business trip to California earlier this year and saw this one:

Sweeeet...

'Carpet Bombing' vs CARPET BOMBING!

Etymological Observations: A Safari into the Semantics of the Left

From the back and forth in my last adventure in the threads at Defense Tech here, it was driven home that industrious but small minds had sometime succeeded in perverting the English language (once again) to suit their purposes. In this specific instance I am referring to the use of the term: 'Carpet Bombing'.

From the thread at the referenced link, two individuals identify air strike activity conducted in wars after Vietnam as 'carpet bombing'. I ruminated as to why this must be, since I distinctly remember interviews and briefings with senior DOD civilian and military leaders where they corrected such mis-perceptions...repeatedly. I specifically remembered the 'repeatedly' part because it seemed that the questioners/interviewers seized on the term in Desert Storm and seized upon it again early during Operation Allied Force. It then reappeared again for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. The term was not originating within DOD and NOWHERE is it spoken of in military community as an acceptable, much less preferred 'technique' in applying force through Airpower.

It did not take much researching to verify my memories of on the topic during the wars from Desert Storm forward were correct. From a 15 March 1991 briefing during Desert Storm (emphasis mine):

This is the 117, you've seen it. It's been operational now for nearly 10 years. It still represents the state of the art as far as operationally fielded technology. As far as we know, it's never been tracked by any Iraqi radar. It has certainly never been touched by bullets or SAMs or anything else. We operated for 43 days with this aircraft completely invulnerable,so far as we know. As it says, never touched by target defenses.
I want to make a little more on this point here, because with the combination of stealth and precision attack capability in the 117, we were able to attack targets very discretely. We did not carpet bomb downtown Baghdad. As a matter of fact, it's obvious to anyone who has been watching on television, the pictures of Baghdad neighborhoods untouched,people driving around, walking around on the sidewalks, and so forth. We took special care to make sure that we attacked only military targets, and we attacked them quite precisely.
Aircrews were informed to bring home the ordnance if they weren't sure they were locked to the right targets. We made very few mistakes. I'm quite proud of the fact that we achieved high levels of destruction against military targets with minimum collateral damage.

The statement reads as if someone was out there claiming that the US was 'carpet bombing' Baghdad doesn't it? Such claims must have happened more than once: From an article in the Spring 1997 Airpower Journal (emphasis mine):

When news from Basra in early February suggested carpet bombing, Pentagon spokesmen seemed increasingly exasperated. “We never said there would be no collateral damage,” Lt Gen Thomas Kelly complained at one of his afternoon briefings:
What we did say is that our pilots scrupulously adhered to good targeting . . .and in fact flew that target profile to the best of their ability. We go to great lengths . . . to avoid collateral damage. But war is a dirty business, and unfortunately, there will be collateral damage. There's no way one can prohibit it.
Iraq wasn't claiming even five hundred civilian casualties, yet military spokesmen were practically admitting hidden damage. One might have thought Dresden or Tokyo had occurred.

Now we skip forward to 1999, and Operation Allied Force. From a May 1, 1999 Pentagon briefing (again, all emphasis mine) where the briefer describes precision attack against area targets, and specifically how sticks of unguided bombs are laid down in very defined target areas:

One of the things that's been talked about a little bit is targets and collateral damage. We've talked about that a lot. There's some discussion about B-52s being used in carpet type bombing. We don't do that with B-52.
I mentioned yesterday that our B-52s have changed over the years dramatically, with increases to their avionics capability, increases to their GPS capability, increasing in their overall avionics.

[Chart - Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]

This is a target, you've seen many of these before. This is about 1,000 feet long in this area, probably, maybe a couple of hundred feet wide. It's not an atypical target. We have several of those we've seen before.
Next slide.

[Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]

This would be about the lay down pattern of the B-52 today at whatever altitude we want them to fly at. So you can see that, basically, this is not carpet bombing. This would be a perfect target for that type of weapon to hit. There are other targets, assembly areas we could use with the B-52, and it has a very, very capable delivery method with their avionics they have today to attack a target like this with very little collateral damage. As you can see, there wouldn't be much of a problem with anything around here being in the category of collateral damage.
So as we talk about the B-52, it has the capability to attack with standoff weapons or gravity weapons, and these gravity weapons are not dumb bombs anymore because of the avionics we have in the aircraft to make sure that we do, in this case, what would be called precision on that area target.

