"I am not available right now, but thank you for caring enough to call. I am making some changes in my life. Please leave a message after the beep. If I do not return your call, you are one of the changes."
MERRY CHRISTMAS
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING
REVERSAL OF LIBERAL STRATEGY
MERRY CHRISTMAS
from Opinion Journal
While we're on vacation this week, we're publishing comments from readers who didn't care for Rep. Charles Rangel's disparaging comments about U.S. servicemen. We begin today with Chris Hicks, the proud father of a trio of servicemen-to-be:
I have three sons, the oldest a junior in high school. He is an A/B student in a liberal arts magnet school and cannot wait until he is old enough to join the military. His choice is the Marines, and he has already started making the contacts necessary for entry. His younger brother, an eighth-grader in an academic magnet school, is looking forward to a career in the Air Force.
While we are not extremely wealthy, their lifestyle is comfortable and their future options are wide open. My wife and I are happy for them but also a little terrified of losing one in their career choice. But at this age they already realize the American ideal and the desire to stand up for the greatness of their country.
So, for Kerry and Rangel, here are my sons--don't waste them.
Harry Meinhardt is part of an earlier generation:
I'll throw in my sad story about how economic circumstances forced me to join the Army and serve in three wars. It all began when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor back in 1941. I tried to join at age 16 but my mother found out and ratted me out to the recruiting office. When I turned 17, I told her that if she didn't sign for me, when I was drafted I would volunteer for the infantry. She knew that was bad news because a friend had already come back from Italy with one leg. She signed, and I volunteered for the paratroops. (I didn't volunteer for the infantry, did I?)
I went from high school to jump school to Europe and then home. I tried civilian life for a short time and found it dull and not challenging. When the Korean War broke out, I volunteered for that one, too, and went over as an infantry platoon leader. I came home, and the Army sent me to college to get a degree, hoping to alleviate my severe case of stupidity.
The Vietnam War broke out, and I volunteered for that, too. (Probably confirming John Kerry's and Charlie Rangel's views about the stupidity of military personnel.) Later on I earned a master's degree at the University of Southern California. I retired after three wars and 31 years and went to North Carolina State University, where I earned a doctorate.
All of the foregoing must tend to confirm my stupidity. Smarter and better men than John Kerry and Charlie Rangel never got a chance to serve as politicians. They died so people like John Boy and Charlie Boy could be politicians and disparage the service and the sacrifice of those who chose to serve in the military.
Michael Reeseman tried hard to rejoin--and succeeded:
I too find the "chickenhawk" tactic extremely frustrating. Not only is it logically empty (I am not a farmer but have a firm pro-food opinion), but taken to its logical conclusion, it would take military decisions out of the hands of anyone who has not served. This is exactly the opposite of our system: The military answers to civil authorities regardless of whether or not they've worn the uniform.
While logical argument never seems to take the life out of the chickenhawk gambit there is another way to stop it in its tracks: enlist.
No, wait--keep reading! I thought my window of opportunity for military service was forever closed with my final discharge from the Army Reserve in 1999. After 2001, like so many others I tried to find a way back in despite a lengthy list of medical disqualifiers. If I've learned anything about the government, it's that there's always a loophole. Eventually I found it in the State Defense Forces.
Over half of the states have State Defense Forces, which are duly authorized uniformed services under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. All states can have them, but only 26 (plus Puerto Rico) have set them up. These military units serve entirely within their home state, cannot be federalized, and answer to the governor (usually through the office of the adjutant general). Since they cannot serve overseas, these units do not train for combat but to prepare to aid civil authorities and back up the National Guard. In practice this usually takes the form of emergency response, logistics and security duties. I am given to understand that there are also quite a few specialty units such as JAGs, medics and chaplains.
Once I was convinced this wasn't some rump militia, and armed with a letter from my doctor certifying that I was fit to count tent pegs or fill sandbags in the defense of the state of Ohio, I applied for an appointment. I received a state commission at the same rank I had when I left federal service, and I now command a military police unit that drills monthly at an Air National Guard base just north of Cincinnati. About half of my troops are in the same situation as I was: prior service, middle-aged-married-with-kids, some minor ailments but basically fit, patriotic and disappointed that we couldn't make a contribution any more. Well, we can and we do.
I didn't want to turn this into a recruiting pitch (well, maybe I did, a little) but I thought there must be a lot of your readers who would like to do more as citizens than vote and pull jury duty. Not everyone is cut out for the Airborne Rangers, but there's still a chance for patriots to serve their country without leaving their state.
First Lt. David Hancock says many of his Air Force colleagues are resisting efforts to force them into early retirement:
Let's be pragmatic for a moment and accept that many people were and are motivated to join the military because of the opportunities it provides.
When people make a decision to take the route that affords them the opportunities they are looking for, is that not a sign of intelligence rather than stupidity? When the rigors of military life appeal to someone trying to develop character, skills and future job opportunities, signing up for the challenging experience is an easy decision to make.
Some years ago I weighed my options to pay for college. Scholarships were not difficult to come by, but I accepted an Air Force ROTC scholarship because the "trade-off," the four-year commitment postgraduation, seemed like one more benefit to an already great deal. I would get valuable experience as an officer in the Air Force that I could not get anywhere else at a young age, and I would be exceptionally prepared for subsequent life in the private sector.
I am now a first lieutenant with nearly three years on active duty. We are currently experiencing a period of intense change in the Air Force--change that necessitates cutting my peer group for my career field significantly. I am now faced with the very distinct likelihood of not being allowed to serve the full commitment I signed up for. Despite a difficult environment with frequent deployments and high stress for those left at home station, almost none of my peers across the Air Force have accepted the waiver of active-duty service commitment. Instead we have committed ourselves to competing for the chance to stay in the service.
It is clear, then, that I am not serving primarily because the Air Force paid for my schooling. So I ask myself: Why?
My father served more than 20 years in the Air Force, alternately an F-111 pilot and a college professor (he taught chemistry at the Air Force Academy and later commanded an AFROTC detachment). Seeing tears come to his eyes whenever the National Anthem played had a profound impact on me.
I grew up loving this country. I think that is the difference between people like me and the Rangelites. Did they love their country growing up? Do they now? If they did, they would understand why I serve.
Ari Steinmetz wanted to join up but didn't make the cut:
I was also struck by the Doonesbury arc in which a student declares he can best serve his country at a hedge fund. My story is something of the opposite.
I tried to gain admission to the Air Force Academy but, while I received a congressional nomination, my school record wasn't strong enough. I tried to enlist after college to enter flight school, but my recruiter said competition for such slots was too stiff and my test scores weren't high enough. My fallback was the M.B.A. program at Columbia. After one semester there, my recruiter called me up to say a slot had opened for me. I jumped at the chance and dropped out of school. After three months of officer training I shipped out to flight school at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Okla. While I had a great time, once again I didn't make the cut and flunked out after nine months. I went back and finished my M.B.A. Now I am a mutual fund manager.
So, you see, I had to settle for an Ivy League M.B.A. and a Wall Street career because I wasn't good enough for the military.
Here are links to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth installments. We'll have one more set of letters tomorrow before returning to business as usual Monday.
There is only one man with the gile, determination,
vision and experience to complete the Iraq mission
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Who cares what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say.
Developed by years of self deception
MERRY CHRISTMAS
An American is having breakfast, in Paris, one morning (coffee, croissants, bread, butter and jam) when a smart-aleck Frenchman, chewing bubble-gum, sits down next to him. The American ignores the Frenchman, at first, who, nevertheless, starts a conversation.
Frenchman: "You American folks eat the whole bread?"
American (in a bad mood): "Of course."
Frenchman: (after blowing a huge bubble) "We don't. Here in France, we only eat what's inside. The crusts we collect in a container, recycle it, transform them into croissants and sell them to the States." The Frenchman has a smirk on his face.
France is the world's toilet
The American listens in silence.
The Frenchman persists: "Do you eat jelly with the bread?"
American: "Of Course."
Frenchman: (cracking his bubble-gum between his teeth and chuckling). "We don't. In France we eat fresh fruit for breakfast, then we put all the peels, seeds, and leftovers in containers, recycle them, transform them into jam, and sell the jam to the US."
After a moment of silence, the American then asks: "Do you have sex in France?"
Frenchman: "Why of course we do," he says with a big smirk.
American: "And what do you do with the condoms once you've used them?"
Frenchman: "We throw them away, of course."
American: "We don't. In America, we put them in a container, recycle them, melt them down into bubble-gum, and sell them to France."
Saturday Night Fatwa Jihadists and Jesters discover common identity as they shower each other with killer fatwas, gut-busting tenets, and sidesplitting prophecies Dune My Mother The Car Bomb Crappy Days Saynfaald 72 Really Desperate Housewives
Lebanese Home Makeover American Infidel Clerics Drawn Together Dead or Not Dead Sunni Toons Other recommended programming:
Mandatory programming for children
Permissible Music Videos:
Educational Songs From Motion Pictures
The above recommendations have been developed with the help of the People Cube's Groupthink members who picked their personal brain units and copy/pasted their findings, reminding us of what already existed in the depths of our collective consciousness. |
it just makes them feel better
According to the Labor Dept. 64% of those on minimum wage have a family income of over $64,000.00. Only 2 % of those on minimum wage are couples living on minimum wage alone. Why should Congress care for anything other than political reasons, they don't have to pay for the subsequent rise in everything else we buy when they raise the minimum wage. Inflation will rise and our homes will be worth less and less. If libs think this actually helps someone why don't they tip the guy at Mcdonalds a few bucks every time they eat their trans fat removed burgers. It's simple economics really. When the price of something goes up the demand for it goes down...so if the minimum wage is raised it will mean fewer jobs for those people who might otherwise need a job. Besides many states (I believe 27) have higher minimum wage than the federal government anyway. So Teddy *hiccup* Kennedy panders to no one...it just makes the liberals FEEL better.
I suppose they must or they would not keep up the cutting and pasting from other liberals as though it were news, so here you go liberals, eat all you want.
Invite your buddy over for some too.
"I know I am a jackass, please don't tell anybody else".
How about a quick break from an insidious taken out of context string of attack posts? Sure, why not. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that liberals are correct 100% of the time despite their saying so.
In a Reality Based World
That is a fact. Whine all you want. Do not for one minute believe
you live in anything other than a fantasy world.
Errors, omissions, inventions and falsehoods
A reader writes that he received the email message below sent by Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University and the Carter Center. Professor Stein's expertise lies in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our reader writes that when he was an undergraduate student at Emory in the mid-1990's, Professor Stein was one of the most revered, respected professors on campus, and that Professor Stein had a long-standing association with the Carter Center in his capacity as an expert in Middle East politics and history. Professor Stein was in fact the first director of the Carter Center (1983-1986).
Professor Stein is apparently terminating his association with the Carter Center, solely as a result of Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The reaction of Professor Stein -- a formerly close associate and collaborator of Carter -- to Carter's new book is, as our reader thought it would be, of great interest to us:
This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.
The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.
In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.
As ever,
KenDr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science,
and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia
Millard gets it wrong again as Maher Arar doesn't blame America, he blames Canada. They're the ones who deported him. How about a little fact checking there Mizzz Millard.
The Arar Commission released its official report on Maher Arar' case on Monday, September 18, 2006. Commissioner Dennis O'Connor cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, and found that the actions of Canadian officials very likely lead to his ordeal. To read the report, please see the Arar Commission's website,
Every player gets their own team of attorneys.
Who would have thunk it? Iraq Study Group be damned.
President Bush understands the need for positive steps forward in Iraq and is considering some of the proposals written by outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld two days before resigning, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday.
Who has the last laugh liberal jackasses? I'm golfing everyday
In that memo, Rumsfeld said it's time for a "major adjustment" in Iraq, saying the actions by U.S. forces currently in Iraq is "not working well enough or fast enough."
In the memo, published in Sunday's New York Times, Rumsfeld follows up with suggestions for rethinking the way the U.S. conducts the war which includes beginning modest troop withdrawals.
Who appointed that jackass to be the spokesperson and moral authority on anything. If anything Jackson is stupider than Kramer or your average Oklahoma liberal.
That's right, I am the only African American who is allowed to use the N word."
| Advertisement |
| what's this? |
Hamascide
All In The Wali
Non-Offensive Karaoke:
