Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

Self-Delusion and National Security

Here is the problem of our times: In the early 1990's, the Soviet Union fell apart, and when it went away, the european Communist boogeyman went away. For the past generation, Soviet successor states and the nations they spawned have been eyeing each other warily, or have been actively killing each other. In either event, their threat to western europe and thereby, the United States, at least temporarily, disappeared.

What was America to do? We no longer had a ten foot tall giant to be afraid of.

Well, luckily, we didn't have to wait to long... Saddam Hussein, the toolbag Dictator-in-Chief of Iraq, was stupid enough to invade Kuwait, threatening American (business) interests in Saudi Arabia!

Well! We sure as hell weren't going to let THAT stand, now were we? (Insert remarks about Hussein being abetted and encouraged by April Glaspie and Donald Rumsfeld here).

Anyway, we smashed up a significant part of Hussein's army, and went home to live in peace, right?

Well, not so much.

At the end of the 20th century, despite not having any real, present physical threat to our security, Americans did what we normally do: We turned inward. All of a sudden, we decided that the threats to American security was our own government... and poor Mexicans.

All of a sudden, many (really stupid) Americans were convinced by powerful and dangerous interests (some of them from outside of the United States), that our own worst enemy was our (mostly) fairly elected government.

Go figure.

We started to buy into fear mongering to the point that homegrown (racist) terrorists (who call themselves "Patriots") started blowing up federal office buildings (and American children). This was bad enough, but we didn't truly start to lose our national security minds until our country was finally touched by international terrorism on a large scale.

I don't need to go into detail about certain events that took place ten years ago... You get the idea, right? So, instead of doing what we should have done about terrorism, we overreacted be came terrified of a bunch of idiots with bomb vests, and went to war (overtly) in two different countries and covertly (sorta) in at least 5 more.

Now, we have impoverished ourselves with the costs of war, and the (allegedly) most Patriotic among us are unwilling to pay them.

We have become, in the span of 20 years, an impoverished, anti-intellectual giant that hates itself (especially it's own brain). We are afraid of immigrants (and not just the illegal kind) unless they are white and Christian, we are afraid of our politicians, especially if they aren't white (or effing crazy). We fear all of these things while we waste our army, air force, and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing virtually nothing to counter the only credible military threat we face: China.

Whom do we have to thank for all of this? The modern Conservative.

Be afraid for our future... but prevent disaster by not being scared into inactivity.

Be active! Be bold! Don't be afraid to speak out against those that would drive us into the night.

For God's sake, do something.

In case of a Government Lock-Out....

...because a lock-out is what we were talking about, no matter what you think you know.

 “You have reached the desk of XXXX XXXXXXX at the XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.  I am sorry that I can’t take your call, but the party in control of the House of Representatives doesn’t feel that training our officers and agents is more important than partisan politics.

Please leave a message at the sound of the tone, and I will call you back after I return from being forced out of work, by those who only have to stop wasting money in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve a balanced budget.”

Bleeeeeep! (#*&@$%#$#$)

On The Libyan Intervention

I don't think that it will surprise you to know that I oppose the current military intervention in Libya.

My reasons are basically the same as they were for the invasion and continuin occupation of Iraq, and are the same for my opposition to the escalation and and continuance of the war in Afghanistan.  I don't think that I really need to enumerate them here... if you aren't familiar with my blog, look around, you'll see what I mean.

I think that there isn't a single, solitary good reason to this military operation, and I think that it should end immediately.

There, you know how I feel about it... but that isn't wht I really want yo talk about, my friends.

What I want to talk about is all of the noise coming from the Republican/Tea Party/whack-a-doodle news network (known by some as Fox News) echo chamber.  Aside from taking a crack at our President, why are Republicans against this operation?  It doesn't make sense to me that the people who thought that the invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations, in the name of freedom, liberty, and self-determination was a good idea, DON'T think that this operation in Libya makes just about as much sense. 

How can you support one or two, if you can't support the other?

To tell you the truth, I don't see why the right-wing whackos aren't applauding our support of people who are actually TRYING to oust their dictator.  No... instead, the Republi-dopes have taken another tack.  They have used this militay operation, however ill-advised, for political purposes.  Our airmen (and likely our Special Forces) are in harms way and the Republicans don't support them. 

Amazing.

You know, if I was another sort of person, I might point out the hypocrisy of their position.  If I was another sort of person, I might say that the Republican willingness to play politics with this issue smacks of a blatant anti-military bias. If I was another sort of person, I might say that their criticism of a President in a time of war was downright unpatriotic, communist, treasonous, traitorous, and all sorts of other bad things. 

Good thing for them that I'm not that kind of person.

You people are a bunch of effing hypocrits, and I wish you great confusion as you destroy yourselves before the next Presidential cycle.

A Question on Governance

A question for you, gentle readers:

 

Would having a unicameral legislative body be a more efficient way of passing laws ?   Does it follow that even if said body was more efficient, that it would, by necessity, be better?

 

What say you?

Post-Election Blues

Well, that was an interesting election, wasn’t it?

 

Now, now, fellow Democrats, quit whining and quit with the finger-pointing at the mean ol’ Tea Partiers and Republicans.  Those people are not the reason that we lost last night.  Neither is it because the people are stupid.  It isn’t even because the electorate is racist and trying to dig at Barack Obama.  No.  It isn’t anyone’s fault but our own.

 

It is your fault.

 

It is the fault of the party.

 

It is the fault of the President.

 

In this election cycle, the GOP owned the message. The GOP was able to make the case to enough people that the Democrats were spending the country into ruin.  The GOP was able to convince the electorate that Speaker Pelosi was/is out of touch.  The GOP was able to convince that the electorate that the economy would somehow be better by electing them rather than re-electing Democrats.  Personally, I don’t see any of those things as being true (perhaps with the exception about the comment about Pelosi), but as we all know, “truthiness” is all about how you present your “facts”.

 

Look, we took a beating last night.  This is what happens when you sit on your ass and expect people to kiss your ass.  You get people like Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio actually elected to the Senate, and John Boehner as Speaker of The House.

 

The way I see it is that while I know that President Obama is doing a fine job, and you do too.  You know, as well as I do, the stimulus DID work.  It did what it was supposed to do, infuse enough cash into the economy to slow, and eventually stop the total collapse of our economy.  You know as well as I do that the President has handled himself well (with the exception of his handling of DADT)… but what he has not done was to fight.

 

So what do we do to fix this mess?

 

Democrats need to learn how to fight.  Democrats need to learn how to throw punches as well as take them.  Democrats haves to stop being so freakin’ doughy!  This is what happened in 2000 and 2004, my friends, Democrats failed to win the Presidency in those years because we had candidates who couldn’t roll up their sleeves and fight.  In 2008 we didn’t have to fight as much because the country was sick and tired of Republican failure, and because the Republicans chose a man who wasn’t used to fighting, and a woman who was the worst enemy of their own campaign and party.

 

Additionally, the President needs to fire whoever it is that is crafting his message, because it isn’t getting out.  The President needs to kick some Democrat asses in the Senate, and in the House.  The President needs to be heard, and his policies have to be shown to be effective.

 

Anyway, I am still a little on the sick side, and I don’t want to be at this for to long, so I will close here.

 

I hope that we learned something last night.

Gunfighter: On Military Spending

So... here is the thing.  As I was driving home from church today, I saw another Tea Party-Don't-Tread-On-Me-bottom-feeding Republican with the usual run of stickers on her car.  The stickers accused the President of being a socialist; being a muslim; and seeking to weaken the United States by destroying the military.  Oh, and one of the stickers on the car identified her (or whomever the owner of the car is) as a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States. 

Can we say dangerous?

It sickens me to think that not only are some of our military people this bloody stupid, but that this is an officer.  A leader.  A commander.  A commissioned officer that thinks that this kind of rhetoric is productive, useful, or patriotic.  Personally, I think that the officer to whom that car belongs should be cashiered immediately.  Oh, and spare me the usual crap about "she has the right to voice his own opinon" because if you know anything about the military, you know that this is not true.

It is time the military  esptablishment in this country gets put back on it's leash and understands that the armed forces aren't special.  The members of the armed forces of the United States  aren't any better than the society they serve, simply by having decided to wear the uniform.  Members and veterans of the armed forces aren't any more or less patriotic than the general run of Americans.  All of these things are true... and they also apply to those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

One of the things that I am getting tired of hearing about is the "fact" that President Obama is somehow "destroying" the armed forces.  How can this be possible?  I suppose it is because the President has supported legislation that would ensure that working Americans, many of whom make less money, and have fewer entitlements than members of the armed forces, are able to receive some modicum of decent, affordable healthcare.  Have some military people never stopped to think that if it weren't for wearing a uniform and putting on airs, they would be in the same economic group as those in the ranks of the uninsured?

So... the right-wing crackpot machine thinks that the military is being "destroyed".  Maybe they believe that because the President had the courage to actually put the costs of the wars on the books.  You know... actually putting the costs into the budget, instead of pretending the costs were going to be paid out of some magic bag of money... or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  You did realize that this where the bulk of the "runaway spending" that the GOP complains about comes from, didn't you?  Good, I am glad that I could help clear that up for you.

Could it be that the right-wingers are mostly worried that the President is actually doing something that other Presidents didn't have the courage to try?  Could it be that they are afraid that if if gay men and women have the opportunity to serve openly in the armed forces, that the sttraight men and women would somehow be diminished if their homosexual fellow citizens were able to serve their country, too?  Hmm.

Personally, I don't see whatever it is that they think that they see.  I happen to see a world that holds no military threat that could possibly be poised to strike the United States in such a way that would cripple or destroy us.  There are no two nations that even if they were to combine forces that could actually threaten the United States outside of a nuclear attack, and in this I include Russia and China.

The truth of military spending is that this country could freeze military spendin at it's current levels for the next ten years, and our nearest rival/threat couldn't hope to gain any meaningful advantage over us.  So why the hue and cry?

I dunno... maybe my perspective is poor.  Maybe I just don't get it.  Or, maybe... just maybe, I'm right.  Maybe we could quit wasting time, lives, and money in Iraq and Afghanistan and start rebuilding the parts of our forces that have been broken since 2003.  Maybe we could use that money to replace worn out helicopter engines, and destroyed humvees, and rifles and machineguns that have passed their peacetime shelf-lives ten years early.  Maybe we can replace the destroyed vehicles, worn out tanks and all of the other equipment that our armed forces need.

I am proud of my own service to my country, and I honor my fellow veterans, including my father, father-in-law, brother, friends, neighbors and colleagues who have served their country... especially those who went on to fully-integrated, productive civillian lives as family members and taxpayers who pay for the entitlements of those still serving.  Because we shouldn't forget, my friends, that no group in America, not even the mythological "welfare queens" or even our seniors, is more entitled and receives more monetary support when weighed against their rate of taxation than those serving in the active armed forces.  N0body likes to hear it, but it is true.

When I am King, our aremed forces will be largely conscripted, effectively eliminating the largest part of the entitled military class.

Freedom Isn’t Free (not by a long shot!)

You have heard the term "Freedom Isn't Free", haven't you? If you have never heard it spoken, you are almost certain to have seen it on someone's t-shirt, book tote, or as a large sticker on someone's car or truck. Mrs. GF and I saw a car with one of those stickers on it today, while we were heading to Disney's Animal kingdom (Soccer Girl wanted to see some more animals… could I say no?)

Anyway it made me think, and it started an oft-repeated conversation between us. I'll shorten the conversation down to its most salient point, which for me is this: Those friggin' t-shirts, stickers, banners, and signs really piss me off. Do you know why they piss me off? Well, I'll tell you. That particular sentiment is a favorite of Republican/Conservative/Libertarian/Tea Party whack-jobs who chant "USA! USA!" out of one side of their faces while whining about the federal government and paying taxes out of the other.

Personally, I don't get it… how can we shout defiantly that "Freedom Isn't Free" while complaining about the costs? How can the anti-tax nimrods continually natter about President Obama's spending, while having been silent about the orgy of spending perpetrated by his predecessor? How can we say "Stay in Iraq/Afghanistan as long as it takes to finish the job" (that would be the job that Mr. Bush was never able to define), without counting the cost? Never mind the cost of lost lives and limbs… because the whack-job right doesn't care about our soldiers and Marines getting maimed or killed. After all, if they cared, they wouldn't be so effing happy to have sent those men and women to war for no good reasons in the first place... but I digress.

Look, wars cost money. Wars cost an unholy sum of money… numbers that the average person couldn't even being to visualize. The cost of ammunition; the cost of replacement parts; the cost of tanks, aircraft, and trucks… not to mention the gas/oil that it takes to fuel them, is beyond astronomical. The costs of equipping soldiers and Marines alone is staggering, to say nothing about the cost of equipping the sailors and airmen that are in the war zones.

Let's get away from wars for a moment, because our freedoms and our safety aren't just about the military are they? Of course they aren't. When you have a car is stolen or when your kids go missing, you don't call the 82^nd airborne division… you call the police. When you fall down the stairs in a household ambulance, you call your local EMS paramedics. When there is a house fire or a car fire, there are firefighters rushing to assist to you as best they can. That stuff costs money, too.

You know, the military, our intelligence services (who have secret budgets you and I will never know about), and our Police/Fire/EMS and other first responders aren't the only guarantors of our freedom. One of the other guarantors of our freedom is education. Because we all know that an educated citizenry is the first defense against tyranny, don't we? Well guess what, warriors? Public Education is the best way to make sure the largest possible number of people in our society is at least basically educated. That costs money, too.

You see, we all want things. We want fire protection, we want police and EMS services, we want a strong military, we want to be educated, we want air safety, we want safe roads, and we want government services that we feel that we need (and those services will vary depending on your age, health, income level, etc…). What Americans are really twisted up about is paying for the things that we want. Somehow, a significant proportion of the American populace has gotten into their heads, that they can have all of the things that they want, fight two wars at the same time, and cut taxes. That math doesn't work, warriors. It doesn't work at all.

No sir, freedom isn't free… and blood isn't the only price. As a matter of fact, blood is the cheapest price there is, because we have so much of it. Freedom isn't free, because freedom costs an awful lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere, warriors, and guess where that is? Yup, you got it! It is coming from your pockets. I know you don't like it, but there it is.

You want a new moon rocket/heavy launch vehicle? You have to pay for it.

You want a new class of submarines? You have to pay for it.

You want roads? You have to pay for them.    

Not enough firefighters in your town? Uh huh… pony up!

Personally, I don't like paying taxes for a lot of things that our money gets spent on. No sir, there are some things that I don't like one little bit, but I'll tell you what: you'll never hear me carping about paying taxes, because paying taxes pays for those roads that I mentioned, and the teachers and others that staff our schools, and to our police and fire services. The money that I… that we pay in taxes funds our awesome armed forces (you may have noticed that we haven't sent our folks to war with a few shotguns and muskets). Paying for those things is my duty as an American citizen, and good Americans are attentive to their duty.

So there you have it. Paying your taxes is paying for your freedom. Complaining about it only makes you seem like a spoiled child who doesn't want to take a bath, even though taking a bath is exactly what the child needs.

Now, can you people please shut up, quit your whining grow a scab and pay your share without cheating?

Dr. Laura & Niggers

I am interrupting my awesome vacation to talk to you about our country.

The country that we Americans live in and love  is sliding right into the toilet.  No, not because of entitlement or liberlism or immigration or any of those red herrings.  We aren't in deep trouble over those f***ing morons who where their pants hanging off of their asses (like the idot I saw at Disney's Animal Kingdom yesterday).  We aren't losing our way because of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.

Nope, uh uh.

We are losing our way because of conservative victimization.  That's what I said: conservative victimization.  In an America where conservatives regularly make excuses for the treasonous Confederates, where conservatives make noises about armed revolution, where conservatives blame all of the ills of our country on the poor and then pretend that they themselves are victims... we are in a world of shit, people.

I don't have to spell all of these things out for you, gentle reader, because I know that all of you are smart enough to know what I am talking about... and if you need examples of any of whot aI just said, please let me know and I willprovide them in spades!  Speaking of spades, now comes the latest conservative "victim" Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

You all know who Laura Schlessinger is, right?  The really odd-looking conservative radio talker who waves the wingnut banner on her syndicated show?  Right, that's the one.  Well, Schlessinger has landed herself in the limelight once again.  Last week, during a call-in segment on the show, Dr. Laura apparently used the word "nigger" eleven times in a 5 minute segment.  Surprising no one, least of all Dr. Laura, I am certain, there arose a terrible hue and cry.  People and groups were calling for Dr. Laura to apologize, calling for boycotts on her advertisers and a telephone campaign to her employers to get her off of the air.  It worked.

Dr. Laura announced, on the Larry King Show that she would be ending her show at the end of her contract, which just happened to be ending right about now anyway.  The good Doctor claims that she isn't ending the show because of poor ratings or anything like that... no, she says that she is ending her show (which has been running for many years) because she feels that she has lost her first ammendment rights.  You heard me...  a woman who has made a good living partially based on talking to (and frequently offending) people, is claiming that she is ending her show because she feels that she can no longer say the thinkgs that she feels need to be said.  Apparently, people need to hear the word nigger over and over.

I have to say that I think that the whole furor over her use of the word nigger is a bunch of bulls**t, after all, some of you who are reading this post, probably use the term more often than you would be comfortable admitting to your friends.  Some of you probably never use the word and are ffended by it, even if you aren't blsck.  Some of you are black and use it anyway, and think that it's ok as long as no one who ISN'T black uses it.  You have to quit giving words power over your lives.

Sure, Dr. Laura is a dope.  Indeed she is a dope of the firt rank... but being a dope isn't illegal, and complaining about the stupid things that come out of the mouths of dopes isn't the same thing as losing your first amendment rights.  So, Dr. Laura has decided to quit her show?  Who the f*** cares?  Not me, because I was never a fan anyway.  She can complain all she wants to about having her rights supressed, but we all know that this is nonsense.

"Oh, look at poor white, conservative girl, ME!  The colored people and the liberals are ganging up on me!  I'm losing my right to free speech!  Someone call Broadview security!"

Seriously, Laura... kiss my ass!

As much as I dislike the current culture of conservative/republican/Tea Party/whacko-wingnut victimology, I truly dislike professional victims of all sorts.  Those that make a living being disgruntled about things that they never make a true effort to change.

 

The Modern Conservative (1)

Modern Conservatism:  A political position that supports the notion that the United States government is the enemy of the people; is evil; and only exists to oppress the taxpayer.  The only legitimate expenditures of tax money is to waste it on military adventurism, hire more cops (and give them less authority), and to spy on other Americans. 

 

The modern conservative is a knee-jerk reactionary who spends a lot of time spouting about the US Constitution, but doesn't really know what is in it.

 

The modern conservative loves the armed forces... and loves sending them off to fight in unnecessary wars, and then complains about the cost of fighting said wars. 

 

The modern conservative believes in magic, and thinks that you can actually increase defense expenditures, fight two wars, and reduce taxes... without the creation of a financial crisis.

 

The modern conservative believes that the American government is the enemy of the people... except for the armed forces which constitutes the only part of our government who is on the side of the people.  All of which makes you wonder why any modern conservative wants to be part of the government.

 

The modern conservative thinks that if you can't afford to see a doctor, you probsably deserve to go untreated because you are clearly lazy.  The modern conservative thinks that if you don't have the money to pay a physician, you could give him (or her) a chicken.

 

Outed: Another Self-Hating Closeted Conservative

From Huffington Post:
 

George Alan Rekers, a prominent anti-gay activist who co-founded the conservative Family Research Council, was caught returning from a 10-day trip to Europe with a male escort he found on Rentboy.com, which is exactly what it sounds like.

The escort now says Rekers is indeed gay, and that Rekers paid him to perform daily nude body rubs during their European jaunt. "It's a situation where he's going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual," the young man told the New Times, adding that Rekers -- who repeatedly asked for a move he dubbed "The Long Stroke" -- ought to divorce himself from his many anti-gay associations.

Rekers has a new explanation for the trip. "I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them," he said in a statement posted on Facebook.

The Miami New Times promises more details and a profile of the escort, whom they codenamed "Lucien" but whose identity has been revealed elsewhere.]

Not to worry, Rekers told the Miami New Times, which broke the story: He claims he learned his 20-year-old companion was a prostitute only midway through their trip, they had no intimate contact, and he hired the young man only because recent surgery means "I can't lift luggage."

This seems highly dubious, not least because the New Times reporters spotted the retired professor pushing his baggage cart through Miami International Airport. It would be extremely difficult to stumble upon the Rentboy.com homepage, which features young well-muscled men rubbing each other's crotches on grainy video loops, and not figure out what the site means by "rent boy."

The site's pages aren't indexed by Google, either, so we'll need to take the New Times' word for it that the profile page for Rekers' escort advertised his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch c**k." (my edit.  GF) The young man denied that he and Rekers had sex, but he did confirm that they met via his Rentboy profile.

With the scandal flaring in the wake of the New Times expose, Rekers published a statement on his personal website that decries the story's "misleading innuendo." He confuses libel with slander, but he doesn't deny any specific element of the story, only repeating his claim that he needed help carrying luggage and averring that family and friends will back that claim.

Rekers, who is also a professor emeritus of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina and a Baptist minister, recently testifed against gay adoption in Florida, where he resides. Raw Story flagged a particularly jarring article in which he claims that children adopted by gay couples are more likely to commit suicide.

The retired professor has remained far less high-profile than his Family Research Council co-founder James Dobson, but he is an extremely prolific author of books like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality. He has also advised members of Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the New Times story, which is worth reading in its entirety.