But it seems there is 'movement' out there who insists on perverting the term 'carpet bombing' for reasons of their own - perhaps as part of a fey attempt to evoke some emotional response among the weaker and more unprepared minds among the masses. I have to conclude as much because the knee-jerk response of crying 'carpet bombing' again emerged in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. First, from a 31 October 2001 DOD briefing (still my emphasis) on operations in Afghanistan:

Q: Admiral, of all the strikes south of Mazar-e Sharif -- the airstrikes on the Taliban positions, have they all involved precision-guided weapons? Or have the B-52s started to drop strings of 500-pound unguided bombs -- colloquially "carpet bombing" -- now that you have better information on where these divisions are.
Stufflebeem: I'm not sure if it's -- if it's necessary to get into specific mission by mission, but it is -- it is fair to say that we're using both precision and non-precision weapons while attacking Taliban forces -- you know, while they're deployed.
Q: Could use [sic] deterrent carpet bombing and the strings of the unguided bombs against those positions around Mazar-e Sharif?
Stufflebeem: I'm familiar with the term "carpet bombing." I think it's an inaccurate term. It's an old -- an old expression. Heavy bombers have the capacity to carry large loads of weapons, and oftentimes if a target presents itself either in an engagement zone, or when directed, it's possible to release an entire load of bombs at once, in which case -- the real formal term for that is called a "long stick," which has also been called carpet bombing.

So now 'carpet bombing is a 'colloquialism' versus a highly defined term? It is a slippery slope that we seem to be riding.
Now, from an interview that Paul Wolfowitz gave to the BBC in November the same year (more of my emphasis) we see further refutation of the the term 'carpet bombing':

BBC: Can I just ask you first of all about the latest developments in the war in Afghanistan which is that positions north of Kabul are being now carpet bombed,we hear. Is that a change of strategy?

Wolfowitz: I don't think it's a change of strategy. That's a journalistic term, I believe. We are certainly putting very heavy effort against Taliban positions. The strategy from the beginning has been to empower the opposition forces inside Afghanistan to be able to undermine and eventually hopefully overthrow the Taliban.

BBC: But moving from a position where clearly the strikes were one off from surgical to B-52s going in and it looks like carpet bombing to anyone who saw the pictures.

Wolfowitz: Again, I find it -- this is not carpet bombing a la Dresden and World War II. It is one of the reasons, by the way, we did not send (inaudible) from the beginning is, it is twice the size, it covers a significant area, but it's areas that are chosen quite precisely to be front line units. When you're going after front line units you don't take out one soldier at a time.

So even the civilian leadership gets the difference between bombing a city and bombing 'front line' units in the field. A fine point as to why Dresden doesn't meet my high standard for the term 'carpet bombing' is one I will put aside as 1) irrelevant for this argument and 2) a more complex issue than can be tackled in a blog post - Heck, I have read books that have fallen short on the issue.

Finally, we note that the 'carpet bombing' meme survived to OIF, and that the press refuses to make/see the distinction between precision use of unguided weapons and 'carpet bombing' as a convenient scare term. From a March 3, 2003 briefing at the Pentagon we find the now-retired General McChrystal jumping in to correct a questioner on the topic:

Q: Torie, on the use of the heavy bombers -- and I address this to the general primarily -- the B-1s, B-2s and B-52s, can you tell what kind of ordnance they're dropping? The B-52 is dropping dumb bombs, what we used to call carpet bombing, on the Republican Guard troops?

McChrystal: Sir, they are not. They are dropping a combination of munitions, a large number of precision munitions. So there's really not carpet bombing occurring.

I would have loved to know who asked that question. The phrasing dismisses the distinction that exists between carpet bombing and techniques into a simple change or terms for the same thing.

You don't have to look hard for where the MSM gets their ideas on 'carpet bombing'. Just enter the terms "carpet bombing" with the name of the war you are interested in in your search engine and you get such lovely link suggestions:

"Operation Desert Slaughter": http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Oper_Desert_Slaughter_1991

PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/b52.html

Rabid Montclair State University faculty (A Stalinist-English Teacher?-ROFLMAO!):
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/gulf-war-fingrut.html

Project on Defense Alternatives:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

...you get the drift. All the usual 'Blame America First' scumb...er...suspects.

AF Chief of Staff?...or Just another 'Suit'?

(H/T In From the Cold)
General Schwartz, in the latest of a long string of events highlighting the AF's 'buisiness ethos' is either actively subverting attempts by a non-profit historical group from gettng their hands on an F-105 thunderchief and enough parts to get one flying again. The historical significance of the F-105's combat history, including the sacrifices and efforts of the men who flew them and kept them flying cannot be denied, and their memory should be kept alive. Bringing what is now commonly referred to as 'Heritage Flights' to the masses at airshows and in silent display makes these beasts a reality to those who've forgotten or never knew them.
I was stationed at Hill AFB for many years, including the time when the ANG's 419thFW transitioned from being the last F-105 Wing to the first Guard unit to fly the F-16.
My home was a couple of miles off the end of the runway, and you always knew when a "Thud" flight was taking off. The Thud sure went out with a bang that I'll never forget: the 'Thudout' was a sight that would never be seen again.
Come to think of it, the AF is also missing a pretty good opportunity to remind those who would complain* about the F-35 noise footprint, what used to be flying overhead when rarely a complaint was heard.

* Attention Boise! You used to have freakin' F-4s stationed there! Now suck it up and slap on your "Jet Noise - The Sound of Freedom" bumper stickers. (In the comments section at the link, I'd say most of the locals are telling the fearful ninnies just about the same thing.)

End of Libel? Media Tiptoes Around the Problem

Ever Hear of "Occam's Razor"?
The New York Observer has an entertaining piece featuring a Time Inc. attorney who's specialty is (was) Libel Law. All sorts of reasons are presented as likely behind the disappearance of libel suits against big media are offered, and I think some come close, describing some likely ancillary reasons, but it is almost as if they're dancing around the obvious one.
Think about it for just a moment, What's your first thought when someone besmirches your good name? Answer: "Will anyone believe them?"
Credibility in the mainstream media is seen as MIA by most people. Combine that with the fact the media doesn't have a lock on the flow of information anymore and people can get their side 'out there' (mentioned in the linked article) and you get a drop in people who care enough about lies the media writes about them to take legal action.

Ann Althouse Debunks Media Wailing on Texas Curriculum

So I don't have to. (Hat tip: Althouse via Instapundit)

Prof. Ann Althouse picks apart another breathless (and deceitful) report from the mainstream media on how Texas is somehow subverting the education of Texas youth.
Thanks Professor! (And my closing statement at the bottom of this post still rings true.)

Updated and Bumped from and earlier post titled:
Leftard Reporter April Castro Shocked! Shocked!
...that the Texas Board of Education moves to De-Leftardize School curriculum.

My Original Post:
In an AP article just published and titled Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences, 'writer' April Castro breathlessly reveals her bottomless ignorance of all things American.

A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

'Far right faction... injecting conservative ideals' - Got it.
I'd have to review the litany of changes that the Texas Board of Education is making in the 'original' before I would pass judgement of them, but Little Ms. April helpfully provides a few (with obligatory leftist bias I'm sure) examples of the 'radical' moves being made in Texas Ed. My favorite is one of the first ones:

Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic,"...

Gee. ah... April honey? The United States IS a frickin' "constitutional republic". See here, here, and here.
I suppose just about everything looks like it is 'far right' to someone if they can be habitually found grazing in the deep left field.

Update: I knew there would be more breathless and vapid criticisms of Texas Board of Education's making changes to the curriculum and I was right. Seems the Freakonomics twit has poor search engine skills that lead him to some poor conclusions (thanks for the info Volokh!) concerning F.A Hayek.

You couldn't write marketable fiction with characters as dumb as those found in the MSM.

DADT: Some Milbloggers Miss Target

Obama & Co are subverting Western Society everywhere else, why not the military too? Obama does NOT need your help Milbloggers!

I really don't have time for this, but can't let it pass without comment (which I made at the site linked in the title of this post). I am usually in complete agreement with most of the Milbloggers listed, but today, for some reason that escapes me, they felt a need to speak out on the wrong side of an issue near and dear to my heart. I still might have let it pass, except the Fabulous (usually-right-but -unfortunately-blind-on-this-issue) Instapundit linked into the 'statement' which will gain it traffic and exposure far beyond its relevance. I expect it will be mentioned on the network news in ten, nine, eight......

I've covered all this before ad nauseum here, here, and here.

PS: I just wish people would drop these turds into the punchbowl before OR after I go to work so I can zap them early in the life-cycle.

Now, I've got three DAU module tests to do tonight -- so go away!

Coffee Party: This is CNN....

Astroturfing!

More Evidence!

and More...

Update 03/15: and More...

The usual Koffeeklatchura suspects: aging hipsters, echo hippies, etc, etc. - all pretending to be a new 'grass roots' movement.

Sad...

Merrill McPeak (Blind Pig) Finds an Acorn

And Max Boot then Glenn Reynolds take issue with it.

Even a University of Tennessee Law Professor finds Gen Merrill McPeak 'unpersuasive'. (Even though the General for once in his political-military career is on the right side of the argument)

I would also ask Max Boot how those in today's military could gauge the 'corrosiveness' of women on the battlefield? Since none serving (active duty anyway) can remember what it was like before modern times - back when women were relatively scarce in the military?

I'm reading Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society at the moment, and there's a lot in the book relevant to most major modern societal issues. I would commend it to Max Boot and Professor Reynold's: especially as it concerns the observation that societal norms are not the product of ignorance and inattention, but the product of systemic processes.

Systemic processes can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals, than any one of those individuals [participants] possesses. (p.16)

Max Boot, in his Commentary Contentions article trots out the old 'other militaries are doing it' argument [Did Moms stop using the Socratic "if everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it?" stopper after my generation?]. He then goes off the deep end:

One would think that the presence of women would do even more than the presence of gays to undermine “male bonding.” Yet women have been granted admittance into almost all military occupations, in roles including flying fighter jets as McPeak once did. They are present on all major and most minor bases even in war zones. They frequently and regularly circulate on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that their presence has undermined combat effectiveness? And if it hasn’t, why would the presence of un-closeted gays be more corrosive than that of women?

'Evidence'? Hmmm. I'll answer his first question, which will dispense with the second.

First it must be recognized that such 'problems' are real and ongoing:

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a “lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,” according to a Naval Inspector General report.

Second, it must be recognized that there is evidence that, I assume for politically correct reasons, such information is routinely suppressed or played down, it has been going on for years, and is a current problem.

I'm not picking on the Navy here: it is just a more obvious problem when you are structured to live, deploy and fight in geographically discrete units (aka 'ships'). The problem is one that affects all the services to varying degrees.

I enjoy the writings of both Max Boot and Professor Reynolds: they both have pretty good instincts, but they are both wrong on on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I am guessing both Professor Reynolds and Max Boot view this as some sort of 'equal rights' issue instead of a military effectiveness issue. It would help both of them to recognize the military as a unique sub-culture in America, with unique limitations on civil rights, freely acknowledged by its members in taking an oath and accepted for the duration of our service.

I would only add that I find Max Boot's attitude somewhat irritating, but only because he suffers from the same shortcomings found in so many of those analysts and historians that are involved with the military, but are not of the military: not a part of the continuum of "systemic processes" that "can bring into play more knowledge for decision-making purposes, through the interactions and mutual accommodations of many individuals", over two centuries of the American military experience.

This is not a case of 'special pleading'. I assume ALL subcultures within the greater American civilization have systemic processes that have evolved and are unique to their groups (why would they not?). I claim no insight of any to which I do not also belong. I merely insist others do not claim relevant knowledge of mine in return.

Almost forgot: 'Heh'.

P.S. Recommended reading on Women in the Military: Coed Combat

Is Beth Fouhy Lying, Stupid, and/or Incompetent?

Beth Fouhy

Or is this article her AP editor's fault?

Ignoring the cynical tone oozing out of the article covering Karl Rove's new book (it is to be expected I suppose) what I absolutely cannot abide is paragraph four:

"In the run-up to the war, Bush and his national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney, attempted to link Saddam to the attacks as a way to build support for the invasion."

In an entire piece otherwise devoted to what Karl Rove wrote in his book, paragraph four sits there: detached from the rest of the article. It is the only paragraph without reference to Rove or his writing, and it is a complete lie, gratuitously dropped in the article like a turd in a punchbowl.

Ms. Fouhy, are you stupid enough to actually believe what you wrote? Were you merely incompetent in accepting the assertion without reflection from some less-than-reputable source? Or did you know better but threw it out there as a lie because you wanted it to be true?

Alternatively, was the paragraph just slipped in by an uncredited editor for any/all of the reasons above? What IS the explanation? Is the AP still trying to rewrite History?

It won't work. Here are a couple of examples why:

2003 Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

2004 Cheney blames media for blurring Saddam, 9/11

Interestingly, what you WILL notice is that within just about every credibly-sourced news article on the subject between 2001 and today (including those linked above), is the assertion that while the Bush Administration never claimed a linkage between 911 and Iraq, they “implied” or “hinted” or “gave the impression” that there was a link.

Big Media would like you to believe it was the Bush Administration ‘linking’ Saddam and 911, but a review of the reporting shows us that it was Big Media doing all that hintin’, implyin’ and impressin’-- and this hardly a revelation at this late date: Polls, not Bush administration, helped shape Americans' bias against Saddam.

England: Just Another Fascist State?

Sigh~Seems to be going that way...
Just another reason to want to live where I am a 'Citizen' and not a 'Subject'.

I visited my parents in England in the early '80s for a month on leave. The general quiet in a London that was relatively free of the Troubles (for a while after 1983) had not yet happened, so living with the idea that a bomb might go off at any time while in London was the norm for visitors. My parents were living out in the 'Shires where the threat was seen as pretty much non-existent. In London, it was all 'stiff-upper lip' and 'life goes on' as one might expect of a people who gave us Churchill and had survived the Blitz among other things.

That England is apparently no more. These days, it seems, if a 'Community Police Officer' thinks that taking pictures of Christmastime crowds is 'suspicious', and you choose to not identify yourself when asked (and evidently no answer is required by law)......then apparently that constitutes 'anti-social' behavior' (the definition of which is decided upon by policeman on the scene). Upon declaring that your behavior is anti-social, the policeman THEN can legally require you to answer with your 'particulars'.

Nice system.

The video at the link seems to be an interesting case study in how things get blown out of proportion as more people get involved in a serial fashion. Visit the link and view the video.

My take?
Most striking (I kid!), the first 2 out of 3 policemen in this video are quite attractive. Lovely Officer 1 is equally pleasant, (Community Police?) and the exchange with her is short and without event....

But she apparently follows some rule whereby if someone refuses to answer a question, she reports it up the line. A hapless cog in a Fascist 'system'? Cute as a button though...
Attractive Officer 2 (Constable it appears) comes in later at a different location.

She's all business up front. She also appears to get quite resentful that someone is not being compliant and knows the law does not require it. She has trouble forming a response to the person she wants to question and who is repeatedly questioning her if he is free to go or is he being detained, all the while trying to think of any possible reason to require the 'interviewee' to answer her questions. Her hand gestures indicate to me she is experiencing some frustration, or does she have anger management issues? Never answering if she is detaining the man or not, the men with the video camera announce that they are leaving, then walk away.

The third officer strikes me as being at heart just another 'cowboy cop' that one runs into from time to time in the US (and as a rule on the TV shows like COPS). He is going to close the deal HIS way no matter what it takes. Is he this way all the time, or does he feel his manhood is on the line on a rescue mission of the previous officer(s)? Very polite...but his punkin' head was made up before he ever approached the 'suspects'.

I have no idea how this video plays in Britain, but in Texas, I think a case could be made to reprimand Attractive Officer #2 and fire Cowboy Cop #3.

Given that 'public photography' problems have occurred in the US (example), I've got a lot more faith that this will play out in favor of the individual and Liberty on this side of the pond.

'Allo 'Allo 'Allo! What's all this then?
It's called Fascism, with a couple of cute, and one happy, face.

Bill O'Reilly Knows Not of Which He Speaks

Just one of many reasons I am not now, nor ever have been, a fan of Bill O'Reilly. Too often it has felt like he has held the right position at the time, for the wrong reason or reasons.....and this isn't even one of those times

Don't Ask Don't Tell Issue: Its Back...Again

President Obama, finally receiving pushback in his efforts to Socialize the United States of America to date, now seeks to subvert the only part of the Federal Government that is viewed positively by the American public: The Military. And it's all just to appease the radical 'homosexual activist' subset of an already small minority of the population. At Pajamas Media, I've posted my 2 cents, including reusing some point's I've made already earlier here and elsewhere:

The criteria as to what is acceptable in the military has not changed, nor should it to appease some tyrannical minority’s demand of not only acceptance but of ‘endorsement’. In the military, what delineates that which is acceptable conduct and behaviors from the unacceptable is how this this single question is answered:

Is it predjudicial to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States?

DADT, while IMHO not a perfect solution, has worked because it focuses on conduct and behavior, and generally fits within the larger construct of required behaviors of all types.
All this bleating about ‘civil rights’ is rather limited in scope and focused on only the rights of that tyrannical minority don’t you think? Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a heterosexual female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa — how will (insert heterosexual’s name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert heterosexual’s name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)

For the record, lest I (~sigh~once again) be accused of a being a 'homophobe'. Hardly. I am completely indifferent to it in my public life and the civilian workplace. Personally, I find the concept of 'exclusive homosexuality' itself to be in the grand scheme of things: 'pointless'. But that hasn't kept me from liking and respecting coworkers on their merits or not liking them and disrespecting them when warranted for a lack thereof.

Obama Administration Negotiating With The Enemy?

File this under "As if the Obama Administration hasn't done enough to us already" -- From Doctor Zero we now learn that while most of America was preoccupied with the holidays and evils of Healthcare 'reform':

It seems unlikely that the Khazali outrage could have happened without President Obama’s authorization. I’m ready to hear him explain this… and then, considering his reputation as a liar, every thinking American should be ready to fact-check every word he says. I don’t mind admitting I’m a hostile audience. You should be, too. Nothing this President has done since taking office has earned him a shred of trust or faith, especially in the area of national security.

Read it all HERE.

Veterans Now Can Do What Comes Naturally

I'd heard about a movement towards getting this change to US law last year, but I didn't know it actually became law.

Veterans can now salute the flag during the National Anthem. - And they have been able to for a year without me knowing about it. How'd that happen? Hazards of moving among Civilians too much I guess.

I can't tell you how wrong it felt not to salute these past years after 20 years of doing it as second nature.

VDH on the Obamification of America

At some point, Obama may conclude that the vast presidential jet, the opulence of the Presidency, the power and influence at his fingertips, all that national wealth and more were not created by Acorn, community organizing, Michelle’s legal brilliance, Axelrod’s savvy advice, or Emanuel’s crassness, or by claiming that doctors needlessly take out tonsils and amputate limbs, or in general by sonorous tones promising to give someone vast amounts of someone else’s money, but rather through preserving a climate of freedom, respect for continuity and tradition, and government non-intrusion into the market place that encourage people to try to go into business and retain some of their profits—as recompense for getting up on Saturday morning at 6AM to get down to open the dry cleaning store, or borrowing one’s net worth to open a new stationary outlet, or staying late till 7PM to do a crown, or gambling that the new $500,000 crane will pay for itself in 5 years, or going under someone’s house on a Sunday to unclog the toilet when the employee doesn’t show up.

He may, Professor, he may. But I hold no hope of it happening. The supply of Obama Brand© 'Hybris' appears to be infinite.

Read all of Professor Hanson's beautiful summation of 'the story so far' here.