Sunday, May 29, 2005


Having just moved into his new office, a pompous, new colonel was sitting at his desk when an airman knocked on the door. Conscious of his new position, the colonel quickly picked up the phone, told the airman to enter, then said into the phone, "Yes, General, I'll be seeing him this afternoon and I'll pass along your message. In the meantime, thank you for your good wishes, sir." Feeling as though he had sufficiently impressed the young enlisted man, he asked, "What do you want?"

"Nothing important, sir," the airman replied, "I'm just here to hook up your telephone."


An Air Force Chief Master Sergeant and a General were sitting in the barbershop. They were both just getting finished with their shaves, when the barbers reached for some after-shave to slap on their faces. The General shouted, "Hey, don't put that stuff on me! My wife will think I've been in a whorehouse!"

The Chief turned to his barber and said, "Go ahead and put it on. My wife doesn't know what the inside of a whorehouse smells like."

Thursday, May 26, 2005


Last week I read an excellent column by Jim Simpson over at Defensewatch. The column was titled "Who Wants the Terrorists to Win?", and was posted on the site on May 16th. For reasons unknown, the column has disappeared from the archives of the site. This is a shame, because it is well worth the read.
In light of President Bush's recent Russia trip to celebrate victory over Germany in World War II - or the "Great Patriotic War" as the Soviets called it - it is useful to ask: Why do historians, pundits, journalists, politicians the world over, and even Hollywood, celebrate World War II as the last "Good War" in American history?

How does that conflict distinguish itself from Korea and Vietnam, wherein we faced anti-war opposition both at home and abroad? Why do we today face such vicious resistance to the Global War on Terror from many of these same sources?

At first, the disunity of our war effort today seems inexplicable given the unity that existed during World War II. The similarities between the two are striking.

In both wars, we joined with global allies to fight fascistic fanatics who committed mass genocide. In both cases, we were attacked by surprise, completely without warning, in a strike that killed thousands. In fact, 9/11 can be seen as the more barbaric, since the attackers chose defenseless civilian targets. In both cases, Western civilization itself was targeted.

The stock answer is that during World War II, we were all united in a common cause: to counter an imminent threat from a barbaric enemy and defeat the only genuine "Axis of Evil" that ever existed.

Simpson goes on to examine the political left and why they found it in their hearts to support World War II. And why they are opposed to the Global War on Terrorism. While the original post on Defensewatch is gone, some wise poster on the forums had the foresight to post the column there in it's entirety. You can check it out here. And just in case it dissapears from there too, the Google cache of the text is located here.


Apparently one of (how many of them are there now, anyway?) NBC's Law and Order shows took a swipe at Rep. Tom Delay on Wednesday. I missed the show (like I always do), so I didn't hear it myself. I can't say I'm shocked. The folks who produce this (formerly entertaining) show have a history of liberal bias. In 1995, former star Michael Moriarty left the show due to a disagreement with producers over attempts to censor the show at the behest of then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

Hell, who cares what they say on that show anyway. If you're up at 10 PM on Wednesday nights, you should be watching CSI: NY. It's a better show. And besides, star Gary Sinise is a major supporter of our troops and veterans.

Monday, May 23, 2005


Our wonderful Senators have apparently reached a deal on the judicial filibuster fight.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement after days of talks to avert a showdown Tuesday over President Bush's judicial nominees, Sen. John McCain announced Monday evening.

Standing with a group of 13 other senators, the Arizona Republican told reporters the seven Republicans and seven Democrats had brokered a compromise.

"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution," McCain said.

Under the deal, judicial nominees would only be filibustered "under extraordinary circumstances," McCain said.

McCain said the group of 14 pledged to vote for cloture -- an end to debate -- for three judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
He said the group made no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad.

"We will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future," McCain said.

"This agreement is meant in the finest traditions of the Senate it was entered into: trust, respect, and mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority," he said.

Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's 218 nominees in his first term, saying they were too radical for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Of course "extraordinary circumstances" will be defined as circumstances where the President nominates anyone for the Federal Judiciary that Democrats don't like. And isn't it funny that nominees Brown, Owens, and Pryor are suddenly not "too radical" anymore.

It's too bad that Republicans didn't have the guts to make the Dems engage in a real filibuster, rather than this "virtual" filibuster. I guess they think that this deal will buy them some goodwill when they are in the minority again. Fat chance guys.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005


This Newsweek BS has my blood pressure so high, I could blow the dial right off the sphygmomanometer. Every time these a$$hats in the MSM get wind of a story that paints a negative picture of the US military, they can't wait to run with it. It turns out that the "journalists" that produced this creative writing piece had nothing more than one anonymous source (who has since backed out on them), and a couple of "no comments" from the Pentagon. That's weak as hell, by anyone's standards. Especially when we're talking about a story with the volatile potential this one had. But they ran with it anyway.

I'm not sure what prompted this lack of adherence to basic jouralistic standards. Are they that blinded with hatred for President Bush that they've tossed caution - and ethics - to the wind? Or is it that they find it so easy to believe that military personnel are all prone to behaving like thugs? My guess is that it's a combination of both. As someone who has spent the last eighteen years serving in the military in one capacity or another, I find it hard not to take their attitude toward us personally.

Newsweek has since "retracted" the story. While Al-Jazeera has reported on the retraction, the damage has already been done. People are dead and it's Newsweek's fault. More people will die, and Newsweek bears some responsibility for that too. Maybe it's time to put America's trial lawyers to good use (for a change). I'm thinking we need a class action suit against Newsweek and it's parent company on behalf of those dead or injured in the riots.

Friday, May 13, 2005


It looks as if the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) storm clouds have receded from my base. Others weren't so lucky. A number of Guard and Reserve bases in NY are being closed. I figured we'd lose a few, including at least one Air Guard unit since NY has five flying units (more than any other state). I was kind of surprised it was Niagara Falls though. They had a Guard wing (refueling) and a Reserve wing (airlift) there. Both are leaving. I hope that the folks who want to stay in can find other units in which to continue their military careers. The process still has to go through the BRAC Committee, Congress, and the President, but previous BRAC rounds have shown that the DoD's list is usually how things wind up in the end.

If you're interested, you can read more about the BRAC process at the Defenseling BRAC website.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005


Linda Chavez has an excellent column out today about how labor unions are abusing members' pension funds for political ends.
Unions are losing members and clout at the bargaining table, but that doesn't mean they aren't still powerful players on the political scene. Now, Big Labor is trying to stop Social Security reform, even if it hurts union members. Unions are supposed to represent their members' interests by negotiating higher pay and better benefits, including pensions. In fact, union pension funds are the single biggest source of investment in the stock market, amounting to an estimated $6 trillion in 2003. Now, the AFL-CIO and individual unions are threatening some investment firms and corporations with pulling out their pension fund investments unless the companies withdraw their support for President Bush's plans to overhaul the ailing Social Security program

In the old days, unions just used the pension funds to back mob casinos. At least the casinos made a profit.
The problem with many of these actions, however, is that they actually hurt the union pension beneficiaries, who get lower returns on their investments because the union is pushing policies that lower profits and stock price. Pension fund managers have a moral -- and legal -- duty to invest retirees' money wisely. Their fiduciary responsibility is to act prudently on behalf of those whose funds they manage. They are supposed to invest funds to ensure a good return, not to promote the political or organizational goals of the unions. When a union pension fund coerces a company to adopt policies that make it less profitable, union retirees lose money. The only thing fiduciaries are supposed to consider is the return to the pension fund on the investment made -- certainly not the unions' desire to sink a key element of the president's domestic agenda.

The unions have been abusing member dues for years. When I was a union member, I used to get a newsletter that often featured stories about the union's efforts to convince Wal Mart employees to form their own union. I could never understand why I was paying to unionize Wal Mart. Not to mention the money spent supporting political candidates I didn't support.

This thing with the pension funds is much worse. These power-mad thugs are playing games with their members' futures. When Wall Street firms do that, self-styled corruption-busters like Eliot Spitzer go after them hammer and tong. Why don't they care about this? Oh yeah, that's right. Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat, and labor unions always give money to Democrats.


It looks like Friday's the day when we'll be seeing which bases made the cut on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list. I have no idea whether my base will be closed or realigned. The rumor mill has been running in overdrive for months, but you never know what to believe. I guess I'll just have to be patient. I suck at being patient.

Monday, May 09, 2005


"Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."

-Senator Ted Kennedy, 1975

My how times have changed. Too bad the MSM doesn't seem to know about this quote. If you know anyone at the New York Times, send them this link.


It's looking like some of our intrepid "Republican" Senators may be ready to flinch in the game of chicken that's being played out over judicial nominees.
May 9 (Bloomberg) -- A bipartisan group of U.S. senators is discussing a possible agreement to avert a showdown over President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, said Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins.

Collins is among a half-dozen Republican senators who have voiced reservations about Republican Leader Bill Frist's threat to try to bar Democrats from blocking Senate votes on Bush's choices for the federal bench.

In February, Bush resubmitted the names of seven appeals- court nominees Democrats had blocked in the last four years by using the filibuster, a tactic that permits unlimited debate. Democrats have threatened to bring Senate business to a standstill if Frist succeeds in changing Senate rules to eliminate the use of filibusters against judicial nominees.

"Attempts are under way" to try to avert a showdown, Collins said in an interview. "I have had discussions with colleagues in the Senate about the possibility of that. I haven't signed off on anything."

Collins didn't discuss the details of the discussions. Roll Call, a publication about Congress that is distributed on Capitol Hill and electronically, reported that six Republicans offered to oppose the rule change to eliminate judicial filibusters if Democrats agreed to allow votes on four of the seven disputed judges.

So, Susan Collins finally wants to play a leadership role in the Senate. Her first strategy? Surrender. I only wish I was surprised. You can read the rest of the story--including the role Trent Lott may be playing in this fiasco--here.

What is wrong with these people? And what's the use of being a majority if they're going to let the Dems go on running things?

Click here for a special audio message for the Republican "Lions" of the Senate.

Sunday, May 08, 2005


Unlike "Secretary's Day", Mother's Day was not the creation of greeting card companies and florists looking for a new market for their wares. Mother's Day in the United States can trace its origins back to the Civil War. If you're interested, you can learn more about it here.

In the meantime, if you aren't going to see your mother today, make sure you give her a call and wish her a happy Mother's Day.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005


PFC Lynndie England pled guilty yesterday to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. Even after pleading guilty, the blame game wasn't over for England.
At one point on Monday, England said she posed with the leashed prisoner because her then-lover, Charles Graner, sentenced to 10 years in prison in connection to the abuse scandal, had told her to do so.

"I assumed it was OK because he was an MP (military policeman). He had the background as a corrections officer and with him being older than me I thought he knew what he was doing."

So she's guilty, but it's not her fault she's guilty. Duty, Honor, Country...not! England, Graner, and the rest of these yahoos have not only disgraced their fellow service memebers, they've given boatloads of ammo to the anti-war America crowd, who have in turn given hope to the Iraqi resistance and foreign fighters who are killing Iraqi civilians and coalition troops. Inexcusable. Totally inexcusable.

The question now is, what's next. Will they go after the NCO's and officers who were supposed to be providing leadership to these dim-bulbs? I'm hoping so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Monday, May 02, 2005


I saw this story linked on Drudge today:
Burrito Leads To School Lockdown, Armed Officers On Roof Tops

CLOVIS, N.M. -- A 911 call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school.

All over a giant burrito.

Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped up into Marshall Junior High School.

The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos. It was wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.

"I didn't know whether to laugh or cry," school Principal Diana Russell said.

Russell said the mystery was solved after she brought everyone in the school together in the auditorium to explain what was going on. Afterward, eighth-grader Michael Morrissey approached her.

"He said, 'I think I'm the person they saw,"' Russell said.

The burrito was part of Morrissey's extra-credit assignment to create commercial advertising for a product. "We had to make up a product and it could have been anything. I made up a restaurant that specialized in oddly large burritos," Morrissey said.

What I want to know is whether the burrito was equipped with any of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously below the action of the burrito
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
-Grenade launcher

Even if the burrito wasn't equipped to be an "assault burrito", it might still be banned from school grounds in the coming nanny-state.. Those things are dangerous.


"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

A smart man, that Thomas Jefferson. The only thing scarier than a despotic branch of government is one run by know-it-all lawyers. Another point to keep in mind when considering nuking the filibuster so we can get judges appointed who will follow the Constitution, rather than rewrite it.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter