That's all I have to say about it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Gays in the Military, and the 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room.
While at a town hall meeting last night, when asked by an Air Force Major about gays serving openly in the military, Hillary Clinton spoke her mind about what kind of policy she would hew to if she were Commander-in-Chief.
"I feel strongly that if someone wants to serve their country, if they’re a patriot, if they comply with the code of military justice and they have the appropriate behavior, they shouldn’t be disqualified from serving simply because they’re gay," Mrs. Clinton said to applause.
The Air Force major, Gary Mathis of Cedar Rapids, said afterward that he appreciated Mrs. Clinton’s points about conduct, but that she had side-stepped his question about privacy – specifically, what she would do to ensure the privacy of male soldiers who shower, sleep and work out in the gym alongside other male soldiers.
"I don’t think her answer fully recognized the day-to-day realities of military life," Major Mathis said. "You could extend her argument and say that you don’t need any separate facilities for men and women because as long as their conduct is appropriate with one another, there is no privacy concern."
Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards blog had a snappy reply for the Major–"Who the hell cares? If a soldier or Marine is so freaked out by the thought that he's taking a shower next to another man who happens to be gay, then he's too psychologically fragile to be a soldier or Marine."
Now, I don’t know this for certain, but I suspect Mr. ab Hugh has never served in the military.
The problem is that most people who have never been in the military really have no concept of what military life is like. So let me explain what it was like for me in the Marine Corps some four decades ago. Maybe things have changed. I don’t know. I doubt it’s changed much.
If you’re low ranking enlisted, you don’t have any privacy, and very few rights. You have to follow orders, and you are constantly reminded of the pecking order that is rigidly enforced, based on rank. Your immediate superiors can make life miserable for you, and if you’re in a combat situation, they hold the power of life and death over you.
The solution, of course, is to gain rank by being promoted. Consequently, there’s a lot of butt kissing and brown nosing that goes on (in the figurative, not the literal sense) simply because of the facts of life in a close knit group confined to close quarters with limited opportunities for promotion.
It’s well known that if a member of a squad is perceived as a trouble maker or uncooperative, NCOs will make their displeasure known by giving all the crap details to those individuals, while more cooperative "good" soldiers get the easier, more pleasant assignments. Promotions are based on how your immediate superiors perceive your performance, and that perception isn’t always based on how well you do your job. NCOs are large frogs in small ponds, and unfortunately, many are not above abusing their power by taking unfair advantage of those in lower ranks.
Now here’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one seems to be willing to talk about; let’s throw a gay squad leader or a gay platoon sergeant into the mix, and things get a lot more complicated. If a gay NCO is not above abusing his authority by seeking sexual favors in exchange for easier assignments or consideration for promotion, it will have a direct effect on morale and discipline. In a combat situation, if a soldier perceives that his survival depends as much on his willingness to couple with his squad leader as it does on his ability as a competent soldier, morale and discipline is likely to become the first casualty of any conflict. It’s an additional burden that no soldier should have to endure. If this were a widespread phenomenon, it could adversely effect the morale and effectiveness of our entire armed forces.
We can all agree, I’m sure, that no female soldier should have to endure sexual harassment or a hostile environment. I suppose it’s only right that homosexual soldiers, if they’re allowed to serve openly, should be afforded the same guarantees. But is it going to be a two way street? Are heterosexual soldiers serving under the command of homosexual superiors going to have the same assurances? Or will homosexual soldiers be immune to prosecution for sexual harassment because they’ll be given special status as a protected class? I don’t think I’m out of order by asking that question.
Now let me say, as a heterosexual male, that the thought of another male inserting his erect penis up my rectum is a ghastly, horrible thought. Saying that doesn’t make me psychologically fragile, nor does it say I’m a homophobe, Mr ab Hugh’s opinion notwithstanding. I’m sure it’s a fairly typical heterosexual attitude. It’s the same attitude shared by the vast majority of Marines I served with. Having a heterosexual orientation or preference is not equivalent to having a racially or religiously bigoted philosophy.
I remember an incident that occurred in the M.P. barracks at Camp Elmore in Norfolk, Va. in 1969 or ‘70. A Marine was awakened late at night to find another man trying to get into bed with him. He responded violently and beat the man up. It wasn’t hard to do because the poor fellow was so drunk he couldn’t defend himself. He had come home drunk and wandered into the wrong cubicle in the dark, had gotten undressed and tried to go to bed, not realizing the rack was occupied. At least that was his story. I’m afraid he didn’t get much sympathy from his fellow Marines, myself included. But the truth is, that’s probably all there was to it. I can’t remember what the final outcome of this case was. I only remember that there was a lot of discussion among ourselves, and we all agreed, if you come home late, drunk or not, make sure the rack is unoccupied before you get in.
And I think the Major asked a valid question. How do you protect the privacy of heterosexual members of the armed forces if you’re going to allow gays to serve openly in the military? How far is the military establishment expected to go in order to accommodate gay members, and will heterosexuals be afforded the same considerations, or will gays be given special protected status as they are in the civilian milieu?
"I feel strongly that if someone wants to serve their country, if they’re a patriot, if they comply with the code of military justice and they have the appropriate behavior, they shouldn’t be disqualified from serving simply because they’re gay," Mrs. Clinton said to applause.
The Air Force major, Gary Mathis of Cedar Rapids, said afterward that he appreciated Mrs. Clinton’s points about conduct, but that she had side-stepped his question about privacy – specifically, what she would do to ensure the privacy of male soldiers who shower, sleep and work out in the gym alongside other male soldiers.
"I don’t think her answer fully recognized the day-to-day realities of military life," Major Mathis said. "You could extend her argument and say that you don’t need any separate facilities for men and women because as long as their conduct is appropriate with one another, there is no privacy concern."
Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards blog had a snappy reply for the Major–"Who the hell cares? If a soldier or Marine is so freaked out by the thought that he's taking a shower next to another man who happens to be gay, then he's too psychologically fragile to be a soldier or Marine."
Now, I don’t know this for certain, but I suspect Mr. ab Hugh has never served in the military.
The problem is that most people who have never been in the military really have no concept of what military life is like. So let me explain what it was like for me in the Marine Corps some four decades ago. Maybe things have changed. I don’t know. I doubt it’s changed much.
If you’re low ranking enlisted, you don’t have any privacy, and very few rights. You have to follow orders, and you are constantly reminded of the pecking order that is rigidly enforced, based on rank. Your immediate superiors can make life miserable for you, and if you’re in a combat situation, they hold the power of life and death over you.
The solution, of course, is to gain rank by being promoted. Consequently, there’s a lot of butt kissing and brown nosing that goes on (in the figurative, not the literal sense) simply because of the facts of life in a close knit group confined to close quarters with limited opportunities for promotion.
It’s well known that if a member of a squad is perceived as a trouble maker or uncooperative, NCOs will make their displeasure known by giving all the crap details to those individuals, while more cooperative "good" soldiers get the easier, more pleasant assignments. Promotions are based on how your immediate superiors perceive your performance, and that perception isn’t always based on how well you do your job. NCOs are large frogs in small ponds, and unfortunately, many are not above abusing their power by taking unfair advantage of those in lower ranks.
Now here’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one seems to be willing to talk about; let’s throw a gay squad leader or a gay platoon sergeant into the mix, and things get a lot more complicated. If a gay NCO is not above abusing his authority by seeking sexual favors in exchange for easier assignments or consideration for promotion, it will have a direct effect on morale and discipline. In a combat situation, if a soldier perceives that his survival depends as much on his willingness to couple with his squad leader as it does on his ability as a competent soldier, morale and discipline is likely to become the first casualty of any conflict. It’s an additional burden that no soldier should have to endure. If this were a widespread phenomenon, it could adversely effect the morale and effectiveness of our entire armed forces.
We can all agree, I’m sure, that no female soldier should have to endure sexual harassment or a hostile environment. I suppose it’s only right that homosexual soldiers, if they’re allowed to serve openly, should be afforded the same guarantees. But is it going to be a two way street? Are heterosexual soldiers serving under the command of homosexual superiors going to have the same assurances? Or will homosexual soldiers be immune to prosecution for sexual harassment because they’ll be given special status as a protected class? I don’t think I’m out of order by asking that question.
Now let me say, as a heterosexual male, that the thought of another male inserting his erect penis up my rectum is a ghastly, horrible thought. Saying that doesn’t make me psychologically fragile, nor does it say I’m a homophobe, Mr ab Hugh’s opinion notwithstanding. I’m sure it’s a fairly typical heterosexual attitude. It’s the same attitude shared by the vast majority of Marines I served with. Having a heterosexual orientation or preference is not equivalent to having a racially or religiously bigoted philosophy.
I remember an incident that occurred in the M.P. barracks at Camp Elmore in Norfolk, Va. in 1969 or ‘70. A Marine was awakened late at night to find another man trying to get into bed with him. He responded violently and beat the man up. It wasn’t hard to do because the poor fellow was so drunk he couldn’t defend himself. He had come home drunk and wandered into the wrong cubicle in the dark, had gotten undressed and tried to go to bed, not realizing the rack was occupied. At least that was his story. I’m afraid he didn’t get much sympathy from his fellow Marines, myself included. But the truth is, that’s probably all there was to it. I can’t remember what the final outcome of this case was. I only remember that there was a lot of discussion among ourselves, and we all agreed, if you come home late, drunk or not, make sure the rack is unoccupied before you get in.
And I think the Major asked a valid question. How do you protect the privacy of heterosexual members of the armed forces if you’re going to allow gays to serve openly in the military? How far is the military establishment expected to go in order to accommodate gay members, and will heterosexuals be afforded the same considerations, or will gays be given special protected status as they are in the civilian milieu?
Supreme Court to Decide if Second Amendment Applies to Residents of DC.
I was watching a news report on TV where they discussed the DC gun ban and the Supreme Court case. They said our nation's capitol is also our nation’s murder capitol, (showing footage from a crime scene, with a dead corpse on the ground under a sheet, with cop cars and flashing lights all around). They mentioned the high murder rate, and that all these victims were "killed by guns" (showing footage of a gun collection with hundreds of evil handguns displayed in a large glass case). They quoted DC authorities saying that the gun ban "saves lives".
What a crock.
All those victims were killed by criminals. That never came up in the report.
Guns don’t kill people. Gun control laws kill people by disarming law abiding citizens and giving career criminals a safe working environment.
Will the Supreme Court rescue the Second Amendment? Historically they haven’t shown a lot of consistency in interpreting the rights of the people, because they’ve defended some rights that aren’t actually mentioned in the text of the document, such as our Constitutional rights to sodomy, while muddying the water concerning other rights that are specifically mentioned in the text, (the People’s right to keep and bear arms, for instance). So who knows? But we can hope. And so I do.
I think this highlights the importance of keeping liberal gun grabbers out of the White House, because it's the president who appoints justices to all our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Some of those justices are well advanced in years and are nearing death or retirement. Our next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court. That could have a huge impact on our civil rights in the not too distant future.
What a crock.
All those victims were killed by criminals. That never came up in the report.
Guns don’t kill people. Gun control laws kill people by disarming law abiding citizens and giving career criminals a safe working environment.
Will the Supreme Court rescue the Second Amendment? Historically they haven’t shown a lot of consistency in interpreting the rights of the people, because they’ve defended some rights that aren’t actually mentioned in the text of the document, such as our Constitutional rights to sodomy, while muddying the water concerning other rights that are specifically mentioned in the text, (the People’s right to keep and bear arms, for instance). So who knows? But we can hope. And so I do.
I think this highlights the importance of keeping liberal gun grabbers out of the White House, because it's the president who appoints justices to all our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Some of those justices are well advanced in years and are nearing death or retirement. Our next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court. That could have a huge impact on our civil rights in the not too distant future.
SAUDI ARABIA: PRIMITIVE, BACKWARD, BARBARIC, OPPRESSIVE, MISOGYNISTIC.
Kirk Walters cartoonSaudi Arabia is indeed a barbaric, backward country.
This woman and her escort, an unrelated male, were both gang-raped by a group of perverts. The rapists were given rather light sentences, but the woman was sentenced to 90 lashes. She appealed that her punishment was inappropriate.
The Saudi court responded that of course she was correct, and adjusted the sentence to include six months in jail. After all, she was escorted by an unrelated male; clearly she brought the rape upon herself.
Primitive. Backward. Barbaric. Oppressive. Misogynistic.
Read the whole story here. Take your blood pressure meds first.
This woman and her escort, an unrelated male, were both gang-raped by a group of perverts. The rapists were given rather light sentences, but the woman was sentenced to 90 lashes. She appealed that her punishment was inappropriate.
The Saudi court responded that of course she was correct, and adjusted the sentence to include six months in jail. After all, she was escorted by an unrelated male; clearly she brought the rape upon herself.
Primitive. Backward. Barbaric. Oppressive. Misogynistic.
Read the whole story here. Take your blood pressure meds first.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Presidential Politics From 1960 to the Present
1960
John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 49.7%
**Richard M. Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R)
Incumbent Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower probably could have won a third term, but was the first president precluded by law (the 22nd Amendment) from running. I was 13 years old and this is the first election in which I took an interest. I watched the Democratic convention on TV with my parents. They supported Lyndon Johnson for the nomination. They considered Kennedy too young and more likely to "go off half-cocked." I was thrilled when Kennedy won the nomination and then the general election.
1964
*Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey (D) 61.1%
Barry Goldwater, William E. Miller (R)
I was a senior in high school when this election occurred. Goldwater struck me as a bit of a nut-job, Johnson as Southern, competent, kindly. I supported Johnson, though not enthusiastically.
1968
Richard M. Nixon, Spiro Agnew (R) 43.4%
**Hubert H. Humphrey, Edmund Muskie (D)
George Wallace, Curtis Lemay (AI)
Incumbent Johnson had decided he couldn’t win and declined to run for re-election. This was my first election, and I wanted to vote, but I didn’t like any of the candidates. Humphrey was a tax-and-spend Democrat, but Nixon gave me pause because I remember the 1960 TV debate with JFK. Nixon seemed uncomfortable, sneaky, furtive, and that perception stayed with me. He just looked sleazy, and I was uneasy with his candidacy. I voted for the candidate least likely to win, Wallace. I didn’t vote "none of the above" because I was afraid my ballot would be invalidated, and I considered the state and local elections too important to risk that happening.
1972
*Richard M. Nixon, Spiro Agnew (R) 60.7%
George McGovern, Sargent Shriver (D)
Eagleton was the original Democratic V.P. nominee but was discarded after reports surfaced that he had received shock treatment therapy for depression. Shriver was a compromise selection (after 6 others declined). McGovern’s campaign was a disaster, as he looked weak, indecisive, even incompetent. By comparison, Nixon was sleazy but clearly a competent politician. I had moved to California and forgotten to register, but if I had voted, I would have held my nose and pulled the lever for Nixon.
1976
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale (D) 50.1%
*Gerald Ford, Bob Dole (R)
Ford had been appointed Vice President after Spiro Agnew resigned due to legal "improprieties". He was seen as a bumbler, and he’d fallen down stairs and off stages at several public appearances, and these mishaps always made the news. The fact that his first presidential act was to pardon Richard Nixon left a bad taste in many voters’ mouths. I honestly can’t remember who I voted for. If I voted for Ford, it was unenthusiastically. If I voted for Carter, it was because he campaigned as an agent for change, and Nixon had left a taint of corruption on Republicans. It makes me uncomfortable to think I may have voted for the worst president in our nation’s history.
1980
Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush (R) 50.7%
*Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, (D)
Carter’s presidency was plagued by economic "malaise" (his own discription), a chaotic foreign policy, and his inability to provide strong leadership. He was seen as weak, indecisive and incompetent, mostly because he was all of those things. He’s viewed by many as the worst president of this period, perhaps even the worst in our history. His administration abandoned the Shah of Iran, whose government was replaced by the mullocracy which has fostered so much chaos in the Middle East. Since he wasn’t Jimmy Carter, I voted enthusiastically for Reagan.
1984
*Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush (R) 58.8%
Walter Mondale, Gerraldine Ferraro (D)
Mondale was saddled with his association with the failed Carter administration and Reagan won decisively on the strength of his successful first term. I joined the landslide.
1988
**George H. W. Bush, Dan Quayle (R) 53.4%
Michael Dukakis, Lloyd Bentsen (D)
The only thing I remember about this election is when Lloyd Bentsen ambushed Dan Quayle in the vice presidential debate. Quayle had (idiotically) compared himself favorably to JFK. Bentsen licked his chops and pounced. "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You are no Jack Kennedy." It was a devastating slap-down, but Quayle got the last laugh, because he became vice president. Bush was no Ronald Reagan, but on the other hand, he was no Michael Dukakis either, so he got my vote.
1992
William Jefferson Clinton, Al Gore (D) 43%
*George H. W. Bush, Dan Quale (R)
Ross Perot, James B. Stockdale (Independent) 18%
Third party candidate Perot took votes away from Bush, allowing Clinton to win. Bush had said in the previous campaign that Congress would press him to raise taxes, and he’d resist. But when push came to shove, he caved. Then Democrats ran that clip in very effective ads. It’s ironic that the Dems controlled Congress when they pressured Bush into acquiescing. It was the Dems who raised the taxes, but Bush got the blame. And I fell for it. I blamed Bush, voted for Perot, and gave Clinton the White House.
1996
*Bill Clinton, Al Gore (D) 49.2%
Bob Dole, Jack Kemp (R)
Ross Perot, Patrick J. Choat (Reform)
Dole was seen as old, tired, stodgy, and more suited for retirement than the rigors of the office of the President. Clinton, on the other hand was youthful, vigorous, charismatic (some say "slick"). I voted unenthusiastically for Dole.
2000
George W. Bush, Richard Cheney (R) 47.9%
**Al Gore, Joe Lieberman (D) 48.4
Slick Willie Clinton was a compulsive liar and a cheat who couldn’t keeps his hands to himself. His philandering was despicable, but it didn’t infuriate me as much as the lying did. I took it out on Al Gore, because I figured it was just going to me more of the same kind of duplicity in government. Obviously, I’m not the only one who felt that way. Bush won the Electoral College, even though he lost the popular vote. Democrats have been bitter and divisive ever since. Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean exclaimed that he hates Republicans and everything they stand for, and Dems have marched consistently to that drumbeat.
2004
*George W. Bush, Richard Cheney (R) 50.7%
John Kerry, John Edwards (D)
The mainstream media openly and unabashedly campaigned for Kerry. CBS News anchorman Dan Rather ran a defamatory story on Bush’s military service in the Texas Air National Guard based on forged documents. The New York Times later defended the documents as "fake but accurate." When they lost this election, Democrats vowed to oppose anything the Bush administration advocates. They have blamed Bush for everything bad, including Hurricane Katrina, global warming, drought in the south eastern states, the bridge collapse in Minnesota and the wildfires in California. If it’s bad, it’s Bush’s fault. If anything good has happened, it’s in spite of Bush, not because of him. The Dems have consistently put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the American people and it shows.
*Incumbent President
**Incumbent Vice President
John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 49.7%
**Richard M. Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R)
Incumbent Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower probably could have won a third term, but was the first president precluded by law (the 22nd Amendment) from running. I was 13 years old and this is the first election in which I took an interest. I watched the Democratic convention on TV with my parents. They supported Lyndon Johnson for the nomination. They considered Kennedy too young and more likely to "go off half-cocked." I was thrilled when Kennedy won the nomination and then the general election.
1964
*Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey (D) 61.1%
Barry Goldwater, William E. Miller (R)
I was a senior in high school when this election occurred. Goldwater struck me as a bit of a nut-job, Johnson as Southern, competent, kindly. I supported Johnson, though not enthusiastically.
1968
Richard M. Nixon, Spiro Agnew (R) 43.4%
**Hubert H. Humphrey, Edmund Muskie (D)
George Wallace, Curtis Lemay (AI)
Incumbent Johnson had decided he couldn’t win and declined to run for re-election. This was my first election, and I wanted to vote, but I didn’t like any of the candidates. Humphrey was a tax-and-spend Democrat, but Nixon gave me pause because I remember the 1960 TV debate with JFK. Nixon seemed uncomfortable, sneaky, furtive, and that perception stayed with me. He just looked sleazy, and I was uneasy with his candidacy. I voted for the candidate least likely to win, Wallace. I didn’t vote "none of the above" because I was afraid my ballot would be invalidated, and I considered the state and local elections too important to risk that happening.
1972
*Richard M. Nixon, Spiro Agnew (R) 60.7%
George McGovern, Sargent Shriver (D)
Eagleton was the original Democratic V.P. nominee but was discarded after reports surfaced that he had received shock treatment therapy for depression. Shriver was a compromise selection (after 6 others declined). McGovern’s campaign was a disaster, as he looked weak, indecisive, even incompetent. By comparison, Nixon was sleazy but clearly a competent politician. I had moved to California and forgotten to register, but if I had voted, I would have held my nose and pulled the lever for Nixon.
1976
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale (D) 50.1%
*Gerald Ford, Bob Dole (R)
Ford had been appointed Vice President after Spiro Agnew resigned due to legal "improprieties". He was seen as a bumbler, and he’d fallen down stairs and off stages at several public appearances, and these mishaps always made the news. The fact that his first presidential act was to pardon Richard Nixon left a bad taste in many voters’ mouths. I honestly can’t remember who I voted for. If I voted for Ford, it was unenthusiastically. If I voted for Carter, it was because he campaigned as an agent for change, and Nixon had left a taint of corruption on Republicans. It makes me uncomfortable to think I may have voted for the worst president in our nation’s history.
1980
Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush (R) 50.7%
*Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, (D)
Carter’s presidency was plagued by economic "malaise" (his own discription), a chaotic foreign policy, and his inability to provide strong leadership. He was seen as weak, indecisive and incompetent, mostly because he was all of those things. He’s viewed by many as the worst president of this period, perhaps even the worst in our history. His administration abandoned the Shah of Iran, whose government was replaced by the mullocracy which has fostered so much chaos in the Middle East. Since he wasn’t Jimmy Carter, I voted enthusiastically for Reagan.
1984
*Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush (R) 58.8%
Walter Mondale, Gerraldine Ferraro (D)
Mondale was saddled with his association with the failed Carter administration and Reagan won decisively on the strength of his successful first term. I joined the landslide.
1988
**George H. W. Bush, Dan Quayle (R) 53.4%
Michael Dukakis, Lloyd Bentsen (D)
The only thing I remember about this election is when Lloyd Bentsen ambushed Dan Quayle in the vice presidential debate. Quayle had (idiotically) compared himself favorably to JFK. Bentsen licked his chops and pounced. "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You are no Jack Kennedy." It was a devastating slap-down, but Quayle got the last laugh, because he became vice president. Bush was no Ronald Reagan, but on the other hand, he was no Michael Dukakis either, so he got my vote.
1992
William Jefferson Clinton, Al Gore (D) 43%
*George H. W. Bush, Dan Quale (R)
Ross Perot, James B. Stockdale (Independent) 18%
Third party candidate Perot took votes away from Bush, allowing Clinton to win. Bush had said in the previous campaign that Congress would press him to raise taxes, and he’d resist. But when push came to shove, he caved. Then Democrats ran that clip in very effective ads. It’s ironic that the Dems controlled Congress when they pressured Bush into acquiescing. It was the Dems who raised the taxes, but Bush got the blame. And I fell for it. I blamed Bush, voted for Perot, and gave Clinton the White House.
1996
*Bill Clinton, Al Gore (D) 49.2%
Bob Dole, Jack Kemp (R)
Ross Perot, Patrick J. Choat (Reform)
Dole was seen as old, tired, stodgy, and more suited for retirement than the rigors of the office of the President. Clinton, on the other hand was youthful, vigorous, charismatic (some say "slick"). I voted unenthusiastically for Dole.
2000
George W. Bush, Richard Cheney (R) 47.9%
**Al Gore, Joe Lieberman (D) 48.4
Slick Willie Clinton was a compulsive liar and a cheat who couldn’t keeps his hands to himself. His philandering was despicable, but it didn’t infuriate me as much as the lying did. I took it out on Al Gore, because I figured it was just going to me more of the same kind of duplicity in government. Obviously, I’m not the only one who felt that way. Bush won the Electoral College, even though he lost the popular vote. Democrats have been bitter and divisive ever since. Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean exclaimed that he hates Republicans and everything they stand for, and Dems have marched consistently to that drumbeat.
2004
*George W. Bush, Richard Cheney (R) 50.7%
John Kerry, John Edwards (D)
The mainstream media openly and unabashedly campaigned for Kerry. CBS News anchorman Dan Rather ran a defamatory story on Bush’s military service in the Texas Air National Guard based on forged documents. The New York Times later defended the documents as "fake but accurate." When they lost this election, Democrats vowed to oppose anything the Bush administration advocates. They have blamed Bush for everything bad, including Hurricane Katrina, global warming, drought in the south eastern states, the bridge collapse in Minnesota and the wildfires in California. If it’s bad, it’s Bush’s fault. If anything good has happened, it’s in spite of Bush, not because of him. The Dems have consistently put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the American people and it shows.
*Incumbent President
**Incumbent Vice President
Monday, November 19, 2007
River Trail Sunset
I live a block or so from the River Trail. These pictures are of the sunset that we had a few nights ago.
Actually, this is what they call an "anti-sunset" because it's the sky on the horizon opposite where the sun was actually setting.
Again, the eastern sky at sunset.
Waxing, not waning crescent moon, from my driveway.
This is just before the lamp turned on.
The same lampost a few mornings later, at sunrise, just before the lamp turned off.Hattie Mac 'n' Cheese
The other night I spent some time with my son and his family. My granddaughter Hattie was just finishing up her dinner--
She was having the all time classic kid's favorite, mac and cheese.
As you can see, her smile is not the only thing that's "cheesey".
I thought at first she was just waving, but I see now that she was trying to make the sign for "Grandpa", which is the open hand with the thumb toward the forehead, then wave forward in two loops. What a clever little darling.
"Now I'm ready for my bath!"
"or not!"
It's jammie Hattie!(Note Mommy's expression is nearly as precious as the daughter's).
And Daddy's arms (and heart) are full.Saturday, November 17, 2007
JEFF HEIN, UTAH ARTIST
Last night I was invited to attend the open gallery at Jeff Hein's Salt Lake gallery and studio. He has several new works on display that will be featured in the New York Armory Show.
Here are Susan Petersen, my daughter-in-law, and her friend Jen Hein, Jeff's wife. They live in the same LDS ward in Salt Lake City.
I couldn't get Jen to actually pose with her husband, but I managed to grab this shot of them while they scmoozed with guests. Jen and Jeff first met while they were serving LDS church missions in Utah. They both grew up in New York state, she in Rochester, and he in Windsor, which is just up the Hudson River from NYC. Incidentally, Jen posed as the model for at least two of Jeff's paintings, which you can view at http://www.jeffreyhein.com/ . See if you can find them.
Here Susan and her husband Christian sit to watch a portion of the featured demo video "Painting the First Shade".
Jeff scored the cover of this year's Spring Salon catalogue of the Springville Museum of Art.
Here is one of the featured new works.
These new paintings will be featured later this month at the New York Armory Show.
He has a distictive, instantly recognizable style. Amazingly, he never studied painting until he got into college. Incidentally, he has studied at Ricks College in Idaho (now Brigham Young University Idaho), Salt Lake Community College, and University of Utah.
I asked Jeff what his policy was regarding photography in his gallery, and he seemed puzzled. He admitted he didn't actually have a policy. 
I mentioned to Jeff that I have a photoblog, and that I had included a photo of one of his works in my post about the Spring Salon of the Springville Art Museum. He remembered seeing my blog because I had sent him an email with a link to it. (I'm a shameless self promoter).
Jeff's a quick study. He responded, "Well, here's the new policy--as long as you provide a link to my website on your blog, you can shoot all you want". It's a great policy. And as you may have noticed, I have thoroughly complied with the policy. 
This lady is one of Jeff's students at his Academy of Art, posing with her works. I regret that I neglected to get her name, but I believe she posed as a subject for one of Jeff's paintings in 2002. If I'm not mistaken, there is an article about Jeff and this lady in one of the publications featured on Jeff's website. Here's a link to the website: http://www.jeffreyhein.com/ .
This is my photograph of Jeff's work "12 Shades" as it was displayed at the Spring Salon of the Springville Museum of Art earlier this year. Here's a link to that post: http://blog648.blogspot.com/2007/05/spring-salon-at-springville-museum-of.htmlBe sure to check out Jeff's website. There's a lot of fascinating stuff there.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
NO MO’ “HO HO HO” THIS CHRISTMAS
Steve Kelly cartoon
An Australian company that trains prospective Santas for Christmas has advised its employees to avoid the traditionally festive phrase "ho ho ho" because the term ho could be construed to be demeaning to women. No, really.
What’s up with the Aussies? They’ve turned into worse PC pansies than our most liberal American home grown nannie-thugs.
More details here.
What’s up with the Aussies? They’ve turned into worse PC pansies than our most liberal American home grown nannie-thugs.
More details here.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
PAPA JACK’S BACON CHILI NACHO LUNCH COMBO
1/2 can Nalley’s Chili Con Carne with beans
1 generous fistful of nacho or tortilla style corn chips
2 slices of bacon
1 tsp of Tabsco Habanero Sauce
3 or 4 slices of sharp cheddar cheese
1 generous dollop of sour cream
1 generous dollop of salsa
Put the bacon on a paper plate, cover with a paper towel and nuke in the microwave for 2 minutes.
Pour half the can of chili in a large cup or small microwaveable bowl, cover with paper towel and nuke for 1 minute.
Cut bacon into bite size pieces and mix into chili and Tabasco Habanero Sauce.. Nuke for another minute or so.
Leave bacon grease on the paper plate, place corn chips on plate and break into bite size pieces.
Pour chili and bacon over chips, places cheese over chili and nuke until cheese is melted.
Top with generous dollop of sour cream and another of salsa.
Accompany with preferred beverage.
Yum!
Serves one. If you want more, use the whole can of chili and double up on everything else.
Double yum!!
1 generous fistful of nacho or tortilla style corn chips
2 slices of bacon
1 tsp of Tabsco Habanero Sauce
3 or 4 slices of sharp cheddar cheese
1 generous dollop of sour cream
1 generous dollop of salsa
Put the bacon on a paper plate, cover with a paper towel and nuke in the microwave for 2 minutes.
Pour half the can of chili in a large cup or small microwaveable bowl, cover with paper towel and nuke for 1 minute.
Cut bacon into bite size pieces and mix into chili and Tabasco Habanero Sauce.. Nuke for another minute or so.
Leave bacon grease on the paper plate, place corn chips on plate and break into bite size pieces.
Pour chili and bacon over chips, places cheese over chili and nuke until cheese is melted.
Top with generous dollop of sour cream and another of salsa.
Accompany with preferred beverage.
Yum!
Serves one. If you want more, use the whole can of chili and double up on everything else.
Double yum!!
COMBAT PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR REVIEWED BY MICHAEL YON
Michael Yon, a combat reporter in Iraq, gives the most amazing, unique, and hilarious camera review I’ve ever read, and believe me, I’ve read a lot of them. Here’s part 1, and this quote is from part 2:
My cameras—they are both women—started fighting. Pandora sneered at her replacement, "I told you she’s a bitch!" she hissed.
"Don’t say that about Pandora 2," I said gently, masking my unease that Pandora may be right, but still somewhat taken aback by the hostility. "She’s lighter than you, you know. She shoots faster and sees better in the dark."
"The bitch is half blind!" screamed Pandora. "Go ahead. Take her on your next mission and get 10 out-of-focus shots per second!"
"Don’t use that language, please," I said, "Children read this site."
"That word is not even banned from television!" came her rejoinder. "I saw Howard Stern use it!"
"Pandora," I implored, "Howard Stern doesn’t count, and besides, most people have never heard of a talking camera."
"I have an audio function, and you would know about it if you read my manual instead of playing with Pandora 2!" I had never seen a camera so jealous.
"She’s a cheap little tramp!" hissed Pandora.
[Sigh. . . . I should never have opened that box.]
The gear under review in the 2-part series are the following cameras:
Sony F707, an amateur camera used as a back up in case the primary gear is lost or destroyed. It's no long being produced.
Nikon D70, which took a licking and kept on clicking for 7 months of very hard use, before succumbing to "combat stress". Yon's favorite "dummy button" was the "sports" setting. I don't believe the D70 is still in production.
My cameras—they are both women—started fighting. Pandora sneered at her replacement, "I told you she’s a bitch!" she hissed.
"Don’t say that about Pandora 2," I said gently, masking my unease that Pandora may be right, but still somewhat taken aback by the hostility. "She’s lighter than you, you know. She shoots faster and sees better in the dark."
"The bitch is half blind!" screamed Pandora. "Go ahead. Take her on your next mission and get 10 out-of-focus shots per second!"
"Don’t use that language, please," I said, "Children read this site."
"That word is not even banned from television!" came her rejoinder. "I saw Howard Stern use it!"
"Pandora," I implored, "Howard Stern doesn’t count, and besides, most people have never heard of a talking camera."
"I have an audio function, and you would know about it if you read my manual instead of playing with Pandora 2!" I had never seen a camera so jealous.
"She’s a cheap little tramp!" hissed Pandora.
[Sigh. . . . I should never have opened that box.]
The gear under review in the 2-part series are the following cameras:
Sony F707, an amateur camera used as a back up in case the primary gear is lost or destroyed. It's no long being produced.
Nikon D70, which took a licking and kept on clicking for 7 months of very hard use, before succumbing to "combat stress". Yon's favorite "dummy button" was the "sports" setting. I don't believe the D70 is still in production.
Canon Mark II 1Ds, nicknamed "Pandora", costing $8000.00 body only, intended for use by professional photographers, hence, no "dummy buttons", and no built-in flash.
Canon Mark III EOS 1d, nicknamed "Pandora 2", costing $4,500.00 body only and touting lightweight agility, faster shooting, and greater ability to take great pictures in lowlight situations. The problem is, the autofocus system goes blind in hot bright environments, or in other words, almost any daylight situation in Iraq. Basically a very expensive paperweight. (Note to Canon: get this fixed.)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
MITT ROMNEY, SATANIC CULT MEMBER?
Here’s a fellow who wallows in bigotry and hate, in the name of Jesus. He refers to Mitt Romney as a member of a satanic cult, twice. He claims no interested in politics or influence (worldly power is his phrase, I believe), but apparently can’t see how this polemical ranting marginalizes not just himself and his followers, but all people who have a religious view. These are the flames the liberal media would love to fan if they could. They would love to be able to put us all in the same basket, paint us all as frothing religious lunatics, and push us all off onto the margins of political influence.
I won’t quote him directly. Just go to the link and read it for yourself if you’re interested. But be warned, if you’re a person of faith of almost any denomination, but particularly if you’re LDS, this is almost pornographic in nature. It’s truly ugly. This is exactly the kind of bigotry that drove the Mormons from New York to Ohio, from Ohio to Missouri and Illinois, and finally across the plains and over the mountains to Utah. It’s still alive today.
I don't believe this kind of bigotry is truly widespread, but it's exactly the kind of wedge that the liberal left, particularly Democrats, would love to drive into the religious coalition on the right to splinter such groups as evangelicals and right leaning Mormons into bickering, powerless factions. I think we should be aware of it and not over-react.
Incidentally, thanks to Article VI Blog for the tip.
I won’t quote him directly. Just go to the link and read it for yourself if you’re interested. But be warned, if you’re a person of faith of almost any denomination, but particularly if you’re LDS, this is almost pornographic in nature. It’s truly ugly. This is exactly the kind of bigotry that drove the Mormons from New York to Ohio, from Ohio to Missouri and Illinois, and finally across the plains and over the mountains to Utah. It’s still alive today.
I don't believe this kind of bigotry is truly widespread, but it's exactly the kind of wedge that the liberal left, particularly Democrats, would love to drive into the religious coalition on the right to splinter such groups as evangelicals and right leaning Mormons into bickering, powerless factions. I think we should be aware of it and not over-react.
Incidentally, thanks to Article VI Blog for the tip.
Monday, November 12, 2007
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVICE NOT TAKEN
Apparently blog648 is not widely read, at least in Orlando, because people are not taking my advice: "Get a Gun, Not a Taser".
A local station in Orlando ran a story about "Taser parties", which are presumably not unlike "Tupperware parties" of yesteryear.
You can get a Taser, even a pink one, here.
But Popular Mechanics notes: "The C2 [Taser] fires once per cartridge, so Taser recommends putting it down and running like hell while your target twitches away."
Good advice, indeed. But I recommend you grab the bad guy’s gun while he’s twitching, and be ready to use it when he regains his capacity for voluntary motion, because he’s going to be very likely to be in a murderous mood.
Case in point: Recently in Atlanta a man used a Taser on an armed carjacker. But apparently the driver was unwilling to take Taser's advice and "run like hell", presumably because he didn't want to give up his car. So when the infuriated thug regained his faculties, he shot the driver five times.
The problem with tasing an armed thug who's holding a gun is the liklehood that as all the muscles clench involuntarily, he's not likely to drop the gun, and if he has his finger on the trigger, he could start firing the gun uncontrollably, a situation that's dangerous for everyone nearby.
My advice: Don't mess with half-measures like Taser; get a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it on you.
Somebody, I forget who, immortalized the words "not responsible for advice not taken".
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit .
A local station in Orlando ran a story about "Taser parties", which are presumably not unlike "Tupperware parties" of yesteryear.
You can get a Taser, even a pink one, here.
But Popular Mechanics notes: "The C2 [Taser] fires once per cartridge, so Taser recommends putting it down and running like hell while your target twitches away."
Good advice, indeed. But I recommend you grab the bad guy’s gun while he’s twitching, and be ready to use it when he regains his capacity for voluntary motion, because he’s going to be very likely to be in a murderous mood.
Case in point: Recently in Atlanta a man used a Taser on an armed carjacker. But apparently the driver was unwilling to take Taser's advice and "run like hell", presumably because he didn't want to give up his car. So when the infuriated thug regained his faculties, he shot the driver five times.
The problem with tasing an armed thug who's holding a gun is the liklehood that as all the muscles clench involuntarily, he's not likely to drop the gun, and if he has his finger on the trigger, he could start firing the gun uncontrollably, a situation that's dangerous for everyone nearby.
My advice: Don't mess with half-measures like Taser; get a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it on you.
Somebody, I forget who, immortalized the words "not responsible for advice not taken".
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit .
Veterans Day
Yesterday was Veterans Day. We've flown the flag here at 648 over the weekend in honor of both the Marine Corps birthday and Veterans who have served our country honorably and well. Thank you to all who serve and all who have served.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
NOVEMBER 10th, MARINE CORPS BIRTHDAY
On this date in 1776, the Marine Corps started signing up recruits at Tun Tavern in Philiadelphia, PA. At least, that's what they told me in boot camp. And I never doubted my Drill Instructor.
So, happy birthday to my brother Marines.
Friday, November 9, 2007
GET A GUN, NOT A TASER
I read a post on Bersa Talk yesterday about a man in Atlanta who was car-jacked by an armed assailant and used a taser to defend himself. The infuriated car-jacker then shot the driver five times.
People, if you don't want to be a victim and choose to arm yourself, arm yourself with a weapon capable of ending an attack, not just making the bad guy really angry.
Police departments don't usually tase aggressive suspects who are armed with a firearm. If he points the gun at an officer or another person, they shoot the suspect, and they don't try to wound or disable, they shoot to neutralize and end the threat. That almost always means they aim for the center of mass, and the suspect is usually seriously wounded or dies from his injuries. Police officers are under no obligation to let armed suspects fire first before returning fire.
Tasers are generally used on agressive suspects who pose a threat but aren't armed with a firearm. Generally there are more than one officer present, and as soon as the suspect falls down after being tased, he is rushed and subdued by multiple officers.
As one commenter at Bersa Talk said, this poor crime victim brought a taser to a gun fight. And he lost.
People, if you don't want to be a victim and choose to arm yourself, arm yourself with a weapon capable of ending an attack, not just making the bad guy really angry.
Police departments don't usually tase aggressive suspects who are armed with a firearm. If he points the gun at an officer or another person, they shoot the suspect, and they don't try to wound or disable, they shoot to neutralize and end the threat. That almost always means they aim for the center of mass, and the suspect is usually seriously wounded or dies from his injuries. Police officers are under no obligation to let armed suspects fire first before returning fire.
Tasers are generally used on agressive suspects who pose a threat but aren't armed with a firearm. Generally there are more than one officer present, and as soon as the suspect falls down after being tased, he is rushed and subdued by multiple officers.
As one commenter at Bersa Talk said, this poor crime victim brought a taser to a gun fight. And he lost.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Happy Birthday Cindy!!!
Here she is on her first birthday defending her birthday cake from her brothers.
Here she is getting all pretty for Church.
Here she is playing in the dishwasher. No, she wasn't supposed to do that. She's also got a bottle of her mother's nail polish. No, she wasn't supposed to be playing with it. No matter what kind of mischief she got into, she always figured she could charm her way out of trouble. We hope she grows out of it.
Little charmer.
Tiny Dancer.
Pre-school picture.
Easter girls.
Here we are at birthday number four. Summer Schoenrock waits patiently for all the rigamarole to get over with so she can have a piece of cake.
Disneyland, summer '89
Mommy and Cindy at Disneyland.
Cindy and Daddy, 1990.
The Petersens, all grown up.
Cindy and some old guy.I have to tell this story. I think it’s funny. Others might not.
When we got the news that we were expecting our fifth child, we were thrilled. I was even more thrilled to learn that the due date was Nov 10th, the Marine Corps birthday.
This was back in the "olden days", (23 years ago) before ultrasounds were commonly available for the masses, so we had no way of knowing if our child would be a boy or a girl. I told Kathy that if we had a little girl, and she was born on Nov 10th, we would name her Marina Cora, in honor of the Marine Corps birthday. She didn’t like it at all, and told me so. (I didn’t like it either, but I had fun teasing my wife.) I convinced her that I was serious, but it would only happen if we had a little girl, and she was born on Nov 10th. Then, just to spite me, Kathy gave birth to Cindy Kaye Petersen on Nov. 8th 1984.
So, happy birthday, Marina...er, Cindy. And many more.
Monday, November 5, 2007
MEDIOCRITY VS. MERITOCRACY
Here’s my take on the current debate on Referendum 1 and school vouchers.
Utahns have a choice between the status quo, which consists of deeply entrenched mediocrity and a bureaucratic monopoly on elementary and secondary education in this state, and the opportunity for parents to take back the power over their children’s education.
If we say no to Referendum 1, then the power of the teachers’ union becomes even more powerfully entrenched and hard to break. And you can bet our taxes will go up, and they will lobby for that, because their solution for every problem is to throw more money at it.
And where will the bulk of the money go? Probably more to administrative costs, because that’s been the recent trend. In other words, salaries, but not necessarily for teachers, but for administrators. Administrators have the power, and see themselves as CEOs. School children won’t benefit at all.
One thing that irritates me about the argument that Utah spends less money per student than any other state, is that I don’t believe that’s necessarily a bad thing. So we can raise taxes and throw more money at this problem, but that’s not going to solve it.
Competition works in business. Competition worked to make things better for consumers of communications services. I know because I retired from Mountain Bell, U S West and Qwest Communications. Competition made those companies much more responsive to the needs of our customers, because we knew if we didn’t provide the services required, our customers would go somewhere else (and did, in a lot of cases). Before the break-up of the Bell System in 1984, there simply wasn’t someplace else our customers could go. They were stuck with Mountain Bell, whether they liked it or not, and a lot didn’t.
Competition will work in education, too, because if parents have the option of going someplace where the teachers and administrators are more reponsive to their concerns, it forces public schools to do the same.
The UEA, NEA and other education power lobbies in this state and all over the country are very concerned about Referendum 1. It chips away at the foundation of their source of power, which is the monopoly they have over educational resources in our society.
There’s been a lot of dishonesty in the arguments by opponents of Referendum 1. Ed Morrissey over at Captain’s Quarters has a lot to say about this issue. It’s something that’s attracted a lot of attention outside the state because this is a problem all over the country, and right now, all eyes are on Utah. Read the whole article, it’s worth your time.
Tomorrow is Election Day, when Utahns will go to the polls and decide this issue. It will have a huge impact, one way or the other, on the future of education, not only in Utah, but all over the country. This is a national story.
So please, if you want to take back the power over your children's education, go to the polls tomorrow and vote FOR REFEREDUM 1. If you'd rather maintain the status quo, well, just stay home. (Grin).
Utahns have a choice between the status quo, which consists of deeply entrenched mediocrity and a bureaucratic monopoly on elementary and secondary education in this state, and the opportunity for parents to take back the power over their children’s education.
If we say no to Referendum 1, then the power of the teachers’ union becomes even more powerfully entrenched and hard to break. And you can bet our taxes will go up, and they will lobby for that, because their solution for every problem is to throw more money at it.
And where will the bulk of the money go? Probably more to administrative costs, because that’s been the recent trend. In other words, salaries, but not necessarily for teachers, but for administrators. Administrators have the power, and see themselves as CEOs. School children won’t benefit at all.
One thing that irritates me about the argument that Utah spends less money per student than any other state, is that I don’t believe that’s necessarily a bad thing. So we can raise taxes and throw more money at this problem, but that’s not going to solve it.
Competition works in business. Competition worked to make things better for consumers of communications services. I know because I retired from Mountain Bell, U S West and Qwest Communications. Competition made those companies much more responsive to the needs of our customers, because we knew if we didn’t provide the services required, our customers would go somewhere else (and did, in a lot of cases). Before the break-up of the Bell System in 1984, there simply wasn’t someplace else our customers could go. They were stuck with Mountain Bell, whether they liked it or not, and a lot didn’t.
Competition will work in education, too, because if parents have the option of going someplace where the teachers and administrators are more reponsive to their concerns, it forces public schools to do the same.
The UEA, NEA and other education power lobbies in this state and all over the country are very concerned about Referendum 1. It chips away at the foundation of their source of power, which is the monopoly they have over educational resources in our society.
There’s been a lot of dishonesty in the arguments by opponents of Referendum 1. Ed Morrissey over at Captain’s Quarters has a lot to say about this issue. It’s something that’s attracted a lot of attention outside the state because this is a problem all over the country, and right now, all eyes are on Utah. Read the whole article, it’s worth your time.
Tomorrow is Election Day, when Utahns will go to the polls and decide this issue. It will have a huge impact, one way or the other, on the future of education, not only in Utah, but all over the country. This is a national story.
So please, if you want to take back the power over your children's education, go to the polls tomorrow and vote FOR REFEREDUM 1. If you'd rather maintain the status quo, well, just stay home. (Grin).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
